»y>- 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED AT THE ISLAMIA PRESS, YAKKI GATE. 
 
 1891. 
 
 f All right* reierved. ) 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 The MouA\ni4D.4>i Thact & Book Depot, Pii\jab.{ 
 
 iV?ce per copy, ^s. S-6, 
 
 ESSAY 
 
 ox THE Q UESTION 
 
 WHETHER ISLAM HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL 
 OR INJURIOUS TO THE HUMAN 
 SOCIETY IN GENERAL, 
 
 AND TO THE 
 
 Mosaic and Christian dispensations.; 
 
 \ 
 
ISLAMIC BELIEF IN GOD. 
 
 The fundamental doctrine of Islam is that from tlie very creatirm of ■ 
 woi'ld down to its final destruction there lias been, and for ever will be, 1 
 one true orthodox belief.; the foundation of this religion is the rccognitior 
 tho truth that there is one only and true God. “ There is no God but Go 
 “ He is God, besides whom there is no God; who knoweth that which 
 future and that w'hich is present : Ke is the most Merciful. He is G 
 
 besides whom there is no God ; the King, the Holy, the Giver of Peace, 
 Faithful, the Guardian, the Powerful, the Strong, the most Higli. H< 
 God, the Creator, the Maker, the Originator. He hath most excellent nam 
 Whatever is ih heaven and earth praiseth Him : and He is the Mighty, 1 
 Wise.” This belief is over and over again inculcated in the Koran and pass? 
 upon passage might be quoted to verify this statement, but a few will suffi j 
 “ Verily your Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in 
 days ; and then ascended His throne ; He causeth the night to cover the da 
 it succeedeth the same swiftly; He also created the sun and the moon, aii 
 the stars, which are absolutely subject unto His -command. Is not t ! 
 whole creation, and the empire thereof. His ? Blessed be God, the Lord- i 
 all creatures ! Call upon your Lord humbly and in secret ; for He love ; 
 not those who transgress, and act not corruptly in the earth ; and call up | 
 Him with fear and desire: for the mercy of God is near unto the righteoi 
 It is He who sendeth the winds spread abroad before His mercy, until th 
 bring a cloud heavy with rain, which He drives unto a dead country; ai . 
 He causes water to descend thereon, by whicli is caused all sorts of spruj 
 forth.” — Koran Sura 7. (“ Al. Araf.”) The description of the attributes ’i 
 
 the Deity is very fine, as the following extracts from the second and oth I 
 Suras of the Koran will show — 
 
 “ God ! — there is no God but He ; the living the self-subsisting, tl 
 eternal ! neither slumber uor sleep seizeth Him ; to Him belongeth wha 
 soever is in the heavens or on the earth. Who is there that can intercei 
 with Him, but through His good jdeasurel He knoweth that which is ' 
 come unto them, and tliey shall not comjnehend anything of His knowlcdg 
 but so far as He pleaseth. His throne is extended over heaven and eart 
 and the pu-eservation of both is no burden unto Him. Ho is the High, — tl 
 Mighty. " 
 
 “ Blessed be He, in whose hands is the Kingdom, and over all things 
 He potent. Who liath created Death and Life, to i»rove which of you 
 mo.st righteous in his deeds, — Ho is the Mighty — tlie Forgiving — who hat 
 created the seven heavens one above another ; no defect canst thou discovc 
 in the creation of the God of Mercy ! repe;vt thy gaze, — Seest thou a singj 
 flaw ! Tlio twice more repeat thy gaze, and it shall return unto thee, didlJ 
 and weary.” I 
 
 This belief in an eternal, ominiscient, omnipotent and all-wise DoJ 
 carries logically with it tho fact that God's religion and rule of life m» 
 have at all ages been the same. To this religion is given the nam# 
 Islam — a word signifying resignation, or entire .submi.-siou to the service I 
 commands of God. I 
 
ESSAY 
 
 ON THE QUESTION 
 
 VVIlETllEli ISEAM HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL OR INJDRIOUS 
 TO HUMAN SOCIETY IN UENEIIAL. 
 
