umny against Mohammad
concocted up by his enemies, that Haphsa surprized the Prophet in her
own private room with Maria. "She reproached her lord bitterly, and
threatened to make the occurrence known to all his wives. Afraid of the
exposure and anxious to appease his offended wife, he begged of her to
keep the matter quiet, and promised to forego the society of Maria
altogether." But he afterwards released himself from it by a special
revelation--(Sura LXVI, 1). Sir W. Muir remarks:--

"As in the case of Zeinab, Mahomet produced a message from Heaven,
which disallowed his promise of separation from Mary...."

The passage in the Koran relating to the affair is as follows:--

"O Prophet! Why hast thou forbidden thyself that which God hath
made lawful unto thee,[363] out of desire to please thy wives; for
God is forgiving and merciful?"[364]

[Sidenote: The affair not noticed in the early biographies.]

14. Now this is perfectly a fictitious story. Neither there was any such
affair, nor is there anything on this head mentioned in the Koran. It is
very strange that Sir W. Muir has abruptly left aside, in this instance,
all his principal authorities, the Arabian biographers, Ibn Ishak,
Wakidi (his secretary), and Tabari. The story is not to be found in any
of these biographies, nor in the canonical collections of Bokhari,
Muslim, and Tirmizee. Sir W. Muir had himself laid down the rule that
only these original authorities are to be depended upon, and the later
authors are to be rejected. He writes:--

"To the three biographies by Ibn Hisham, by Wackidi his secretary,
and Tabari, the judicious historian of Mahomet will, as his
original authorities, confine himself. He will also receive with a
similar respect such traditions in the general collections of the
earliest traditionists--Bokhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, &c.--as may bear
upon his subject. But he will reject as _evidence_ all later
authors, to whose so-called traditions he will not allow any
historical weight whatever."[365]

[Sidenote: Sir W. Muir's authorities not valid.]

15. But in this instance, Sir W. Muir, being anxious to quote his
fictitious story to calumniate Mohammad, has ceased to be a judicious
historian, and deviates from his self-imposed rule. He does not reject
the story as he ought judiciously and conscientiously to have done, as
it is not to be found in any of the earliest and origina