HAVING in the preceeding section spoken of the fundamental points of the Mohammedan religion, relating both to faith and to practice, I shall in this and the two following discourses, speak in the same brief method of some other precepts and inst.i.tutions of the Koran which deserve peculiar notice, and first of certain things which are thereby prohibited.

The drinking of wine, under which name all sorts of strong and inebriating liquors are comprehended, is forbidden in the Koran in more places than one.

Some, indeed, have imagined that excess therein is only forbidden, and that the moderate use of wine is allowed by two pa.s.sages in the same book: but the more received opinion is, that to drink any strong liquors, either in a lesser quant.i.ty, or in a greater, is absolutely unlawful; and though libertines indulge themselves in a contrary practice, yet the more conscientious are so strict, especially if they have performed the pilgrimage to Mecca, that they hold it unlawful not only to taste wine, but to press grapes for the making of it, to buy or to sell it, or even to maintain themselves with the money arising by the sale of that liquor. The Persians, however, as well as the Turks, are very fond of wine; and if one asks them how it comes to pa.s.s that they venture to drink it, when it is so directly forbidden by their religion, they answer, that it is with them as with the Christians, whose religion prohibits drunkenness and wh.o.r.edom as great sins, and who glory, notwithstanding, some in debauching girls and married women, and others in drinking to excess.

It has been a question whether coffee comes not under the above-mentioned prohibition, because the fumes of it have some effect on the imagination.

This drink, which was first publicly used at Aden in Arabia Felix, about the middle of the ninth century of the Hejra, and thence gradually introduced into Mecca, Medina, Egypt, Syria, and other parts of the Levant, has been the occasion of great disputes and disorders, having been sometimes publicly condemned and forbidden, and again declared lawful and allowed. At present the use of coffee is generally tolerated, if not granted, as is that of tobacco, though the more religious make a scruple of taking the latter, not only because it inebriates, but also out of respect to a traditional saying of their prophet (which, if it could be made out to be his, would prove him a prophet indeed), "That in the latter days there should be men who should bear the name of Moslems, but should not be really such; and that they should smoke a certain weed, which should be called TOBACCO." However, the eastern nations are generally so addicted to both, that they say, "A dish of coffee and a pipe of tobacco are a complete entertainment;" and the Persians have a proverb that coffee without tobacco is meat without salt.

Opium and beng (which latter is the leaves of hemp in pills or conserve) are also by the rigid Mohammedans esteemed unlawful, though not mentioned in the Koran, because they intoxicate and disturb the understanding as wine does, and in a more extraordinary manner: yet these drugs are now commonly taken in the east; but they who are addicted to them are generally looked upon as debauchees.

Several stories have been told as the occasion of Mohammed's prohibiting the drinking of wine: but the true reasons are given in the Koran, viz., because the ill qualities of that liquor surpa.s.s its good ones, the common effects thereof being quarrels and disturbances in company, and neglect, or at least indecencies, in the performance of religious duties. For these reasons it was that the priests were, by the Levitical law, forbidden to drink wine or strong drink when they entered the tabernacle, and that the Nazarites and Rechabites, and many pious persons among the Jews and primitive Christians, wholly abstained therefrom; nay, some of the latter went so far as to condemn the use of wine as sinful. But Mohammed is said to have had a nearer example than any of these, in the more devout persons of his own tribe.

Gaming is prohibited by the Koran in the same pa.s.sages, and for the same reasons, as wine. The word al Meisar, which is there used, signifies a particular manner of casting lots by arrows, much practised by the pagan Arabs, and performed in the following manner. A young camel being bought and killed, and divided into ten or twenty-eight parts, the persons who cast lots for them, to the number of seven, met for that purpose; and eleven arrows were provided, without heads or feathers, seven of which were marked, the first with one notch, the second with two, and so on, and the other four had no mark at all. These arrows were put promiscuously into a bag, and then drawn by an indifferent person, who had another near him to receive them, and to see he acted fairly; those to whom the marked arrows fell won shares in proportion to their lot, and those to whom the blanks fell were ent.i.tled to no part of the camel at all, but were obliged to pay the full price of it. The winners, however, tasted not of the flesh, any more than the losers, but the whole was distributed among the poor; and this they did out of pride and ostentation, it being reckoned a shame for a man to stand out, and not venture his money on such an occasion. This custom, therefore, though it was of some use to the poor and diversion to the rich, was forbidden by Mohammed as the source of great inconveniences, by occasioning quarrels and heart-burnings, which arose from the winners insulting of those who lost.

Under the name of lots the commentators agree that all other games whatsoever, which are subject to hazard or chance, are comprehended and forbidden, as dice, cards, tables, &c. And they are reckoned so ill in themselves, that the testimony of him who plays at them, is by the more rigid judged to be of no validity in a court of justice. Chess is almost the only game which the Mohammedan doctors allow to be lawful (though it has been a doubt with some), because it depends wholly on skill and management, and not at all on chance: but then it is allowed under certain restrictions, viz., that it be no hindrance to the regular performance of their devotions, and that no money or other thing be played for or betted; which last the Turks and Sonnites religiously observe, but the Persians and Mogols do not. But what Mohammed is supposed chiefly to have dislike in the game of chess, was the carved pieces, or men, with which the pagan Arabs played, being little figures of men, elephants, horses, and dromedaries; and these are thought, by some commentators, to be truly meant by the images prohibited in one of the pa.s.sages of the Koran quoted above.

That the Arabs in Mohammed's time actually used such images for chess-men appears from what is related, in the Sonna, of Ali, who pa.s.sing accidentally by some who were playing at chess, asked, "What images they were which they were so intent upon?" for they were perfectly new to him, that game having been but very lately introduced into Arabia, and not long before into Persia, whither it was first brought from India in the reign of Khosru Nushirwan. Hence the Mohammedan doctors infer that the game was disapproved only for the sake of the images: wherefore the Sonnites always play with plain pieces of wood or ivory; but the Persians and Indians, who are not so scrupulous, continue to make use of the carved ones.