 AND TO THE 
 
 MOSAIC AND CHUISTIAN DISPENSATIONS- 
 
 The 8'ibject upon which we are now about to treat, is one which, 
 from its very nature, requires, in order to command attention and 
 awaken interest, to be approached in a spirit equally free from 
 illiberalitv, prejudice, and acrimony ; and as the tone of onr observa- 
 tions will therefore be conciliatory, we trust that, at least, if Ave fail to 
 convince, we shall not ottend. Our subject m ittor will be divided into 
 four sections. 
 
 Section I . — On the Advantages derived by Human Society in 
 
 general of Islam. 
 
 ^ Conscientiously disposed as we ourselves may be to treat the 
 subject impartially, it is with the more regret we say that Christian 
 writers invariably regard everything relative to Islam Avith so much 
 suspicion, as to afford us very little liope that our present remarks will 
 not be viewed through the same offensive medium. On this account, 
 therefore, Ave shall content ourselves here Avith mentioning those 
 advantages and benehts for which Christians themselves acknowledge 
 human society is indebted to Islam. The following remark, coming 
 as it does from Sir W m. Muir, is the more A^aluable, as being the deposi- 
 tion of by no means a willing witness ; “ And what have been the 
 effects,” asks that author, “ of the system Avhich, established by such 
 instrumentality, Mohammad has left behind him ? We may freely 
 concede that it banished, for ever, many of the darker elements of 
 superstition Avhich had, for ages, shrouded the Peninsula. Idolatry 
 vanished before the battle-cry of Islam the doctrine of the unity 
 and infinite perfections of God, and of a special, all pervading Pro- 
 vidence, became a liAung principle in the hearts and lives of the 
 followers of Mohammad, even as it had in his own. An absolute 
 surrender and submission to the divdne Avill (the very name of Islam), 
 was demanded as the first requirement of the religion. Nor are social 
 virtues wanting. Brotherly love is inculcated within the circle of the 
 
 * Islam entirely rooted out idolatry from Arabia, and brought home to all 
 other creeds that were at that time prevalent in the world, the notion that 
 idolatry was a grave sin. 
 
( 2 ) 
 
 faith.® Orphans are to be protected, and slaves treated with considera- 
 tion.! Intoxicating drinks are proliibited, and Mohainmadanism may 
 boast of a degree of temperance unknown in any other creed.” J 
 
 When dwelling upon the subject of Mohammad’s “ merit towards 
 liis country,” tlie celebrated historian Gibbon remarks as follows : 
 “ His beneficial or pernicious iafluenco on the public happiness is 
 the last consideration in the character of Mohammad. Tlje most 
 bitter or most bigoted of Cliristian or Jewish foes will surely 
 allow that he assumed a false commis.siori to inculcate a salutary 
 doctrine, less perfect only than their own. He j)iously supposed, 
 as tlie basis of his religion, the truth and sanctity of prior 
 revelations, the virtues and miracles of their founders. The idols 
 of Arabia were broken before the throne of God ; the blood of 
 human victims was expiated by prayer, and fasting, and alms, the 
 laudable or innocent arts of devotion ; ami his rewards and punish- 
 ments of a future life were painted by the images most congenial to 
 an ignorant and carnal generation. Mohammad was, perhaps, incap- 
 able of dictating a moral and political system for the use of his country- 
 men ; but he breathed among the faithful a spirit of charity and 
 friendship ; recommended the practice of social virtues ; and checked 
 by his laws and precepts the thmst of revenge, and the oppression of 
 widows and orphans. The hostile tribes were united in faith and 
 obedience, and the valour which had been idly spent in domestic 
 quarrels was vigorously directed against a foreign enemy. ” 
 
 Mj’. Davenport, in his admirable “ Apology for Mohammad and 
 the Koran,” observes as follows : “ It is a monstrous ei'ror to suppose, 
 as some have done and other still do, that the faith taught by the 
 Koran was propagated by the sword alone, for it will be readily 
 admitted, by all unprejudiced minds, that Mohammad’s religion — by 
 which prayers and alms were substituted for the blood of human 
 victims, and which instead of hostility and perpetual feuds, breathed a 
 spirit of benevolence and of the social virtues, and must, 
 tlierefoi-e, have had an important influence upon civilization — 
 was a real blessing to the Eiistern world, and consequently, could 
 not have needed exclusively the sanguinary moans so unsparingly and 
 so unscrupulously used by Moses for the extirpation of idolatry. 
 
