Mahometan Miracles,

Mahomet says himself, that he wrought no miracles, and yet his followers attribute many to him. Grotius makes use of this confession, to refute Mahometanism, after having observed, that Mahomet does not deny the miracles of Jesus Christ. “Jesus visum cœcis, claudis gressum, ægrotis sanitatem dedit, imo fatente Mahumete, etiam vitam mortal's. Mahumetes Azoara, 3,14,17, 30, 71. ⁷⁶ se missum ait non cum miraculis, sed cum armis. Secuti tamen sunt, qui ei et miracula attribuerent, at qualia? Nempe quæ aut arte humana facilè possunt effects reddi, ut de columba ad

aurem advolante: aut quorum nulli sunt testes, ut de camelo noctu ei locuto: aut quæ sua absurditate refelluntur, Azoara 64. Vide latius hanc fabulem ex capite Ceramur, apud Cantacuzenum Oratione in Mabumetem, num. 23. ⁷⁷ ut de magna Lunæ parte in manicam ipsius delapsa, et ab ipso remissa ad reddendam sideri rotunditatem Grotius de veritate Religionis Christianæ, lib. vi. p. m. 202. He cites Azoara. 5, 13. ⁷⁸. Jesus, by the confession of Mahomet himself, gave sight to the blind, feet to the lame, health to the sick, and even life to the dead. Mahomet says, he was sent, not with miracles, but with arms. Yet some, in after times, ascribed miracles, to him, but of what sort? Either such as could easily be effected by human art, as that of a pigeon flying to his ear; or such, as there are no witnesses of, as that of a camel which spoke to him by night; or such, as are refuted by their own absurdity, as that of a great part of the moon dropping into his sleeve, and sent back again by him, in order to restore to that planet its rotundity.”

We must not leave this subject, before we set down the remark of a learned German, who says, that some Christians, prompted by a false zeal against Mahomet, accuse him of boasting of certain miracles, which the Arabian writers never attributed to him. “There are some Arabian authors, who attribute miracles to Mahomet; but others deny them. For instance, the former say, that the moon drawing near to Mahomet, he clave it asunder. Mr Pfeiffer observes, after Beidavi, that Mahomet never said this, but only that, before the last day, that prodigy will be seen in heaven. They make him say, that, at the taking of the city of Chaibar, a Jewish woman having presented him with a poisoned lamb, the lamb, though quite roasted, warned him not to eat it. But Abulfeda, relating the story, only says, that Mahomet, having tasted it, and perceiving that it was

poisoned, spat it out upon the ground, and said, this lamb tells me, that it is poisoned; meaning, I find that it is poisoned. In effect, he confesses often in the Koran, that he could not work miracles. Wherefore I consider as a fable, what some tell us of a pigeon, that came to eat from his ear, and of a bull, that would eat nothing but what he gave him with his own hand. Mr Pfeiffer acknowledges, that these stories are the effects of the distempered zeal of some Christians against this impostor.”

Might we not represent to Mr Pfeiffer, that the Christians have used the Mahometans in this respect as the reformed have used the Catholics. For there are in legendary writers, many miracles, which are not mentioned by grave authors of the Romish communion, and which they even laugh at. Does it follow therefore, that the Protestant writers are calumniators, or transported with too much zeal, because they object to Catholics such kind of miracles? And why may we not say, that the Christians, who have ridiculed the Mahometans for such miracles, as are not now to be found in Arabian authors, had read them in some obscure writers, who took the liberty to tell them, in honour of that false prophet, as the legendary writers have done in honour of the saints.

In some respects, therefore, the 2eal of our disputants is unjust; for if they make use of the extravagances of a Mahometan legendary, to make Mahomet himself odious, or to ridicule him, they violate the equity, which is due to all the world, to wicked, as well as good men. We must not impute to any body what they never did, and consequently we must not argue against Mahomet from these idle fancies, which some of his followers have fabled of him, if he himself never published them. We have sufficient matter against him, though we charge him only with his own faults, and do not make him answerable for the follies, which the indiscreet and

romantic zeal of some of his disciples has prompted them to write.