The Mohammedans comply with the prohibition of gaming much better than they do with that of win; for though the common people among the Turks more frequently, and the Persians more rarely, are addicted to play, yet the better sort are seldom guilty of it.

Gaming, at least to excess, has been forbidden in all well-ordered states.

Gaming-houses were reckoned scandalous places among the Greeks, and a gamester is declared by Aristotle to be no better than a thief: the Roman senate made very severe laws against playing at games of hazard, except only during the Saturnalia; though the people played often at other times, notwithstanding the prohibition: the civil law forbad all pernicious games; and though the laity were, in some cases, permitted to play for money, provided they kept within reasonable bounds, yet the clergy were forbidden to play at tables (which is a game of hazard), or even to look on while others played.

Accursius, indeed, is of opinion they may play at chess, notwithstanding that law, because it is a game not subject to chance, and being but newly invented in the time of Justinian, was not then known in the western parts. However, the monks for some time were not allowed even chess.

As to the Jews, Mohammed's chief guides, they also highly disapprove gaming: gamesters being severely censured in the Talmud, and their testimony declared invalid.

Another practice of the idolatrous Arabs forbidden also in one of the above-mentioned pa.s.sages, was that of divining by arrows. The arrows used by them for this purpose were like those with which they cast lots, being without heads or feathers, and were kept in the temple of some idol, in whose presence they were consulted. Seven such arrows were kept at the temple of Mecca; but generally in divination they made use of three only, on one of which was written, "My LORD hath commanded me," on another, "My LORD hath forbidden me," and the third was blank. If the first was drawn, they looked on it as an approbation of the enterprise in question; if the second, they made a contrary conclusion; but if the third happened to be drawn, they mixed them and drew over again, till a decisive answer was given by one of the others.

These divining arrows were generally consulted before anything of moment was undertaken; as when a man was about to marry, or about to go a journey, or the like. This superst.i.tious practice of divining by arrows was used by the ancient Greeks, and other nations; and is particularly mentioned in scripture, where it is said, that "the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination; he made his arrows bright" (or, according to the version of the Vulgate, which seems preferable in this place, "he mixed together, or shook the arrows"), "he consulted with images," &c.; the commentary of St. Jerome on which pa.s.sage wonderfully agrees with what we are told of the aforesaid custom of the old Arabs: "He shall stand,"

says he, "in the highway, and consult the oracle after the manner of his nation, that he may cast arrows into a quiver, and mix them together, being written upon or marked with the names of each people, that he may see whose arrow will come forth, and which city he ought first to attack."

A distinction of meats was so generally used by the eastern nations, that it is no wonder that Mohammed made some regulations in that matter.

The Koran, therefore, prohibits the eating of blood, and swine's flesh, and whatever dies of itself, or is slain in the name or in honour of any idol, or is strangled, or killed by a blow, or a fall, or by any other beast. In which particulars Mohammed seems chiefly to have imitated the Jews, by whose law, as is well known, all those things are forbidden; but he allowed some things to be eaten which Moses did not, as camels' flesh in particular. In cases of necessity, however, where a man may be in danger of starving, he is allowed by the Mohammedan law to eat any of the said prohibited kinds of food; and the Jewish doctors grant the same liberty in the same case.

Though the aversion to blood and what dies of itself may seem natural, yet some of the pagan Arabs used to eat both: of their eating of the latter some instances will be given hereafter; and as to the former, it is said they used to pour blood, which they sometimes drew from a live camel, into a gut, and then broiled it in the fire, or boiled it, and ate it: this food they called Moswadd, from Aswad which signifies black; the same nearly resembling our black puddings in name as well as composition. The eating of meat offered to idols I take to be commonly practised by all idolaters, being looked on as a sort of communion in their worship, and for that reason esteemed by Christians, if not absolutely unlawful, yet as what may be the occasion of great scandal: but the Arabs were particularly superst.i.tious in this matter, killing what they ate on stones erected on purpose around the Caaba, or near their own houses, and calling, at the same time, on the name of some idol.

Swine's flesh, indeed, the old Arabs seem not to have eaten; and their prophet, in prohibiting the same, appears to have only confirmed the common aversion of the nation. Foreign writers tell us that the Arabs wholly abstained from swine's flesh, thinking it unlawful to feed thereon, and that very few, if any, of those animals are found in their country, because it produces not proper food for them; which has made one writer imagine that if a hog were carried thither, it would immediately die.

In the prohibition of usury I presume Mohammed also followed the Jews, who are strictly forbidden by their law to exercise it among one another, though they are so infamously guilty of it in their dealing with those of a different religion: but I do not find the prophet of the Arabs has made any distinction in this matter.

Several superst.i.tious customs relating to cattle, which seem to have been peculiar to the pagan Arabs, were also abolished by Mohammed. The Koran mentions four names by them given to certain camels or sheep, which for some particular reasons were left at free liberty, and were not made use of as other cattle of the same kind. These names are Bahira, Saiba, Wasila, and Hami: of each whereof in their order.

As to the first, it is said that when a she-camel, or a sheep, had borne young ten times, they used to slit her ear, and turn her loose to feed at full liberty; and when she died, her flesh was eaten by the men only, the women being forbidden to eat thereof: and such a camel or sheep, from the slitting of her ear, they called Bahira. Or the Bahira was a she-camel, which was turned loose to feed, and whose fifth young one, if it proved a male, was killed and eaten by men and women promiscuously; but if it proved a female, had its ear slit, and was dismissed to free pasture, none being permitted to make use of its flesh or milk, or to ride on it; though the women were allowed to eat the flesh of it when it died: or it was the female young of the Saiba, which was used in the same manner as its dam; or else an ewe, which had yeaned five times. These, however, are not all the opinions concerning the Bahira: for some suppose that name was given to a she-camel, which, after having brought forth young five times, if the last was a male, had her ear slit, as a mark thereof, and was let go loose to feed, none driving her from pasture or water, nor using her for carriage; and others tell us, that when a camel had newly brought forth, they used to slit the ear of her young one, saying, "O G.o.d, if it live, it shall be for our use, but if it die, it shall be deemed rightly slain;" and when it died, they ate it.