 * Not only “ within the circle of the faith but to all beings whose hearts 
 to use the phrase of the Iladees. “ are fresh with life.” 
 
 t Virtually speaking, Islam almost abolished slavery, for iu no ca.se is it 
 allowed, except in that of war captives and that also with the benevolent 
 iiilention of .saving their lives. Persons who give them their liberty are entitled 
 to the highest degree of rewani ; those who ransom their lives stand next in 
 the order of meritorionsness ; and those who keep them as slaves must maiutaiu 
 them in the same stylo of living as they do themselves. 
 
 J To these excellent injunctions Sir William might have added, the prohibi- 
 tion of all games of chance ; the abstaining from the use of indecent words and 
 expressions ; love and revereuco £or parents ; compulsory alms ; ami kind 
 trealmeul Cl animals, olc. 
 
( 3 ) 
 
 '• How idle ftiul ridiculous was it, tlieveforo, to bestow uotliing but 
 insolent opj>robriuiu and iguoriint ilcclaiuution upon ono ot the niost 
 powerful iuatrunients whicli the baud of Providonce has raised up to 
 intluenco tlie oi)inions and doctrines of mankind tlirougli a long succes- 
 sion of ages. The wliole subject, whetlicr viewed witli ixrlation to tlio 
 extraordinary rise and progress, cither of tlie founder personally, or of 
 system itself, cannot ho otherwise than one of the deepest interest, 
 nor can there bo any doubt but that, of those who have investigated 
 and considered the comparative merits ot Mohanimadanism and 
 Christianity, there arc few who have not at times telt coidoundcd at 
 the survey, and been corajielled not only to admit that even the lorinor 
 must have been ordained for many wise and beneficent purposes, but 
 even to conlide in its instrumentality in the production, at least, of 
 much eventual good.” The same author goes on to remark that “ the 
 first revivers of philosophy and the sciences, the link, as they have 
 been termed, between ancient and modern literature, were, most 
 undoubtedly, according to every species of testimony, the Saracens of 
 Asia and tiie Moors of Spain, under the Ahassido ami Omniiado 
 C’aliphs. Letters which originally came to Luropofrom the East were 
 brought thither, a second time, by the genius of ilobammachvuism. 
 It is well known that arts and sciences flourished among the Arabians 
 for almost six hunth’cd years ; whilst among us rude barbarism reigned, 
 and literature became almost extinct.” . . . “ And again, ‘ It 
 
 must be owned, that all the knowledge, whether of physic, astronomy, 
 philosophy, or mathematics, whicli flourished in Europe from the 
 tenth century, was originally derived from the Arabian schools ; and 
 that the Spanish Saracens, in a more particular manner, may be look- 
 ed upon as the fathers of European philosophy.’ ” “ But to resume,” 
 
 says the same author, '• Europe is still further indebted to Moham- 
 madanism ; for, not to mention that to tire struggles during the Cru- 
 sades we mainly owe the abolition of the onerous parts of the feudal 
 system, and the destruction of those aristocratic despotism on the ruins 
 of which arose the proudest bulwark of our liberties, Europe is to be 
 reminded that she is indebted to the followers of Mohammad, as the 
 link which connects ancient and modern literature, for the preservation, 
 during a long reign of Western darkness, of the works of many of the 
 Greek phliosophers, and for the cultivation of some of the most impor- 
 tant branches of science, mathematics, medicine, etc., which are high- 
 ly indebted to their labours.” 
 
