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."4

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 Korân, 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 like 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 on 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.2

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:3 but the Arabs were particularly superstitious in this matter, killing what they ate on stones erected on purpose round 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 superstitious customs relating to cattle, which seem to have been peculiar to the pagan Arabs, were also abolished by Mohammed. The Korân 10 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 Bahîra,

Sâïba, Wasîla, and Hâmi: 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

9

Vide Poc. Spec. p. 329, &c. Chap. 2, p. 20, chap. 5, p. 81, chap. 6, and chap. 16. 'Lev. xi. 4. See Kor. chap. 3, pp. 42, 47, and chap. 6. Kor. chap. 5, p. 81, and in the other passages last quoted. Vide Maimon. in Halachoth Melachim. chap. 8, sect. 1, &c. Nothr al dorr, al Firauz. al Zamakh. and al Beid. 2 Poc. Spec. p. 320. Compare Acts xv. 29, with 1 Cor. viii. 40, &c. See the fifth chap. of the Kor. p. 81, Solin. de Arab. cap. 33. Hieronym. in Jovin. lib. 2, c. 6. Solinus, ubi supra. Kor. chap. 2, p. 33, 34. Chap. 5.

and the notes there.

' Idem. ibid. 8

6

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 Bahîra. Or the Bahîra 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 Sâïba, 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 Bahîra: 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 God, 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."

Sâïba 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 Sâïba, and, as a mark of it, one of the vertebræ 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 Sâïba, 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 drunk 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 Bahîra, and turned loose as her dam had been.5

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 any animal which the Arabs used to turn loose in honour of their idols, allow. ing none to make use 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 twins; and if the seventh time she brought forth a male and a female, they said, Wosilat akhâha, 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 Sâïba. Or Wasîla 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 gods, but if both a male and a female, they said, She is joined to her brother, and did not sacrifice that male to their gods: or Wasîla 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 gods. Another2 writes,

that if an ewe brought forth twins seven times together, and the eighth time a male, they sacrificed that male to their gods; but if the eighth ume she brought both a male and a female, they used to say, She is joined to he brother, and for the female's sake they spared the male, and permitted no the dam's milk to be drunk by women. A third writer tells us, that Wasîla 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 fourth3 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.

Hâmi 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 gods, and as part of the worship which they paid them, and were ascribed to the divine institution; but are all condemned in the Korân, and declared to be impious superstitions.

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 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 great a happiness. The manner of their doing this is dif ferently 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 Dalâma, near Mecca. In the time of ignorance, while they used this method to get rid of their daughters, Sásaá, 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 Korân, "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 fre quently put their children, the females especially, to death, with impunity.7

This wicked practice is condemned by the Korân in several passages; 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 superstitious customs were likewise abrogated by Mohammed; but the same being of less moment, and not particularly men tioned in the Korân, or having been occasionally taken notice of else. where, I shall say nothing of them in this place.

SECTION VI.

OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE KORAN IN CIVIL AFFAIRS.

THE Mohammedan civil law is founded on the precepts and determinations of the Korân, 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 Hanîfa, Malec, al Shâfeï, 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 principal institutions, 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 Korân, 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

3

Vide Plutarch,
The Grecians

Korân, chap. 5, p. 86. Al Mostatraf. Vide Ebn Khalekân, in Vita al Farazdak, and Poc. Spec. p. 334. Strabo, lib. 17. Vide Diodor. Sic. lib. 1, c. 80. in Lycurgo. * Vide Pufendorf. de Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. 6, c. 7, sect. 6. also treatea daughters especially in this manner; whence that saying of Posidippus,

Mohammed 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 Korân, 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),7 that he marry one only, or if he cannot be contented with one, that he may 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 abovementioned limitation, Mohammed was directed by the decision of the Jew✩ish 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,

Nic. Cusanus, in Cribrat. Alcor. lib. 2, cap. 19. Olearius, in Itinerar. P. Greg. Tholosanus, in Synt. Juris, lib. 9, c. 2, sect. 22. Septemcastrensis (de Morib. Turc. p. 24), says the Mohammedans may have twelve lawful wives and no more. Ricaut falsely asserts the restraint of the number of their wives to be no precept of their religion, but a rule superinduced on a politic consideration. Pres. State of the Ottoman Empire, book 3, chap. 21. Marracc. in Prodr. ad Refut. Alcor. part 4, p. 52, & 71. Prideaux, Life of Moh. p. 114. Chardin, Voy. de Perse, tom. 1, p. 166. Du Ryer. Sommaire de la Rel. des Turcs, mis è la tête de sa version de l'Alcor. Ricaut, ubi supra. Pufendorf, de Jure Nat. et Gent. lib. 6, c. 1, sect. 18. Chap. 4, p. 59. • Vide Gagnier, in notis ad Abulfedæ Vit. Moh. p. 150. Reland, de Rel. Moh. p. 243, &c., and Selden. Ux. Hebr. lib. 1, cap. 9. * Vide Reland, ubi sup. p. 244. Kor. chap. 4, p. 59. Sir J. Maundeville (who, excepting a few silly stories he tells from hear-say, deserves more credit than some travellers of better reputation), speaking of the Korân, observes, among several other truths, that Mohammed therein commanded a man should have two wives, or three, or four; though the Mohammedans then took nine wives, and lemans as many as they night sustain. Maundev. Travels, p. 164. 1 Maimon. in Halachoth Ishoth, c. 14. 2 Idem, ibid. Vide Selden. Uxor. Hebr. lib. 1, c. 9. * Deut. xxiv. 3, 4. Jer. iii. 1. Vide Selden, ubi sup. lib. 1, c. 11. Koran, chap. 2, p. 27. Vide Selden, ubi sup. lib. 3, cap. 21, and Ricaut's State of the Ottoman Empire, book 2, chap. 21. • Deut. xxiv. 1. Leo Modena Hist. degli Riti Hebr. part 1, c. 6. Vide Selden, ubi sup. Vide Busbeq. Ep. 3, p.