Saiba signifies a she-camel turned loose to go where she will. And this was done on various accounts: as when she had brought forth females ten times together; or in satisfaction of a vow; or when a man had recovered from sickness, or returned safe from a journey, or his camel had escaped some signal danger either in battle or otherwise. A camel so turned loose was declared to be Saiba, and, as a mark of it, one of the vertebrae or bones was taken out of her back, after which none might drive her from pasture or water, or ride on her. Some say that the Saiba, when she had ten times together brought forth females, was suffered to go at liberty, none being allowed to ride on her, and that her milk was not to be drank by any but her young one, or a guest, till she died; and then her flesh was eaten by men as well as women, and her last female young one had her ear slit, and was called Bahira, and turned loose as her dam had been.

This appellation, however, was not so strictly proper to female camels, but that it was given to the male when his young one had begotten another young one: nay, a servant set at liberty and dismissed by his master, was also called Saiba; and some are of opinion that the word denotes an animal which the Arabs used to turn loose in honour of their idols, allowing none to make uses of them, thereafter, except women only.

Wasila is, by one author, explained to signify a she-camel which had brought forth ten times, or an ewe which had yeaned seven times, and every time twin; and if the seventh time she brought forth a male and a female, they said, "Wosilat akhaha," i.e., "She is joined," or, "was brought forth with her brother," after which none might drink the dam's milk, except men only; and she was used as the Saiba. Or Wasila was particularly meant of sheep; as when an ewe brought forth a female, they took it to themselves, but when she brought forth a male, they consecrated it to their G.o.ds, but if both a male and a female, they said, "She is joined to her brother," and did not sacrifice that male to their G.o.ds: or Wasila was an ewe which brought forth first a male, and then a female, on which account, or because she followed her brother, the male was not killed; but if she brought forth a male only, they said, "Let this be an offering to our G.o.ds." Another writes, that if an ewe brought forth twins seven times together, and the eighth time a male, they sacrificed that male to their G.o.ds; but if the eighth time she brought both a male and a female, they used to say, "She is joined to her brother," and for the female's sake they spared the male, and permitted not the dam's milk to be drunk by women. A third writer tell us, that Wasila was an ewe, which having yeaned seven times, if that which she brought forth the seventh time was a male, they sacrificed it, but if a female, it was suffered to go loose, and was made use of by women only; and if the seventh time she brought forth both a male and a female, they held them both to be sacred, so that men only were allowed to make any use of them, or to drink the milk of the female: and a fourth describes it to be an ewe which brought forth ten females at five births one after another, i.e., every time twins, and whatever she brought forth afterwards was allowed to men, and not to women, &c.

Hami was a male camel used for a stallion, which, if the females had conceived ten times by him, was afterwards freed from labour, and let go loose, none driving him from pasture or from water; nor was any allowed to receive the least benefit from him, not even to shear his hair.

These things were observed by the old Arabs in honour of their false G.o.ds, and as part of the worship which they paid them, and were ascribed to the divine inst.i.tution; but are all condemned in the Koran, and declared to be impious superst.i.tions.

The law of Mohammed also put a stop to the inhuman custom which had been long practised by the Pagan Arabs, of burying their daughters alive, lest they should be reduced to poverty by providing for them, or else to avoid the displeasure and the disgrace which would follow, if they should happen to be made captives, or to become scandalous by their behaviour; the birth of a daughter being, for these reasons, reckoned a great misfortune, and the death of one as a great happiness. The manner of their doing this is differently related: some say that when an Arab had a daughter born, if he intended to bring her up, he sent her, clothed in a garment of wool or hair, to keep camels or sheep in the desert; but if he designed to put her to death, he let her live till she became six years old, and then said to her mother, "Perfume her, and adorn her, that I may carry her to her mothers;" which being done, the father led her to a well or pit dug for that purpose, and having bid her to look down into it, pushed her in headlong, as he stood behind her, and then filling up the pit, levelled it with the rest of the ground; but others say, that when a woman was ready to fall in labour, they dug a pit, on the brink whereof she was to be delivered, and if the child happened to be a daughter, they threw it into the pit, but if a son, they saved it alive. This custom, though not observed by all the Arabs in general, was yet very common among several of their tribes, and particularly those of Koreish and Kendah; the former using to bury their daughters alive in Mount Abu Dalama, near Mecca.

In the time of ignorance, while they used this method to get rid of their daughters, Sasaa, grandfather to the celebrated poet al Farazdak, frequently redeemed female children from death, giving for every one two she-camels big with young, and a he-camel; and hereto al Farazdak alluded when, vaunting himself before one of the Khalifs of the family of Omeyya, he said, "I am the son of the giver of life to the dead;" for which expression being censured, he excused himself by alleging the following words of the Koran, "He who saveth a soul alive, shall be as if he had saved the lives of all mankind." The Arabs, in thus murdering of their children, were far from being singular; the practice of exposing infants and putting them to death being so common among the ancients, that it is remarked as a thing very extraordinary in the Egyptians, that they brought up all their children; and by the laws of Lycurgus no child was allowed to be brought up without the approbation of public officers. At this day, it is said, in China, the poorer sort of people frequently put their children, the females especially, to death with impunity.

This wicked practice is condemned by the Koran in several pa.s.sages; one of which, as some commentators judge, may also condemn another custom of the Arabians, altogether as wicked, and as common among other nations of old, viz., the sacrificing of their children to their idols; as was frequently done, in particular, in satisfaction of a vow they used to make, that if they had a certain number of sons born, they would offer one of them in sacrifice.

