98 (return) [ The nocturnal journey is circumstantially related by Abulfeda (in Vit. Mohammed, c. 19, p. 33,) who wishes to think it a vision; by Prideaux, (p. 31-40,) who aggravates the absurdities; and by Gagnier (tom. i. p. 252-343,) who declares, from the zealous Al Jannabi, that to deny this journey, is to disbelieve the Koran. Yet the Koran without naming either heaven, or Jerusalem, or Mecca, has only dropped a mysterious hint: Laus illi qui transtulit servum suum ab oratorio Haram ad oratorium remotissimum, (Koran, c. 17, v. 1; in Maracci, tom. ii. p. 407; for Sale’s version is more licentious.) A slender basis for the aerial structure of tradition.] 99 (return) [ In the prophetic style, which uses the present or past for the future, Mahomet had said, Appropinquavit hora, et scissa est luna, (Koran, c. 54, v. 1; in Maracci, tom. ii. p. 688.) This figure of rhetoric has been converted into a fact, which is said to be attested by the most respectable eye-witnesses, (Maracci, tom. ii. p. 690.) The festival is still celebrated by the Persians, (Chardin, tom. iv. p. 201;) and the legend is tediously spun out by Gagnier, (Vie de Mahomet, tom. i. p. 183-234,) on the faith, as it should seem, of the credulous Al Jannabi. Yet a Mahometan doctor has arraigned the credit of the principal witness, (apud Pocock, Specimen, p. 187;) the best interpreters are content with the simple sense of the Koran. (Al Beidawi, apud Hottinger, Hist. Orient. l. ii. p. 302;) and the silence of Abulfeda is worthy of a prince and a philosopher. * Note: Compare Hamaker Notes to Inc. Auct. Lib. de Exped. Memphides, p. 62—M.] 100 (return) [ Abulpharagius, in Specimen Hist. Arab. p. 17; and his scepticism is justified in the notes of Pocock, p. 190-194, from the purest authorities.]