a dream; but it is a dream in which a large portion of the human
race have lived; and it has all the interest which things relating
to mankind always possess for man."

Sir William Muir agrees with these views, subject to two
considerations. He says:--

"The tendency to glorify Mohammed and the reciters of the
traditions was considerably modified by the mortal strife which
characterised the factions that opposed one another at the period,
where, in attempting to depreciate one another, they would not be
averse to perpetuating traditions in support of their contentions;
such partisanship secured no insignificant body of historical fact,
which otherwise would have been lost."

He also points out that in a state of society circumscribed and
dwarfed by the powerful Islamic system, which proscribed the free
exercise of thought and discussion, tradition can scarcely be said to
be the "vox populi." The growth and development of tradition, the
flagrant distortion of historical fact, the ethical code of Islam, may
well give rise to a questioning of the validity of the prophet's
arrogant claims, and by their very methods of defence the apologists
of Islam exhibit its weakness and inadequacy to meet the religious
needs of man. The natural bias of Mohammed is evident throughout the
Coran. His conceptions of God, of the future life, and of the duty of
man, are all influenced by his consuming master passion. In all his
writings there are lacking those characteristics which distinguish the
true prophet--the messenger of God--from those to whom he is sent.
This will be apparent by contrasting his views with those of any of
the Old Testament prophets. They were eminently men prepared for their