Several other superst.i.tious customs were likewise abrogated by Mohammed, but the same being of less moment, and not particularly mentioned in the Koran, or having been occasionally taken notice of elsewhere, I shall say nothing of them in this place.

______

SECTION VI.

OF THE INSt.i.tUTIONS OF THE KORAN IN CIVIL AFFAIRS.

THE Mohammedan civil law is founded on the precepts and determinations of the Koran, as the civil laws of the Jews were on those of the Pentateuch; yet being variously interpreted, according to the different decisions of their civilians, and especially of their four great doctors, Abu Hanifa, Malec, al Shafei, and Ebn Hanbal, to treat thereof fully and distinctly in the manner the curiosity and usefulness of the subject deserves, would require a large volume; wherefore the most that can be expected here, is a summary view of the princ.i.p.al inst.i.tutions, without minutely entering into a detail of particulars.

We shall begin with those relating to marriage and divorce.

That polygamy, for the moral lawfulness of which the Mohammedan doctors advance several arguments, is allowed by the Koran, every one knows, though few are acquainted with the limitations with which it is allowed. Several learned men have fallen into the vulgar mistake that Mahommed granted to his followers an unbounded plurality; some pretending that a man may have as many wives, and others as many concubines, as he can maintain: whereas, according to the express words of the Koran, no man can have more than four, whether wives or concubines; and if a man apprehend any inconvenience from even that number of ingenuous wives, it is added, as an advice (which is generally followed by the middling and inferior people), that he marry one only, or, if he cannot be contented with one, that he take up with his she-slaves, not exceeding, however, the limited number; and this is certainly the utmost Mohammed allowed his followers: nor can we urge as an argument against so plain a precept, the corrupt manners of his followers, many of whom, especially men of quality and fortune, indulge themselves in criminal excesses; nor yet the example of the prophet himself, who had peculiar privileges in this and other points, as will be observed hereafter. In making the above-mentioned limitation, Mohammed was directed by the decision of the Jewish doctors, who, by way of counsel, limit the number of wives to four, though their law confines them not to any certain number.

Divorce is also well known to be allowed by the Mohammedan law, as it was by the Mosaic, with this difference only, that, according to the latter, a man could not take again a woman whom he had divorced, and who had been married or betrothed to another; whereas Mohammed, to prevent his followers from divorcing their wives on every light occasion, or out of an inconstant humour, ordained that, if a man divorced his wife the third time (for he might divorce her twice without being obliged to part with her, if he repented of what he had done), it should not be lawful for him to take her again until she had been first married and bedded by another, and divorced by such second husband. And this precaution has had so good an effect that the Mohammedans are seldom known to proceed to the extremity of divorce, notwithstanding the liberty given them, it being reckoned a great disgrace so to do; and there are but few, besides those who have little or no sense of honour, that will take a wife again on the condition enjoined. It must be observed that, though a man is allowed by the Mohammedan, as by the Jewish law, to repudiate his wife even on the slightest disgust, yet the women are not allowed to separate themselves from their husbands, unless it be for ill-usage, want of proper maintenance, neglect of conjugal duty, impotency, or some cause of equal import; but then she generally loses her dowry, which she does not if divorced by her husband, unless she has been guilty of impudicity or notorious disobedience.

When a woman is divorced she is obliged, by the direction of the Koran, to wait till she hath had her courses thrice, or, if there be a doubt whether she be subject to them or not, by reason of her age, three months, before she marry another; after which time expired, in case she be found not with child, she is at full liberty to dispose of herself as she pleases; but if she prove with child, she must wait till she be delivered; and during her whole term of waiting she may continue in the husband's house, and is to be maintained at his expense, it being forbidden to turn the woman out before the expiration of the term, unless she be guilty of dishonesty. Where a man divorces a woman before consummation, she is not obliged to wait any particular time, nor is he obliged to give her more than one-half of her dower. If the divorced woman have a young child, she is to suckle it till it be two years old; the father, in the meantime, maintaining her in all respects: a widow is also obliged to do the same, and to wait four months and ten days before she marry again.

These rules ar also copied form those of the Jews, according to whom a divorced woman, or a widow, cannot marry another man, till ninety days be past, after the divorce or death of the husband: and she who gives suck is to be maintained for two years, to be computed from the birth of the child; within which time she must not marry, unless the child die, or her milk be dried up.

Wh.o.r.edom, in single women as well as married, was, in the beginning Mohammedism, very severely punished; such being ordered to be shut up in prison till they died: but afterwards it was ordained by the Sonna, that an adulteress should be stoned, and an unmarried woman guilty of fornication scourged with a hundred stripes, and banished for a year. A she-slave, if convicted of adultery, is to suffer but half the punishment of a free woman, viz., fifty stripes, and banishment for six months; but is not to be put to death. To convict a woman of adultery, so as to make it capital, four witnesses are expressly required, and those, as the commentators say, ought to be men: and if a man falsely accuse a woman of reputation of wh.o.r.edom of any kind, and is not able to support the charge by that number of witnesses, he is to receive fourscore stripes, and his testimony is to be held invalid for the future. Fornication, in either s.e.x, is by the sentence of the Koran to be punished with a hundred stripes.

If a man accuse his wife of infidelity, and is not able to prove it by sufficient evidence, and will swear four times that it is true, and the fifth time imprecate G.o.d'S vengeance on him if it be false, she is to be looked on as convicted, unless she will take the like oaths, and make the like imprecation, in testimony of her innocency; which is she do, she is free from punishment, though the marriage ought to be dissolved.