 The ivriter of au excellent article upon Mohammadanism in 
 Chambers’s Cyclopasdia, observes as follows : 
 
 “ That part of Islam, however, which has undergone the least 
 changes ... in the course of time, and which most distinctly 
 reveals the mind of its author, is also its most complete and its most 
 shining part — we mean the ethics of the Koran. Injustice, falsehood, 
 pride, revengefulness, calumny,mockery,avarice, prodigality, debauchery, 
 mistrust and suspicion are inveighed against as ungodly and wicked; ndjile 
 benvolence, liberality, modesty, forbearance, pa \snce and endurance. 
 
( 4 ) 
 
 frugality, sincerity, straight-forwardness, decency, love of peace and 
 truth, and, above all, trusting in God and submitting to His will, are con- 
 sidered as the pillars of true piety and the principal signs of a true 
 believei-.” 
 
 The same writer goes on to remark as follows ; — 
 
 “We cannot consider in this place what Islam has done for the cause 
 of all humanity, or, more exactly, what was its precise share in the 
 development ot science and art in Europe. Broadly speaking, the 
 Mohammadans may be said to have been the enlightened teachers of 
 barbarous Europe, from the ninth to the thirteenth century. It is 
 from the glorious days of Abbaside rulers that the real renaissance of 
 Greek spirit and Greek culture is to be dated. Classical literature 
 would have been irredeemably lost had it not been for the home it 
 found in the schools of the ‘ unbelievers’ of the ‘ dark ages.’ Arabic 
 philosophy, medicine, natural history, geography, history, grammar, 
 rhetoric, and the ‘ golden art of poetry,’ schooled by the old Hellenic 
 masters, brought forth an abundant harvest of works, many of which 
 will live and teach as long as there will be generations to be taught.” 
 The writer of an Essay, entitled “ Islam as a Political System,” 
 inserted in the “ East and the West,” enumerates in the following 
 passage the advantages that human society derived from Islam : — 
 “ Islam put an end to infanticide, then prevalent in the surrounding 
 countries. Christianity might have equally opposed, but was not 
 equally successful. It put an end to slavery, the adscription to the 
 soil. It gave equality of political rights, and administered even-handed 
 justice, not only to those who professed its religion, but to those who 
 were conquered by its arm.s. It reduced taxation, the sole tribute to 
 the State, consisting of the tenth. It freed commerce from all charges 
 and impediments ; it freed the professors of other faiths from all forced 
 contributions to their church or their clergy, and from all religions 
 contributions whatever to the dominant creed. It communicated all 
 the privileges of the conquering class to those of the con- 
 quered who conformed to its religion, and all the protection of 
 citizenship to those who did not. It secured property, abolished usury, 
 and the private revenge of blood. It inculcated cleanliness and 
 sobriety ; it did not inculcate them only, but it produced and estab- 
 lished them. It put an end to licentiousness, and associated with 
 charity to the poor the forms of respect for all.” 
 
 “ The results produced by Islam,” continues the same writer, 
 “ seem too vast, too profound too permanent, to allow us to believe 
 that the human mind coiild anticipate them, far less adjust the scheme ; 
 thence the disposition to take refuge in chance, or providential instead 
 of applying to it the process of reasoning by which we estimate the effects 
 of the laws of Solon or the triumphs of Timoleou. Nevertheless, this 
 scheme was framed by a single man, who filled with his own spirit 
 those were in immediate contact with him, and impressed a whole 
 people with the profoundest veneration of which men ever was the 
 object. The system of laws and morals which he formed agreed 
 •qally with the highest development as with the lowest level of society. 
 
( •'i ) 
 
 whii'h, durinof <on oonturiea, passing from race to race, made every 
 people by whom it was receiveti superior to, and triinphant over, the 
 nations and empires with whieli they came in contact.” 
 
