penance.1 The fine for a man's blood is set in the Sonna at a hundred camels,2 and is to be distributed among the relations of the deceased, according to the laws of inheritances; but it must be observed that, though the person slain be a Moslem, yet if he be of a nation or party at enmity, or not in confederacy with those to whom the slayer belongs, he is not then bound to pay any fine at all, the redeeming a captive being, in such case, declared a sufficient penalty.3 I 1 Cap. 5, p. 73; c. 17; c. 2, p. 31, &c. 2 Cap. 2, p. 31. 3 The same seems to have been required by the Jewish law, even in cases where life was not concerned. See Deut. xix. 15, Matth. xviii. 16, John viii. 17, 2 Cor. xiii. I. 4 Kor. c. 2, p. 30, 31. 5 Vide Chardin, Voy. de Perse, t. 2, p. 294, &c., and the notes to Kor. c. 5, p. 86. 6 Kor. c. 4, p. 64. 7 Cap. 2, p. 18, 19; c. 17. Vide Chardin, ubi sup. p. 299, &c. 8 Numb. xxxv. 31. 9 This is particularly forbidden in the Korân, c. 17. 1 Kor. c. 4, p. 64. 2 See the notes to c. 37 3 Kor. c. 4, p. 64. imagine that Mohammed, by these regulations, laid so heavy a punishment on involuntary manslaughter, not only to make people beware incurring the same, but also to humour, in some degree, the revengeful temper of his countrymen, which might be with difficulty, if at all, prevailed on to accept a lighter satisfaction. Among the Jews, who seem to have been no less addicted to revenge than their neighbours, the manslayer who had escaped to a city of refuge was obliged to keep himself within that city, and to abide there till the death of the person who was high priest at the time the fact was committed, that his absence and time might cool the passion and mitigate the resentment of the friends of the deceased; but if he quitted his asylum before that time, the revenger of blood, if he found him, might kill him without guilt;4 nor could any satisfaction be made for the slayer to return home before the prescribed time.5 Theft is ordered to be punished by cutting off the offending part, the hand,6 which, at first sight, seems just enough; but the law of Justinian, forbidding a thief to be maimed,7 is more reasonable; because, stealing being generally the effect of indigence, to cut off that limb would be to deprive him of the means of getting his livelihood in an honest manner.8 The Sonna forbids the inflicting of this punishment, unless the thing stolen be of a certain value. I have mentioned in another place the further penalties which those incur who continue to steal, and of those who rob or assault people on the road.9 As to injuries done to men in their persons, the law of retaliation, which was ordained by the law of Moses,10 is also approved by the Korân:1 but this law, which seems to have been allowed by Mohammed to his Arabians for the same reasons as it was to the Jews, viz., to prevent particular revenges, to which both nations were extremely addicted,2 being neither strictly just nor