In most of the last-mentioned particulars the decisions of the Koran also agree with those of the Jews. By the law of Moses, adultery, whether in a married women or a virgin betrothed, was punished with death; and the man who debauched them was to suffer the same punishment. The penalty of simple fornication was scourging, the general punishment in cases where none is particularly appointed: and a betrothed bondmaid, if convicted of adultery, underwent the same punishment, being exempted from death, because she was not free. By the same law no person was to be put to death on the oath of one witness: and a man who slandered his wife was also to be chastised, that is scourged, and fined one hundred shekels of silver. The method of trying a woman suspected of adultery where evidence was wanting, by forcing her to drink the bitter water of jealousy, though disused by the Jews long before the time of Mohammed, yet, by reason of the oath of cursing with which the woman was charged, and to which she was obliged to say "Amen,"

bears great resemblance to the expedient devised by that prophet on the like occasion.

The inst.i.tutions of Mohammed relating to the pollution of women during their courses, the taking of slaves to wife, and the prohibiting of marriage within certain degrees, have likewise no small affinity with the inst.i.tutions of Moses; and the parallel might be carried farther in several other particulars.

As to the prohibited degrees, it may be observed, that the pagan Arabs abstained from marrying their mothers, daughters, and aunts both on the father's side and on the mother's, and held it a most scandalous thing to marry two sister, or for a man to take his father's wife; which last was, notwithstanding, too frequently practised, and is expressly forbidden in the Koran.

Before I leave the subject of marriages, it may be proper to take notice of some peculiar privileges in relation thereto, which were granted by G.o.d to Mohammed, as he gave out, exclusive of all other Moslems. One of them was, that he might lawfully marry as many wives and have as many concubines as he pleased, without being confined to any particular number; and this he pretended to have been the privilege of the prophets before him. Another was, that he might alter the turns of his wives, and take such of them to his bed as he thought fit, without being tied to that order and equality which others are obliged to observe. A third privilege was, that no man might marry any of his wives, either such as he should divorce during his lifetime, or such as he should leave widows at his death: which last particular exactly agrees with what the Jewish doctors have determined concerning the wives of their princes; it being judged by them to be a thing very indecent, and for that reason unlawful, for another to marry either the divorced wife or the widow of a king; and Mohammed, it seems, thought an equal respect, at least, due to the prophetic as to the regal dignity, and therefore ordered that his relicts should pa.s.s the remainder of their lives in perpetual widowhood.

The laws of the Koran concerning inheritances are also in several respects conformable to those of the Jews, though princ.i.p.ally designed to abolish certain practices of the pagan Arabs, who used to treat widows and orphan children with great injustice, frequently denying them any share in the inheritance of their fathers or their husbands, on pretence that the same ought to be distributed among those only who were able to bear arms, and disposing of the widows, even against their consent, as part of their husbands' possessions. To prevent such injuries for the future, Mohammed ordered that women should be respected, and orphans have no wrong done them; and in particular that women should not be taken against their wills, as by right of inheritance, but should themselves be ent.i.tled to a distributive part of what their parents, husbands, and near relations should leave behind them, in a certain proportion.

The general rule to be observed in the distribution of the deceased's estate is, that a male shall have twice as much as a female: but to this rule there are some few exceptions; a man's parents, for example, and also his brothers and sisters, where they are ent.i.tled not to the whole, but a small part of the inheritance, being to have equal shares with one another in the distribution thereof, without making any difference on account of s.e.x. The particular proportions, in several cases, distinctly and sufficiently declare the intention of Mohammed; whose decisions expressed in the Koran seem to be pretty equitable, preferring a man's children first, and then his nearest relations.

If a man dispose of any part of his estate by will, two witnesses, at the least, are required to render the same valid; and such witnesses ought to be of his own tribe, and of the Mohammedan religion, if such can be had. Though there be no express law to the contrary, yet the Mohammedan doctors reckon it very wrong for a man to give away any part of his substance from his family, unless it be in legacies for pious uses; and even in that case a man ought not to give all he has in charity, but only a reasonable part in proportion to his substance. On the other hand, though a man make no will, and bequeath nothing for charitable uses, yet the heirs are directed, on the distribution of the estate, if the value will permit, to bestow something on the poor, especially such as are of kin to the deceased, and to the orphans.

The first law, however, laid down by Mohammed touching inheritances, was not very equitable; for he declared that those who had fled with him from Mecca, and those who had received and a.s.sisted him at Medina, should be deemed the nearest of kin, and consequently heirs to one another, preferably to and in exclusion of their relations by blood; nay, though a man were a true believer, yet if he had not fled his country for the sake of religion and joined the prophet, he was to be looked on as a stranger: but this law continued not long in force, being quickly abrogated.

It must be observed that among the Mohammedans the children of their concubines or slaves are esteemed as equally legitimate with those of their legal and ingenuous wives; none being accounted b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, except such only as are born of common women, and whose fathers are unknown.

As to private contracts between man and man, the conscientious performance of them is frequently recommended in the Koran. For the preventing of disputes, all contracts are directed to be made before witnesses, and in case such contracts are not immediately executed, the same ought to be reduced into writing in the presence of two witnesses at least, who ought to be Moslems and of the male s.e.x; but if two men cannot be conveniently had, then one man and two women may suffice. The same method is also directed to be taken for the security of debts to be paid at a future day; and where a writer is not to be found, pledges are to be taken.

Hence, if people trust one another without writing, witnesses, or pledge, the party on whom the demand is made is always acquitted if he denies the charge on oath, and swears that he owes the plaintiff nothing, unless the contrary be proved by very convincing circ.u.mstances.

Wilful murder, though forbidden by the Koran under the severest penalties to be inflicted in the next life, is yet, by the same book, allowed to be compounded for, on payment of a fine to the family of the deceased, and freeing a Moslem from captivity; but it is in the election of the next of kin, or the revenger of blood, as he is called in the Pentateuch, either to accept of such satisfaction, or to refuse it; for he may, if he pleases, insist on having the murderer delivered into his hands, to be put to death in such manner as he shall think fit. In this particular Mohammed has gone against the express letter of the Mosaic law, which declare that no satisfaction shall be taken for the life of a murderer; and he seems, in so doing, to have had respect to the customs of the Arabs in his time, who, being of a vindictive temper, used to revenge murder in too unmerciful a manner, whole tribes frequently engaging in b.l.o.o.d.y wars on such occasions, the natural consequence of their independency, and having no common judge of superior.

