Christians, wholly abstained therefrom; nay, some of the latter went so far as to condemn the use of wine as sinful.8 But Mohammed is said to have had a nearer example than any of these, in the more devout persons of his own tribe.9 Gaming is prohibited by the Korân10 in the same passages, and for the same reasons, as wine. The word al Meisar, which is there used, signifies a particular manner of casting lots by arrows, much practised by the pagan Arabs, and performed in the following manner. A young camel being bought and killed, and divided into ten or twenty-eight parts, the persons who cast lots for them, to the number of seven, met for that purpose; and eleven arrows were provided, without heads or feathers, seven of which were marked, the first with one notch, the second with two, and so on, and the other four had no mark at all.11 These arrows were put promiscuously into a bag, and then drawn by an indifferent person, who had another near him to receive them, and to see he acted fairly; those to whom the marked arrows fell won shares in proportion to their lot, and those to whom the blanks fell were entitled to no part of the camel at all, but were obliged to pay the full price of it. The winners, however, tasted not of the flesh, any more than the losers, but the whole was distributed among the poor; and this they did out of pride and ostentation, it being reckoned a shame for a man to stand out, and not venture his money on such an occasion.1 This custom, therefore, though it was of some use to the poor and diversion to the rich, was forbidden by Mohammed2 as the source of great inconveniences, by occasioning quarrels and heart-burnings, which arose from the winners insulting of those who lost. Under the name of lots the commentators agree that all other games whatsoever, which are subject to hazard or chance, are comprehended and forbidden, as dice, cards, tables, &c. And they are reckoned so ill in themselves, that the testimony of him who plays at them, is by the more rigid judged to be of no validity in a court of justice. Chess is almost the only game which the Mohammedan doctors allow to be lawful (though it has been a doubt with some),3 because it depends wholly on skill and management, and not at all on chance: but then it is allowed under certain restrictions, viz., that it be no hindrance to the regular performance of their devotions, and that no money or other thing be played for or betted; which last the Turks and Sonnites religiously observe, but the Persians and Mogols do not.4 But what Mohammed is supposed chiefly to have dislike in the game of chess, was the carved pieces, or men, with which the pagan Arabs played, being little figures of men, elephants, horses, and dromedaries;5 and these are thought, by some commentators, to be truly meant by the images prohibited in one of the passages of the Korân6 quoted above.
8 This was the heresy of those called Encratitæ, and Aquarij. Khwâf, a Magian heretic, also declared wine unlawful; but this was after Mohammed's time. Hyde, de Rel. Vet. Pers. p. 300. 9 Vide Reland. de Rel. Moh. p. 271. 10 Cap. 2, p. 23, c. 5, p. 84. 11 Some writers, as al Zamakh. and al Shirâzi, mention but three blank arrows. 1 Auctores Nodhm al dorr, et Nothr al dorr, al Zamakh. al Firauzabâdi, al Shirâzi in Orat. al Hariri, al Beidâwi, &c. Vide Poc. Spec. p. 324, &c. 2 Kor. c. 5, p. 73. 3 Vide Hyde, de Luchs Oriental. in Prolog. ad Shahiludium. 4 Vide eund. ibid. 5 Vide eundem, ibid. and in Hist. Shahiludij, p. 135, 6 Cap. 5, p. 84.