 Tliomas Carlyle, in his “ Lectures on Heroes,” remarks on the 
 subject under consideration, as follows : To the Arab nation it (Islam) 
 
 wiis as a birth from darkness into light ; Arabia first became alive by 
 means of it. A poor shejjherd people, roaming unnoticed in its deserts 
 since tlie creation of tlie word ; a Hero-Prophet was sent down to them 
 with a word they could believe : see, the unnoticed becomes world- 
 notable, the small has grown world-great ; within one century 
 afterwards Arabia is at Granada on his hand and at Delhi on that ; — 
 glancing in valour and splendour and the light of genius, Arabia shines 
 tlirough long ages over a great section of the world. Belief is great, 
 life-giving. Tlie history of a nation becomes fruitful, soul-elevating, 
 great, so soon as it believes. These Arabs, the man Moliammad, and 
 that one century, — is it not as if a spark had fallen, one spark, on a 
 world of what seemed black unnoticeable sand ; but lo ! the sand proves 
 explosive powder, blazes heaven-high, from Delhi to Granada !” 
 
 SscriON II . — Rff station of the Opinion that Islam has been 
 Injurious to Human Society. 
 
 Sir Wra. Muir states that, “ setting aside considerations of minor 
 import, three radical evils flow from the faith. . . . First ; Poly- 
 
 gamy, Divoire, and Slavery are maintained and perpetuated ; — strik- 
 ing as they do, at the root of public morals, poisoning public life 
 and disorganizing society. Second : Freedom of judgment in religion 
 is crushed and annihilated. Toleration is unknown. Third : A 
 
 barrier has been interposed against the reception of Christianity.” 
 We shall consider every one of these evils singly and separately. 
 
 It is a great mistake to suppose that by Islam polygamy is made 
 compulsory upon its followers, on the contrary, the general practice 
 of it is not even recommended, the privileged use of it being reserved 
 for such as for physical reasons may stand in need of it, but in the 
 absence of such an excuse the indulgence in it is wholly contrary to 
 the virtues and morality taught by Islam. 
 
 Unfortunately, however, no small impediment is thrown in the 
 way of a calm and candid investigation of the subject by the antagon- 
 ism which exists between the manners, customs, and modes of thought 
 of one nation and those of another. Thus, the very word polygamy 
 suggests to Christians ideas so offensive that they enter upon any 
 discussion respecting the practice with minds almost predetermined to 
 find in it nothing but an unmitigated evil, and without inquiring how 
 far it may be justified by the requirement of climate, the comparative 
 number of the sexes, and by various physiological and social 
 reasons. 
 
 We propose to consider this subject from three points of view, 
 namely. Nature, Society, and Religion, 
 
( G ) 
 
 For the clue consideratioTi of the first point, it will be neccessary 
 to ascertain, if possible, what has been the will or intention of the 
 Creator of all living creatures as regards this subject, or, in other words, 
 whether lie intended man to bo universally polygamistio or not. Now 
 this His intention, can, we apprehend, be read clearly and indisputably 
 in all the works of nature, for it is evidently impossible that His w'ill 
 should be at vaiuance wdth the productions of it ; and, accordingly, 
 from the unerring manifestations of nature we learn that such beings 
 as are intended by their Creator to be monogamistic invariably bring 
 forth their young, in pairs, one of the two being a male and the other 
 a female. Those, on the other hand, that are intended to be poly- 
 gamistic are delivered of one or more, no relative proportion of 
 sex being observed. According to this law of nature man falls 
 under the second head ; but as, by his position, and by the rare 
 and precious endowment of reason, he is raised far above all 
 other sentient beings, so is he requh'ed to use all those powers, 
 rights, and privileges bestowed upon him by nature in common with 
 the other beings around him, with caution, and in harmony with his 
 physical, social, and political liabilities, as well as with the laws of 
 hygiene and the influences of the climate in which he lives. 
 