If the Mohammedan laws seem light in case of murder, they may perhaps be deemed too rigorous in case of manslaughter, or the killing of a man undesignedly, which must be redeemed by fine (unless the next of kin shall think fit to remit it out of charity), and the freeing of a captive: but if a man be not able to do this, he is to fast two months together, by way of penance. The fine for a man's blood is set in the Sonna at a hundred camels, and is to be distributed among the relations of the deceased, according to the laws of inheritances; but it must be observed that, though the person slain be a Moslem, yet if he be of a nation or party at enmity, or not in confederacy with those to whom the slayer belongs, he is not then bound to pay any fine at all, the redeeming a captive being, in such case, declared a sufficient penalty. I imagine that Mohammed, by these regulations, laid so heavy a punishment on involuntary manslaughter, not only to make people beware incurring the same, but also to humour, in some degree, the revengeful temper of his countrymen, which might be with difficulty, if at all, prevailed on to accept a lighter satisfaction. Among the Jews, who seem to have been no less addicted to revenge than their neighbours, the manslayer who had escaped to a city of refuge was obliged to keep himself within that city, and to abide there till the death of the person who was high priest at the time the fact was committed, that his absence and time might cool the pa.s.sion and mitigate the resentment of the friends of the deceased; but if he quitted his asylum before that time, the revenger of blood, if he found him, might kill him without guilt; nor could any satisfaction be made for the slayer to return home before the prescribed time.

Theft is ordered to be punished by cutting off the offending part, the hand, which, at first sight, seems just enough; but the law of Justinian, forbidding a thief to be maimed, is more reasonable; because, stealing being generally the effect of indigence, to cut off that limb would be to deprive him of the means of getting his livelihood in an honest manner. The Sonna forbids the inflicting of this punishment, unless the thing stolen be of a certain value. I have mentioned in another place the further penalties which those incur who continue to steal, and of those who rob or a.s.sault people on the road.

As to injuries done to men in their persons, the law of retaliation, which was ordained by the law of Moses, is also approved by the Koran: but this law, which seems to have been allowed by Mohammed to his Arabians for the same reasons as it was to the Jews, viz., to prevent particular revenges, to which both nations were extremely addicted, being neither strictly just nor practicable in many cases, is seldom put in execution, the punishment being generally turned into a mulct or fine, which is paid to the party injured. Or rather Mohammed designed the words of the Koran relating thereto should be understood in the same manner as those of the Pentateuch most probably ought to be; that is, not of an actual retaliation, according to the strict literal meaning, but of a retribution proportionable to the injury: for a criminal had not his eyes put out, nor was a man mutilated, according to the law of Moses, which, besides, condemned those who had wounded any person, where death did not ensue, to pay a fine only, the expression "eye for eye and tooth for tooth" being only a proverbial manner of speaking, the sense whereof amounts to this, that every one shall be punished by the judges according to the heinousness of the fact.

In injuries and crimes of an inferior nature, where no particular punishment is provided by the Koran, and where a pecuniary compensation will not do, the Mohammedans, according to the practice of the Jews in the like case, have recourse to stripes or drubbing, the most common chastis.e.m.e.nt used in the east at this day, as well as formerly; the cudgel, which for its virtue and efficacy in keeping their people in good order, and within the bounds of duty, they say came down from heaven, being the instrument wherewith the judge's sentence is generally executed.

Notwithstanding the Koran is by the Mohammedans in general regarded as the fundamental apart of their civil law, and the decisions of the Sonna among the Turks, and of the Imams among those of the Persian sect, with the explications of their several doctors, are usually followed in judicial determinations, yet the secular tribunals do not think themselves bound to observe the same in all cases, but frequently give judgment against those decisions, which are not always consonant to equity and reason; and therefore distinction is to be made between the written civil law, as administered in the ecclesiastical courts, and the law of nature or common law (if I may so call it) which takes place in the secular courts, and has the executive power on its side.

Under the head of civil laws may be comprehended the injunction of warring against infidels, which is repeated in several pa.s.sages of the Koran, and declared to be of high merit in the sight of G.o.d, those who are slain fighting in defence of the faith being reckoned martyrs, and promised immediate admission into paradise. Hence this duty is greatly magnified by the Mohammedan divines, who call the sword the key of heaven and h.e.l.l, and persuade their people that the least drop of blood spilt in the way of G.o.d, as it is called, is most acceptable unto him, and that the defending the territories of the Moslems for one night is more meritorious than a fast of two months: on the other hand, desertion, or refusing to serve in these holy wars, or to contribute towards the carrying them on, if a man has ability, is accounted a most heinous crime, being frequently declaimed against in the Koran. Such a doctrine, which Mohammed ventured not to teach till his circ.u.mstances enabled him to put it in practice, it must be allowed, was well calculated for his purpose, and stood him and his successors in great stead: for what dangers and difficulties may not be despised and overcome by the courage and constancy which these sentiments necessarily inspire? Nor have the Jews and Christians, how much soever they detest such principles in others, been ignorant of the force of enthusiastic heroism, or omitted to spirit up their respective partisans by the like arguments and promises.