That the Arabs in Mohammed's time actually used such images for chess-men appears from what is related, in the Sonna, of Ali, who passing accidentally by some who were playing at chess, asked, "What images they were which they were so intent upon?"7 for they were perfectly new to him, that game having been but very lately introduced into Arabia, and not long before into Persia, whither it was first brought from India in the reign of Khosrû Nûshirwân.8 Hence the Mohammedan doctors infer that the game was disapproved only for the sake of the images: wherefore the Sonnites always play with plain pieces of wood or ivory; but the Persians and Indians, who are not so scrupulous, continue to make use of the carved ones.1 The Mohammedans comply with the prohibition of gaming much better than they do with that of win; for though the common people among the Turks more frequently, and the Persians more rarely, are addicted to play, yet the better sort are seldom guilty of it.2 Gaming, at least to excess, has been forbidden in all well-ordered states. Gaming-houses were reckoned scandalous places among the Greeks, and a gamester is declared by Aristotle3 to be no better than a thief: the Roman senate made very severe laws against playing at games of hazard,4 except only during the Saturnalia; though the people played often at other times, notwithstanding the prohibition: the civil law forbad all pernicious games;5 and though the laity were, in some cases, permitted to play for money, provided they kept within reasonable bounds, yet the clergy were forbidden to play at tables (which is a game of hazard), or even to look on while others played.6 Accursius, indeed, is of opinion they may play at chess, notwithstanding that law, because it is a game not subject to chance,7 and being but newly invented in the time of Justinian, was not then known in the western parts. However, the monks for some time were not allowed even chess.8 As to the Jews, Mohammed's chief guides, they also highly disapprove gaming: gamesters being severely censured in the Talmud, and their testimony declared invalid.9 Another practice of the idolatrous Arabs forbidden also in one of the above-mentioned passages,10 was that of divining by arrows. The arrows used by them for this purpose were like those with which they cast lots, being without heads or feathers, and were kept in the temple of some idol, in whose presence they were consulted. Seven such arrows were kept at the temple of Mecca;11 but generally in divination they made use of three only, on one of which was written, "My LORD hath commanded me," on another, "My LORD hath forbidden me," and the third was blank. If the first was drawn, they looked on it as an approbation of the enterprise in question; if the second, they made a contrary conclusion; but if the
7 Sokeiker al Dimishki, and Auctor libri al Mostatraf, apud Hyde, ubi sup. p. 8. 8 Khondemir. apud eund. ibid. p. 41. 1 Vide Hyde, ubi sup. p. 9. 2 Vide eundem, in Proleg. and Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 46. 3 Lib. iv. ad Nicom. 4 Vide Horat. l. 3. Carm. Od. 24. 5 ff. de Aleatoribus. Novell. Just. 123, &c. Vide Hyde, ubi sup. in Hist. Aleæ, p. 119. 6 Authent. interdicimus, c. de episcopis. 7 In com. ad Legem Præd. 8 Du Fresne, in Gloss. 9 Bava Mesia, 84, I; Rosh hashana and Sanhedr. 24, 2. Vide etiam Maimon. in Tract. Gezila. Among the modern civilians, Mascardus thought common gamesters were not to be admitted as witnesses, being infamous persons. Vide Hyde, ubi sup. in Proleg. et in Hist. Aleæ, § 3. 10 Kor. c. 5. 11 See before, p. 16.
third happened to be drawn, they mixed them and drew over again, till a decisive answer was given by one of the others. These divining arrows were generally consulted before anything of moment was undertaken; as when a man was about to marry, or about to go a journey, or the like.1 This superstitious practice of divining by arrows was used by the ancient Greeks,2 and other nations; and is particularly mentioned in scripture,3 where it is said, that "the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination; he made his arrows bright" (or, according to the version of the Vulgate, which seems preferable in this place, "he mixed together, or shook the arrows"), "he consulted with images," &c.; the commentary of St. Jerome on which passage wonderfully agrees with what we are told of the aforesaid custom of the old Arabs: "He shall stand," says he, "in the highway, and consult the oracle after the manner of his nation, that he may cast arrows into a quiver, and mix them together, being written upon or marked with the names of each people, that he may see whose arrow will come forth, and which city he ought first to attack."4 A distinction of meats was so generally used by the eastern nations, that it is no wonder that Mohammed made some regulations in that matter. The Korân, therefore, prohibits the eating of blood, and swine's flesh, and whatever dies of itself, or is slain in the name or in honour of any idol, or is strangled, or killed by a blow, or a fall, or by any other beast.5 In which particulars Mohammed seems chiefly to have imitated the Jews, by whose law, as is well known, all those things are forbidden; but he allowed some things to be eaten which Moses did not,6 as camels' flesh7 in particular. In cases of necessity, however, where a man may be in danger of starving, he is allowed by the Mohammedan law to eat any of the said prohibited kinds of food;8 and the Jewish doctors grant the same liberty in the same case.9 Though the aversion to blood and what dies of itself may seem natural, yet some of the pagan Arabs used to eat both: of their eating of the latter some instances will be given hereafter; and as to the former, it is said they used to pour blood, which they sometimes drew from a live camel, into a gut, and then broiled it in the fire, or boiled it, and ate it:1 this food they called Moswadd, from Aswad which signifies black; the same nearly resembling our black puddings in name as well as composition.2 The eating of meat offered to idols I take to be commonly practised by all idolaters, being looked on as a sort of communion