 Secondly : Man is, by his very nature, a social being ; and 
 
 therefore, as God saw “ it was not good for man to be alone,” he made 
 “ a help for him,” which is woman — one who was destined to share 
 with him the cares and the amenities, the sorrows and pleasures, of 
 life ; to increase his happiness and diminish his affliction by her 
 tender sympathy — one, lastly, who was to contribute, with himself, 
 to carry out that great, that all-important command, “ Increase and 
 multiply, and replenish the earth.” When, however, from whatever 
 cause, this helpmite fails to perform her natural duty, some re- 
 medy must surely have been appointed by the All-wise Creator to 
 meet the exigency, and that remedy is polyg.amy — that is, the act of 
 a man’s marrying either more than one wife at one and the same time, 
 or after divorcing the former one. The latter privilege is allowed to 
 the wife in the event of the husband’s incompetency, with this reason- 
 able diflerence only, that man can have recourse to his remedy when 
 he so wills, while the wife must first obtain a legal authorization for 
 the act. 
 
 If this remedy, whose necessity we have proved both by natural 
 and social laws — the tendency of both which descriptions of laws is 
 pretty nearly the same — had been denied to man, society would have 
 grealy suffered thereby, since man w'ould have boon led, inconsequence 
 to commit vices and crimes of the deepest dye. 
 
 Again, in order to prevent persons from running into execss — 
 which is at all tinms bad, and sometimes dangerous — and to ren- 
 der it certain that the person so having recrourse to polygamy 
 was impelled by a real necessity, many stringent restrictions and 
 biuding regulations have been established, such as the observance of 
 
( 7 ) 
 
 ncrfeL-t eciuality of rights and privileges, lovo and aflection, among all 
 wives etc., etc. Tliese restrictions and regulations materially servo 
 to prevent truly pious and religious persons from indulging in 
 polvgamv, for they almost immediately discover that the availing 
 thcni^solve’s of this privilege, without fulHlling its conditions and 
 observing its regulations, which are so strict as to he extremely diflicult 
 to bo complied with, is incompatible with the duo and faithful dis- 
 charge of their religious duties. No doubt the institution of polygamy 
 atlords many facilities to the libertine, ns well as to all whose solo 
 object in life is the nnrostrained gratitication of their animal appetites ; 
 but for this abuse of a benetieial institution they w ill he amenable to 
 the Great Searcher of the human heart, who will most assuredly, 
 mete out to them the punishment due to their oifence. 
 
 AVe cannot allow to pass unnoticed the remarks of Mr. Higgins, 
 and. after him, those of Mr. Davenport, in favour of polygam\-. It 
 is to be re-rretted that both these gentlemen should have viewed 
 polvgamv from one j)oint of view only — namely, a physiological one — 
 whereas our religion has granted this liberty, not only from physiolo- 
 gical considerations, but, as we have above stated, to afford a reractly 
 for tlie embitterments of conjugal life. Mr. Davenport says 
 “With respect to the physiological reasons for polygamy it has been 
 observed by the celebrated Jlontesquieu that women, in hot countries, 
 arc marriageable at eight, nine, or ten years of age ; — thus, in those 
 countries, mfaney and marriage almost always go together. They 
 are old at twenty. ... It is, therefore, extremely natural that 
 in these places a man, when no law opposes it, shonhl leave one with 
 to tiike another, and that polygamy should be introduced.” 
 
 Mr. Higgins writes that “ Biologists and natural philosophers 
 have found other reasons which might serve ns some apology for this 
 allowance (polygamy), which will not apply jto us cold-blooded, frog- 
 like animals of Northern climates, though they may bo applicable to 
 the descendants of Ishmael, natives of the scorching sands of the desert.” 
 Again, he says, “ I find it asserted in the Oriental collections of Sir 
 AV. Onseley, page 108, that ‘ the warm regions of Asia make a differ- 
 ence between the sexes not known to the climates of Europe, where 
 the decay of each is mutual and gradual ; whereas in Asia it is given 
 to man alone to arriv’e at a green old age.’ If this be true, it goes 
 far to excuse Mohammad in allowing a plurality of wives, and it 
 sufficiently accounts for the-fiict that Jesus never expressly declared 
 himself njjon this subject, but left it to the regulation of the govern- 
 ments of countries, as it was evident that what would be proper for 
 Asia would be improper for Europe.” Nor should we be justihed in 
 leaving out from our impartial consideration the deplorable morals 
 that were in general practice shortly previous to the advent of Moham- 
 mad. Persia stood foremost iu the corruptness of her morals. The 
 laws of marriage were set aside. Respect and regard to relationship, 
 however close or distant, were not at all observed. A mother was as 
 lawful to her son as a daughter to her father, or a sister to her brother ; 
 in fact, they may justly be compared to a flock of animals, which are 
 
