This he endeavoured to effect by recommending the acceptance of a pecuniary compensation from the actual murderer in lieu of revenge. One consequence of this enactment was, that the poor man had little security for his life against the rich; it being no punishment to a rich murderer to pay the fine. This is an observation of Michaelis:—who, after remarking at some length upon this well-intended but injudicious attempt at legislation, concludes with these words,-" upon the "whole, Mohamed seems to have had no very singular "talents for a legislator, and the contents of his laws "serve sufficiently to assure us that no Deity inspired "them."* Much credit is given to Mohamed by Mr. Higgins in the Apology, for prohibiting among his followers the use of wine. "We find no canting recommendation to "dolori potiùs cognatorum servit, quàm exemplum pœnarum proponit, quo ter"réantur improbi, atque boni tutò degere possint."-Rosenmüller in loc. The passage of the Koran in which Mohamed attempts to mitigate this law is the following. "O true believers, the law of retaliation is ordained you for the slain : "the free shall die for the free, and the servant for the servant, and a woman for a "woman: but he whom his brother shall forgive, may be prosecuted, and obliged "to make satisfaction according to what is just, and a fine shall be set upon him "with humanity." Surat 2, p. 20. By this regulation Mohamed gave to a bad consuetudinary practice the sanction of law: for which bungling piece of legislation he is complimented by Mr. Higgins, but on more solid views condemned by Michaelis. The inefficacy of a pecuniary mulct for the prevention of injuries, is well illustrated by an anecdote I find in Aulus Gellius. It was enacted by one of the laws of the Twelve Tables, "That for common blows with the fist the punishment should be "twenty-five asses of brass." Under the protection of this law one Lucius Veratius, who had more money than good manners, he tell us, used to amuse himself with slapping on the face such citizens as he met with in his walks; and then turning to his servant, who always attended with a supply of the requisite coin, ordered him to pay to the party who had received the blow, the legal consideration of twenty-five asses. "Quis enim erit tam inops, quem ab injuriæ faciendæ lubidine "viginti quinque asses deterreant?"-Lib. xx. cap. 1. Comment. on the Laws of Moses, vol. II. p. 210-214. "sobriety and moderation: gaming and drunkenness ❝are pronounced unpardonable sins-and cut up by the "roots at once-are totally abolished."* In respect to the absolute prohibition of wine, I am not sure how far such a regulation was altogether wise:-it might be proper for the hot climate of Arabia, where drunkenness is attended with far more dreadful effects than in more temperate regions. Be that as it may ;-its prohibition did not certainly originate with Mohamed. A law making the drinking of wine a capital offence in Arabia, existed ages before Mohamed appeared. This is expressly related by Diodorus Siculus. Nó d'or aŬTOÏS (the Arabians) μήτε σῖτον σπείρειν, μήτε φυτεύειν μηδὲν φυτὸν καρποφέρον, ΜΗΤΕ ΟΙΝΩ ΧΡΗΣΘΑΙ, μήτε οἰκιὰν κατασκευάζειν· ὃς δ ̓ ἂν παρὰ ταῦτα ποιῶν εὑρίσκηται, θάνατον αὐτῷ πρόστιμον εἶναι. Had Mr. Higgins ever seen the above passage, and the valuable note upon it by Wesselingius, he could not have fallen into the error of making Mohamed the author of a practice, which, as it appears, existed in Arabia from the remotest period. Of the interdict itself I am of opinion with Michaelis, that the general prohibition of wine * Apology, p. 36. + Diod. Sic. lib. xix. sect 94. ἔστιν Literally-A law is to them not to sow corn, nor to plant any fruit-bearing trees, NOR TO USE WINE, nor to build house; and whoever is found transgressing in these respects, let him be capitally punished. I here give the note, omitting only the Hebrew from the want of Hebraic characters:" Rechabitarum idem olim mos, idem institutum. Ipsimet profitentur "apud Jeremiam vatem, cap. xxxv. 7. imperatum sibi a majoribus fuisse. ‘Vinum 66 ne bibite in perpetuum, nec vos, nec liberi vestri: domum ne struite, frumentum 66 ne serite, neque vitem plantate, neque sit vobis illa, sed in tentoriis habitate 'semper.' Qui quidem Rechabitæ cùm ex Kineis genus deducant, Kinei verò "Jethronis, soceri Mosis, eadem olim, quæ Nabathæi, loca incolentis, sint posteri, "adparet ab antiquissimâ ætate hanc vitæ disciplinam in ARABIA convaluisse, eamque a Rechabitarum majoribus in terram Palæstinam fuisse importatam. "Mansit Saracenis, indidem ortis, eademque Arabiæ loca incolentibus, in sera 86 is one of the greatest errors in legislative policy, and when, by the interference of religion, it is declared an abomination, I look upon it as a very great misfortune for mankind. Between the moderate use of it and its abuse for purposes of inebriation, there is surely a wide difference. That the law itself is now either disregarded, or the letter of it evaded by the use of another intoxicating liquor, is, I believe, pretty generally allowed. "The most dangerous," says Michaelis, "of "exhilarating liquors, and that whose use is so dread 66 66 fully inveterate in Persia and Arabia, is opium; the "effects of which, travellers, Chardin, for instance, de"scribe in such terms as must prevent any man who has "read them from ever making panegyrics on Mohametism "for its prohibition of wine. Nor will any law,—no, nor any prohibition of religion be sufficient, after all, "to prevent the drinking of wine; but in consequence "of the prohibition, they do it secretly, and of course may be said to gulp it down in large draughts rather "than drink it; in which case it intoxicates the sooner ❝and more seriously than when drunken at leisure in "agreeable company. We hear, at least, of very great "excesses in consequence of drunkenness among Ma"hometans, probably of still more than among Chris"tians; and taking all circumstances into consideration together, the prohibition of wine must be condemned as a cruel and pernicious device of mistaken policy.”