continuation of the Annals, which brings the record down to the fall of the caliphate on the onset of the Mongols; The Koran: its Composition and Teaching; and The Mohammedan Controversy, a reprint of five essays published at intervals between 1885 and 1887. In 1888 he delivered the Rede lecture at Cambridge on The Early Caliphate and Rise of Islam. Life of Mahomet His original book "A Life of Mahomet and History of Islam to the Era of the Hegira" was initially published 1861 in four volumes. The book received attention in both literary and missionary circles, and provoked responses ranging from appreciation to criticism. It would eventually evoke a rebuttal from Sayyid Ahmad Khan. Muir's contemporary reviewers of his Life of Mahomet uniformly praised him for his knowledge of Arabic. The only competing work in Britain at the time was a book by Harrow schoolmaster Reginald Bosworth Smith, who had no Arabic language skills. The work was also praised by Christian missionaries who welcomed it as an aid to convert Muslims. Contemporary historian E. A. Freeman praised the book as a "great work", yet questioned its conjectural methodology, particularly Muir's suggestion that Muhammad was inspired by Satan. Contemporary Aloys Sprenger also criticized Muir for ascribing Islam's origins to "the Devil". The British Quarterly Review of 1872 criticized his approach as "he is treading ground whither the historian of events and creeds must refuse to follow him". A significant rebuttal to Muir's book was written Syed Ahmed Khan in 1870 called A Series of Essays on the Life of Mohammed, and Subjects Subsidiary Thereto. Khan praised Muir's writing talent and familiarity with Oriental literature, but criticized Muir's reliance on weak sources like al-Waqidi. He accused Muir of misrepresenting the facts and writing with animus. Written objections to this aspect of Life could be found in the writings of Muslims living inside British India only after the Indian Rebellion of 1857, an unsuccessful uprising against the East India Company. Later reviews of the work have also been mixed, with many scholars describing Muir's work as polemical. W. M. Watt (1961) described Muir's Life as following "in detail the standard Muslim accounts, though not uncritically". Mohammed Hussein Heikal regarded Muir's work as an argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Albert Hourani (1980) said Muir's writing, while "still not quite superseded", regarded Muhammad as "the Devil's instrument" and Muslim society as "barren and bound to