( 8 ) 
 
 guided by no law whatever. When we turn our attention to a little 
 north-west of Persia, a locality mostly inhabited by Jews, we find that 
 polygamy was a general practice, without any restrictions, Arabia, 
 again, affords us a perfect combination of the customs of the Persians 
 and the Jews, where there was no end to the number of wives, and 
 where no law guided the people in their choice. All women, with- 
 out any distinction of rank, age, or relation, served alike to the brutal 
 appetites of the male sex. When we look upon the Christianity of that 
 age — if it can be called Christianity at all— we see many of her pro- 
 fessors pursuing a course diametrically opposite to the above-mentioned 
 one ; we mean the somewhat general practice of celibacy. In short, 
 it was amidst this mental and intellectual darkness, and the 
 corruptions and depravity of the manners and morals which enveloped 
 the world on all sides, that Mohammad’s genius codified a law, so 
 perfect in its nature, so consistent with reason and propriety, so 
 conducive to the health and prosperity of society, and so beneficial to- 
 the matrimonial existence of both the parties interested. 
 
 Thirdly : When the subject is considered from a religious point 
 
 of view, we find that polygamy is nowhere prohibited in Jud<iism and 
 Christianity, which at present are, besides Islam, the only two inspired 
 religions in the world. For the support of our assertion we shall 
 quote the remarks of a few eminent Ckrislian authors in favour of 
 polygamy. Higgins states that “ because Mohammad, following the 
 example of the legislator of the oldest ceremonial religion west of the 
 Euphrates, and, as all Christians maintain, of the world — Moses — 
 allowed his people, the descendants of Ishmael, the son of the father 
 of the faithful, a plurality of wives, he has been constantly abused by 
 Christians, to use their own words, for 'pandering to the base passions 
 of his followers. But why the allowance of a plurality of wives should 
 be visited with such very harsh censure, I do not know. Surely the 
 example of Solomon, and David — the man after God’s own heart, which 
 He had found to fulfil His law — might plead for a little mercy, more 
 especially as Jesus nowhere expressly forbids, in any one of the twenty 
 Gospels which were written by some or other of the multitude of the 
 sects of his followers, to record his commands.” Davenport states ; — 
 “ As to the lawfulness of polygamy, it will be seen, by referring to 
 the following passages in Scripture, that it was not only approved, 
 but even blessed, by Jehovah himself — Gen. xxx. 22 ; Exodus xxi. 11 ; 
 Deut. xvii. 17 : 1 Sam. iv. 1, 2, 11. 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 42, 43; 2 
 Sam xli. 8 ; 2 Sam v. 12 ; Judges x. viii. 30 ; Judges 4 ; Judges xii. 
 9, 14.” 
 
 But the most distinguished and talented defender of polygamy was 
 the celebrated John Milton, who, after quoting numberless passages 
 from the Bible in defence of the practice says : — “ Moreover God, in 
 an allogorical fiction (Ezekiel), represents himself as having espoused 
 two wives, Aholah and Aholiah — a mode of speaking which Jehovah 
 would by no means have employed, especially at such length, even 
 in a parable, nor, indeed, have taken upon himself such a character 
 at all, if the practice which it implied had been, intrinsically dis- 
 honorable or shameful. On what ground, then, can a practice consider 
 
( 9 ) 
 
 so ilisliouoiirablo orslmmeful which is pi-obibitod to no one, even under 
 tba Gospel ; foi that dispensation annuls none of the merely civil ro- 
 culations wbicb existed ))rovionsly to its introduction. . Last- 
 