"Let him who has listed himself in defence of the law," says Maimonides, "rely on him who is the hope of Israel, and the saviour thereof in the time of trouble; and let him know that he fights for the profession of the divine unity: wherefore let him put his life in his hand, and think neither of wife nor children, but banish the memory of them from his heart, having his mind wholly fixed on the war. For if he should begin to waver in his thoughts, he would not only confound himself, but sin against the law; nay, the blood of the whole people hangeth on his neck; for if they are discomfited, and he has not fought stoutly with all his might, it is equally the same as if he had shed the blood of them all; according to that saying, let him return, lest his brethren's heart fail as his own." To the same purpose doth the Kabala accommodate that other pa.s.sage, "Cursed be he who doth the work of the LORD negligently, and cursed be he who keepeth back his sword from blood. On the contrary, he who behaveth bravely in battle, to the utmost of his endeavour, without trembling, with intent to glorify G.o.d'S name, he ought to expect the victory with confidence, and to apprehend no danger or misfortune, but may be a.s.sured that he will have a house built him in Israel, appropriated to him and his children for ever; as it is said, G.o.d shall certainly make my lord a sure house, because he hath fought the battles of the LORD, and his life shall be bound up in the bundle of life with the LORD his G.o.d." More pa.s.sages of this kind might be produced from the Jewish writers; and the Christians come not far behind them. "We are desirous of knowing," says one writing to the Franks engaged in the holy war, "the charity of you all; for that every one (which we speak not because we wish it) who shall faithfully lose his life in this warfare, shall be by no means denied the kingdom of heaven." And another gives the following exhortation: "Laying aside all fear and dread, endeavour to act effectually against the enemies of the holy faith, and the adversaries of all religions: for the Almighty knoweth, if any of you die, that he dieth for the truth of the faith, and the salvation of his country, and the defence of Christians; and therefore he shall obtain of him a celestial reward." The Jews, indeed, had a divine commission, extensive and explicit enough, to attack, subdue, and destroy the enemies of their religion; and Mohammed pretended to have received one in favour of himself and his Moslems, in terms equally plain and full; and therefore it is no wonder that they should act consistently with their avowed principles: but that Christians should teach and practise a doctrine so opposite to the temper and whole tenour of the Gospel, seems very strange; and yet the latter have carried matters farther, and shown a more violent spirit of intolerance than either of the former.

The laws of war, according to the Mohammedans, have been already so exactly set down by the learned Reland, that I need say very little of them.

I shall, therefore, only observe some conformity between their military laws and those of the Jews.

While Mohammedism was in its infancy, the opposers thereof taken in battle were doomed to death, without mercy; but this was judged too severe to be put in practice when that religion came to be sufficiently established, and past the danger of being subverted by its enemies. The same sentence was p.r.o.nounced not only against the seven Canaanitish nations, whose possessions were given to the Israelites, and without whose destruction, in a manner, they could not have settled themselves in the country designed them, but against theAmalekites and Midianites, who had done their utmost to cut them off in their pa.s.sage thither. When the Mohammedans declare war against people of a different faith, they give them their choice of three offers, viz., either to embrace Mohammedism, in which case they become not only secure in their persons, families, and fortunes, but ent.i.tled to all the privileges of other Moslems; or to submit and pay tribute, by doing which they are allowed to profess their own religion, provided it be not gross idolatry or against the moral law; or else to decide the quarrel by the sword, in which last case, if the Moslems prevail, the women and children which are made captives become absolute slaves, and the men taken in the battle may either be slain, unless they turn Mohammedans, or otherwise disposed of at the pleasure of the prince. Herewith agree the laws of war given to the Jews, which relate to the nations not devoted to destruction; and Joshua is said to have sent even to the inhabitants of Canaan, before he entered the land, three schedules, in one of which was written, "Let him fly, who will;" in the second, "Let him who surrender, who will;" and in the third, "Let him fight, who will;" though none of those nations made peace with the Israelites (except only the Gibeonites, who obtained terms of security by stratagem, after they had refused those offered by Joshua), "it being of the LORD to harden their hearts, that he might destroy them utterly."

On the first considerable success of Mohammed in war, the dispute which happened among his followers in relation to the dividing of the spoil, rendered it necessary for him to make some regulation therein; he therefore pretended to have received the divine commission to distribute the spoil among his soldiers at his own discretion, reserving thereout, in the first place, one-fifth part for the uses after mentioned; and, in consequence hereof, he took himself to be authorized on extraordinary occasions, to distribute it as he thought fit, without observing an equality. Thus he did, for example, with the spoil of the tribe of Hawazen taken at the battle of Honein, which he bestowed by way of presents on the Meccans only, pa.s.sing by those of Medina, and highly distinguishing the princ.i.p.al Koras.h.i.tes, that he might ingratiate himself with them, after he had become master of their city. He was also allowed in the expedition against those of al Nadir to take the whole booty to himself, and to dispose thereof as he pleased, because no horses or camels were made use of in that expedition, but the whole army went on foot; and this became thenceforward a law: the reason of which seems to be, that the spoil taken by a party consisting of infantry only, should be considered as the more immediate gift of G.o.d, and therefore properly left to the disposition of his apostle. According to the Jews, the spoil ought to be divided into two equal parts, one to be shared among the captors, and the other to be taken by the prince, and by him employed for his own support and the use of the public.

Moses, it is true, divided one-half of the plunder of the Midianites among those who went to battle, and the other half among all congregation: but this, they say, being a peculiar case, and done by the express order of G.o.d himself, must not be looked on as a precedent. It should seem, however, from the words of Joshua to the two tribes and a half, when he sent them home into Gilead after the conquest and division of the land of Canaan , that they were to divide the spoil of their enemies with their brethren, after their return: and the half which was in succeeding times taken by the king, was in all probability taken by him as head of the community, and representing the whole body. It is remarkable that the dispute among Mohammed's men about sharing the booty at Bedr, arose on the same occasion as did that among David's soldiers in relation to the spoils recovered from the Amalekites; those who had been in the action insisting that they who tarried by the stuff should have no part of the spoil; and that the same decision was given in both cases, which became a law for the future, to wit, that they should part alike.

