In his argument against hereditary succession over the course of the second section, Paine alludes to the prophet Muhammed (here referred to by the alternate spelling "Mahomet"):
Wherefore, hereditary succession in the early ages of monarchy could not take place as a matter of claim, but as something casual or complimental; but as few or no records were extant in those days, and traditional history stuffed with fables, it was very easy, after the lapse of a few generations, to trump up some superstitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar.
This particular passage references the uncertain details of Muhammed's life, leading to a lack of precise biographical detail in the Qur'an. Though the Qur'an was never intended to be a strictly biographical text, Paine seems to imply through this reference that the beginnings of hereditary right are as imprecisely charted as the beginnings of Islam—both of which he seems to condemn through the use of morally-charged language (i.e. "vulgar"). Paine discards hereditary right and the entire religion of Islam in one breath, equating what he views as their respective strains of immorality.
It is important to note that Paine was not a Christian, self-identifying instead as a Deist. Despite this, Paine still grew up in a Christian society and was influenced by Christian structures and philosophies. As is evident by his use of theological rhetoric in Common Sense, Paine obviously views Christianity as a reputable source of moral authority, particularly in comparison to Islam, which he maligns in this passage.