* 66 66 86 tempora idem ferme vitæ usus: nec eorum quisquam, verba Ammiani sunt e "L. xiv. 4. aliquando stivam apprehendit, vel arborem colit, aut arva subigendo “quæritat victum. Tum post pauca, victus universis caro ferina est, lactisque " abundans copiâ quâ sustentantur, et hørbæ multiplices—et plerosque nos vidimus "FRUMENTI Usum et VINI penitus ignorantes." Tom. II. p. 390. Edit. Amst. 1746, * Commentaries, vol. III. 135, 136. 66 Mr. Higgins admires the founder of Islamism for his liberality in opening heaven, or as the Apology has it, the "inferior places" at least in heavenly mansions, to professors of all religions, according to the good works they have performed. "The Koran says," observes Mr. Higgins, "certainly the faithful" (so Mohamed calls his sectaries,) "the Jews, the Christians, the Sa“beans, and in general whoever believes in one only "God, and in a day of judgment, and PRACTISES "VIRTUE, will be rewarded by God; he need not fear."* Mr. Higgins, with his usual confidence, here remarks, "I think if there had been one clear, undisputed passage in the gospels similar in doctrine to this, we "should not," &c. &c. I take leave to point out to Mr. Higgins that passage, which occurs in St. John,† and is in these words,-"The hour is coming, in which all that "are in the grave shall hear his voice and come forth; "they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, "and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of "damnation." Yet I dare assure Mr. Higgins, that in adducing the above passage, he has been singularly unfortunate. The passage, I aver, is neither clear nor undisputed. Our Selden, the greatest jurist of his day, entertains one opinion as to its meaning,-the latitudinarian one of Mr. Higgins; while Mr. Sale, the learned translator, maintains another; and asserts, that several writers have wrongly concluded, that the Mohamedans hold it to be the doctrine of their prophet, that every man may be saved in his own religion, provided he be * Apology, p. 45, † Chap. v. 29. sincere, and lead a good life. So much for Mr. Higgins's clear and undisputed passage.* Notwithstanding the assertion at the foot of the fifty-ninth page, "fair and free discussion" has not generally been encouraged by the followers of Mohamed: and their reserve, it must be owned, is the dictate of prudence. Inquiry they know will be fatal to their system. It is an admitted fact, that the Moslem doctors were not a little staggered by the arguments and conversations of the lamented Martyn. And were the case, which Mr. Higgins puts actually to happen, of some rich Muftit opening a mosque in London, with missionary views, I, for my part, have no fear about the *When the reader has gone through Sale's note, which I here subjoin, he will be convinced how little dependance can be placed upon Mr. Higgins's confident assertion. So far is the passage quoted from being one of clear and indisputable meaning, that, according to Selden, (tom. I. p. 663,) considerable difference of opinion exists among Mohamedan commentators respecting it. "From these words, which are repeated in the fifth chapter, several writers have "wrongly concluded, that the Mohammedans hold it to be the doctrine of their "Prophet, that every man may be saved in his own religion, provided he be sincere "and lead a good life. It is true, some of their doctors do agree this to be the 66 'purport of their words, but then they say the latitude hereby granted was soon "revoked, for that this passage is abrogated by several others in the Koran, which 66 expressly declare that none can be saved, who is not of the Mohamedan faith; "and particularly by those of the third chapter. "Whoever follow's any other "religion than Islam, i. e. the Mohammedan, it shall not be accepted of him, "and at the last day he shall be of those who perish." However, others are of "opinion, that this passage is not abrogated, but interpret it differently; taking the 66 meaning of it to be, that no man, whether he be a Jew, a Christian, or a Sabian, "shall be excluded from salvation, provided he quit his erroneous religion, and "become a Moslem, which they say is intended by the following words, ‘whoever "believeth in God and the last day, and doth that which is right.' And this "interpretation is approved by Mr. Reland, (whose works inter scripta argumenti "hujus principalem locum tuentur-Walchius,) who thinks the words here import no more than those of the Apostle, ‘In every nation he that feareth God and "worketh righteousness, is accepted with him :' from which it must not be inferred "that the religion of nature, or any other is sufficient to save without faith in "CHRIST."-Koran, page 8.—Sale. † Apology, p. 60. |