(1) I have great doubts regarding the truth of the story that Mokowkas the Governor had sent two maids to Mohammad, and taking it for granted they were so sent, that one of them was the alleged Maria; (2) it is not a fact that she was a slave; (3) nor a concubine-slave of the Prophet; (4) nor she as such bore a son to him; (5) and lastly, the notorious scandal about her much talked of by European writers is a mere calumny and a false story. It will be a very tedious and irksome task to copy the various traditions bearing on the above subjects and to discuss their authenticity, and criticise their genuineness, on the principles of the technicalities peculiar to the Science of Traditions, as well as on the basis of scientific and rational criticism. Therefore I will notice only briefly each of the above subjects. [Sidenote: Dispatch to Mokowkas.] 9. (1) That Mohammad had sent a dispatch to Mokowkas, the Roman Governor of Egypt, and that in reply he had sent Maria the Coptic maid, together with other presents, to Mohammad, is not to be found in the traditions collected by the best critics of Mohammadan traditions like Bokhari and Muslim, who had sifted the whole incoherent mass of genuine and apocryphal traditions regarding the Prophet, and had picked up but a very small portion of them which they thought to be relatively genuine. We can fairly conclude that such a tradition, which is related by other non-critics and story-tellers, who have indiscriminately narrated every tradition--whether genuine or apocryphal--like Wakidi and Ibn Sad, was surely rejected by these Imams (Doctors in the Science of Tradition) as having not the least possibility of its genuineness. Even Ibn Ishak (died 150),[354] Hisham-bin-Abdul Malik (died 213 A.H.),[355] and Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman (died 143 A.H.[356])[357] have not inserted the portion of the tradition of Maria the Coptic maid being sent by the Egyptian Governor to Mohammad. The tradition narrated by Ibn Sad--(1) through Wakidi and Abd-ul-Hamid from Jafar, (2) and Abdullah bin Abdur Rahman bin Abi Sasata--is undoubtedly apocryphal, Wakidi and Abd-ul-Hamid are of impeached integrity, or no authority at all. Ibn Khallikan, in his Biographical Dictionary, translated by Slane, writes regarding Wakidi:--"The Traditions received from him are considered of feeble authority, and doubts have been expressed on the subject of his (_veracity_.)"[358] Ibn Hajar Askalani writes regarding Wakidi in his _Takrib_, that "he has been struck off as an authority (literally left out), notwithstanding his vast knowledge." Zahabi's opinion of Wakidi in Mizan-al-Etedal is that Ahmed bin Hanbal said "he was the greatest liar." Bokhari and Abu Hatim say he is struck off (or left out as an authority). Regarding Abd-ul-Hamid, Zahabi writes that Abu Hatim said he is not quoted as an authority, and Sofian said he was a weak authority.