The fifth part directed by the Koran to be taken out of the spoil before it be divided among the captors, is declared to belong to G.o.d, and to the apostle and his kindred, and the orphans, and the poor, and the traveller: which words are variously understood. al Shafei was of opinion that the whole ought to be divided into five parts; the first, which he called G.o.d'S part, to go to the treasury, and be employed in building and repairing fortresses, bridges, and other public works, and in paying salaries to magistrates, civil officers, professors of learning, ministers of public worship, &c.: the second part to be distributed among the kindred of Mohammed, that is, the descendants of his grandfather Hashem, and of his great-uncle al Motalleb, as well the rich as the poor, the children as the adult, the women as the men; observing only to give a female but half the share of a male: the third part to go to the orphans: the fourth part to the poor, who have not wherewithal to maintain themselves the year round, and are not able to get their livelihood: and the fifth part to travellers, who are in want on the road, notwithstanding they may be rich men in their own country. According to Malec Ebn Ans the whole is at the disposition of the Imam or prince, who may distribute the same at his own discretion, where he sees most need. Abu'l Aliya wen according to the letter of the Koran, and declared his opinion to be that the whole should be divided into six parts, and that G.o.d'S part should be applied to the service of the Caaba: while others supposed G.o.d'S part and the apostle's to be one and the same. Abu Hanifa thought that the share of Mohammed and his kindred sank at that prophet's death, since which the whole ought to be divided among the orphans, the poor, and the traveller. Some insist that the kindred of Mohammed ent.i.tled to a shire of the spoils are the posterity of Hashem only; but those who think the descendants of his brother al Motalleb have also a right to a distributive part, allege a tradition in their favour purporting that Mohammed himself divided the share belonging to his relations among both families, and when Othman Ebn a.s.san and Jobeir Ebn Matam (who were descended from Abdshams and Nawfal the other brothers of Hashem) told him, that though they disputed not the preference of the Hashemites, they could not help taking it ill to see such difference made between the family of al Motalleb and themselves, who were related to him in an equal degree, and yet had no part in the distribution, the prophet replied that the descendants of al Motalleb had forsaken him neither in the time of ignorance, nor since the revelation of Islam; and joined his fingers together in token of the strict union between them and the Hashemites. Some exclude none of the tribe of Koreish from receiving a part in the division of the spoil, and make no distinction between the poor and the rich; though, according to the more reasonable opinion, such of them as are poor only are intended by the text of the Koran, as is agreed in the case of the stranger: and others go so far as to a.s.sert that the whole fifth commanded to be reserved belongs to them only, and that the orphans, and the poor, and the traveller, are to be understood of such as are of that tribe. It must be observed that immovable possessions, as lands, &c., taken in war, are subject to the same laws as the movable; excepting only that the fifth part of the former is not actually divided, but the income and profits thereof, or of the price thereof, if sold, are applied to public and pious uses, and distributed once a year, and that the prince may either take the fifth part of the land itself, or the fifth part of the income and produce of the whole, as he shall make his election.

_______

SECTION VII.

OF THE MONTHS COMMANDED BY THE KORAN TO BE KEPT SACRED; AND OF THE SETTING APART OF FRIDAY FOR THE ESPECIAL SERVICE OF G.o.d.

IT was a custom among the ancient Arabs to observe four months in the year as sacred, during which they held it unlawful to wage war, and took off the heads from their spears, ceasing from incursions and other hostilities. During those months whoever was in fear of his enemy lived in full security; so that if a man met the murderer of his father or his brother, he durst not offer him any violence: A great argument," says a learned writer, "of a humane disposition in that nation; who being by reason of the independent governments of their several tribes, and for the preservation of their just rights, exposed to frequent quarrels with one another, had yet learned to cool their inflamed b.r.e.a.s.t.s with moderation, and restrain the rage of war by stated times of truce."

This inst.i.tution obtained among all the Arabian tribes, except only those of Tay and Khathaam, and some of the descendants of Al Hareth Ebn Caab (who distinguished no time or place as sacred), and was so religiously observed, that there are but few instances in history (four, say some, six, say others), of its having been transgressed; the wars which were carried on without regard thereto being therefore termed impious. One of those instances was in the war between the tribes of Koreish and Kais Ailan, wherein Mohammed himself served under his uncles, being then fourteen, or, as others say, twenty years old.

The months which the Arabs held sacred were al Moharram, Rajeb.

Dhu'lkaada, and Dhu'lhajja; the first, the seventh, the eleventh, and the twelfth in the year. Dhu'lhajja being the month wherein they performed the pilgrimage to Mecca, not only that month, but also the preceding and the following, were for that reason kept inviolable, that every one might safely and without interruption pa.s.s and repa.s.s to and from the festival. Rajeb is said to have been more strictly observed than any of the other three, probably because in that month the pagan Arabs used to fast; Ramadan, which was afterwards set apart by Mohammed for that purpose, being in the time of ignorance dedicated to drinking in excess. By reason of the profound peace and security enjoyed in this month, one part of the provisions brought by the caravans of purveyors annually set out by the Koreish for the supply of Mecca, was distributed among the people; the other part being, for the like reason, distributed at the pilgrimage.

The observance of the aforesaid months seemed so reasonable to Mohammed, that it met with his approbation; and the same is accordingly confirmed and enforced by several pa.s.sages of the Koran, which forbid war to be waged during those months against such as acknowledge them to be sacred, but grant, at the same time, full permission to attack those who make no such distinction, in the sacred months as well as in the profane.

One practice, however, of the pagan Arabs, in relation to these sacred months, Mohammed thought proper to reform: for some of them, weary of sitting quiet for three months together, and eager to make their accustomed incursions for plunder, used, by way of expedient, whenever it suited their inclinations or conveniency, to put off the observing of al Moharram to the following month Safar, thereby avoiding to keep the former, which they supposed it lawful for them to profane, provided they sanctified another month in lieu of it, and gave public notice thereof at the preceding pilgrimage.

This transferring the observation of a sacred month to a profane month, is what is truly meant by the Arabic word al Nasi, and is absolutely condemned, and declared to be an impious innovation, in a pa.s.sage of the Koran which Dr.