ITS ORIGIN, ITS STRENGTH, AND ITS WEAKNESS. 193 
not, I believe, give it the later name of Beit-Allah. If Ibn Hisham 
says that idolatry was only fifteen generations old in Mecca in 
Muhammad’s time, this only proves that writing 200 years later 
than the date of the Hegira, he knew very little of the true 
history of that shrine, which has been very carefully studied. 
It should also be remembered that the Koran and the Sunna 
do not represent Islam in all its aspects. The religion of the 
Mosque and of the College is not the religion of the peasant, in 
the remote villages where no Mosque exists. Nor is it the religion 
of the Sufi mystic, or of the sceptical Moslem philosopher. The 
study of Moslem historians is not sufficient by itself to show what 
Islam is, in all its varieties of higher thought, and lower super- 
stition, and of conflicting sects. 
With what is said as to the influence of the “religion of Zoro- 
aster,” I concur, and have long since so concurred in print ; although 
stndents of the Zendavesta do not appear generally to admit the 
existence of an historical Zoroaster. The name is the old Zara- 
thustra Spitama, or “ pure high priest,” who was a legendary 
teacher. In addition to the points of similarity noted, all of which 
I have previously treated briefly, may be noticed the Moslem idea 
of the Kaf mountain, and of the trees of Heaven and Hell, which 
appear to be of Persian origin, and several other such comparisons: 
But it should not be forgotten that the Persians came under 
Semitic influence in Babylonia, and borrowed tiany ideas from 
their conquered subjects. I believe the word daena for “religion ” 
is one of these borrowings; and the Pehlevi dialect is full of 
borrowed Aramaic words for religious ideas. It should also be 
noticed that the similarities to Persian dogmas are found, not in 
the Koran itself, but in the Moslem traditions after the conquest 
of Persia. On the other hand many Talmudic ideas, and notably 
those which refer to the soul hovering near the grave, appear to 
be of purely Persian origin. In justice to the great Arab genius, 
whose wild imagination—full of thoughts of the Day of Judgment 
and of Hell—was expressed in rude poetry, often magnificent in 
the original, it should be remembered that most of the absurd 
legends concerning him are the fancies of later writers, and not 
found in the Koran. I doubt myself if the Koran, as we have 
it, is to be solely ascribed to Muhammad. Finally, the Aramaic 
forms of its dialect are, I think, more probably due to the charac- 
ter of the Koreish vernacular, than to any borrowing from books. 
Similar forms occur in the dialect of Hadramaut long before the 
time of Muhammad. 
