'Abbasi mentions a Christian slave named Yasar (also called Abu Fuqaihah) and a Greek Christian whose Arabic name was Abu Takbihah, both of whom were referred to in the accusation brought against Muhammad of getting help in compiling the Qur'an as we learn from Surah xxv. 5, 6. In his commentary on Surah xvi. 105 'Abbasi speaks of a Christian named Cain (قابيل) as an object of the same suspicion, while the two Jalals in their notes on this passage mention Yasar and Jabr; others speak of Salman, others of Suhaib, others of a monk named Addas. Muhammad's adopted son Zaid was a Syrian by birth, and therefore professed Christianity.

When we consider these facts, which cannot be disputed, we perceive that it is absolutely impossible to maintain that those great doctrines of the Qur'an which in the main coincide with those of the Old Testament and the New were for the first time revealed directly to Muhammad in the Qur'an. Hence their occurrence in the Qur'an, though a very good thing indeed, and one for which we may well thank God, is by no means a miracle, nor is it a proof of the inspiration of that book or of Muhammad's Divine commission as a prophet.

It is often stated, however, that a decisive proof of this is found in the numerous prophecies which, some Muslims assert, are to be met with in the Qur'an. Those who hold this view say that the fulfilment of prophecy is a clear proof of a Divine commission, and in corroboration of this they rightly quote Deut. xviii. 21, 22. It is our duty therefore to examine and carefully consider those verses of the Qur'an which are said to contain predictions of events which were future when Muhammad dictated these passages to his amanuenses. If Muslims would only agree that the Qur'an was Muhammad's own composition, though written by inspiration, and not dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel, their argument would be much stronger.

Those who have endeavoured to find as large a

number as possible of predictions in the Qur'an say that they amount in all to twenty-two. They are contained in the following passages, some of which are supposed to include more than one prophecy: Surahs ii. 21, 22, 88, 89; iii. 10, 107, 108, 144; v. 71; viii. 7; ix. 14; xv. 9, 95; xxiv. 54; xxviii. 85; xxx. 1-4; xli. 42; xlviii. 16, 18-21, 27, 28: liv ; 44, 45; lxi. 13; cx. 1, 2.

An attentive student will perceive that these alleged prophecies maybe divided into three classes: (1) Those which refer to Muhammad's victories; (2) Those relating to the Qur'an itself; (3) The single "prophecy" regarding the Byzantines (الرّوم). With these we now proceed to deal consecutively and as briefly as possible.

Passages of the first class need not detain us long. Of course it is impossible to prove that they were composed or "descended" before the occurrence of the events to which they are said by commentators to refer. It is very probable, however, that the Traditions are right in declaring that this was so, and for the sake of argument we grant it. Yet it is not at all surprising that Muhammad should promise his men the victory before each contest. Every general almost always does so, in order to encourage his troops. One side or the other finally wins the battle, or claims that it has done so. Both generals have predicted their own victory, and one of the two is correct in his prediction. Yet we do not on that account consider him a prophet or the Seal of the Prophets. Doubtless Changiz Khan and Tamerlane (Taimur i lang— تيمور لنك) promised their followers success in battle and the plunder of their enemies' property. The promise was fulfilled and the foe defeated: but who therefore considers that these conquerors were prophets or Apostles of God? The very fact that his men believed in Muhammad's claims to a Divinely-given mission would make them accept his promises of victory and booty as from God. They would thus become almost invincible, as in later days were the Wahhabis, and more