 Iv,” continues Milton, “ 1 argue as follows, from Hebrews xiii. 4 ; Toly- 
 •'n’lny is either marriage, fornication, or adultery. The Apostle recog- 
 nizes no fourth state. Reverence for so many patriarchs who wero 
 jiolygainists will, I tru.st, deter every one from considering it as forni- 
 cition or adultery ; for ‘ whoremongers and adulterers God will judge; 
 whereas the patriarchs wore the objects of Ilis special favour, as Ho 
 liiinself witnesses. If, then, p.ilygamy be marriage, properly so called, 
 it is also lawful and honourable. According to the same Apostle, 
 ' Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed uudeiiled.’ ” 
 
 The subject of Polygamy has bean eou.sidercd from throe different 
 points of view — Xauiro, Society, and Religion ; but as it is not necessary 
 to consid'T Divorce with regard to the first of the above subjects, it will 
 ba discussed only in connection with the other two. 
 
 Considering the univers.ality of the institution of marriage among 
 all nations, both ancient and modern, and its general recognition as the 
 basis of m in’s iiulividu.il and social happiness, whatever tenJ.s to lessen 
 its iuflueuce must ever be regarded as a serious evil. 
 
 Hence the Church of Koine has thrown around marriage the halo 
 of sanctity by making it one of her Seven Sacraments, as the best 
 means of its defence ; while Protestant England, with the like view, 
 made a decree for divorce— only attainable by a very expensive appeal 
 to the House of Lords an arrangement which lasted till the year 1856, 
 ■when a new Court of Justice was created to take cognizance of all cases 
 of divorce, and determine their merits by the verdict of a J ury. 
 
 Generally speaking, divorce is the greatest of enemies to society, 
 by diminishing the respect due to maniage, and destroying man’s 
 confidence in woman’s fidelity. It cannot, however, be denied that 
 divorce has also its advantages : it releases either the husband or the 
 
 wife, whose incompatibility of disposition, violence of tem])er, or frailty, 
 embittered the life of both. But, while being thus a benefit to the 
 individual, divorce is not the less injurious to society by the scenes of 
 immorality too often blazoned before the public, and also by the injurious 
 effect which the separation of their parents must have upon the children 
 of the parties. Such being the eiils which follow in the train of 
 divorce, the having recourse to it as a remedy can only he justified 
 when its non-adoption would cause miseries still more unbearable, cares 
 and anxieties still more annoying, and daily increasing animosities ami 
 mutual recriminations. 
 
 Our Prophet neither underrated ixor overvalued divorce. He 
 constantly pointed out to his followers how opposed it was to the 
 best interests of society ; he always expatiated upon the evils which 
 flowed from it, and ever exhorted, his disciples to treat women with 
 respect and kindness, and to bear patiently their violence and ill- 
 temper ; and he always spoke of those who availed themselves of divorce 
 
( 10 ) 
 
 in a severe and disparaging manner • so tliat many a person was led 
 into the mistake that they who had reconrse to divorce, and the}’ who 
 shed human blood, were guilty of crimes of equal atrocity. Notwith- 
 standing, however, Mohammad’s rooted antipatliy to divorce, he gave it 
 the importance and consideration it justly claimed and merited. He 
 allowed it under circumstances when it could not fail to prove a valu- 
 able boon ; when it either entirely removed, or at least greatly alleviat- 
 ed, the cares, troubles, and ombittermeuts of wedded life; and when, if 
 not taken advantage of, society would suffer still more than it already 
 did. In such cases divorce is far from being a disadvantage to .society ; 
 it is, on the conti’ary, a blessing and an efficient means of bettering 
 the social condition. Mohammad did not restrict himself to nieiely 
 allowing divorce to be adopted under certain circumstances ; he permit- 
 ted to divorced parties three several distinct and separate periods with- 
 in which they might endeavour to become reconciled and renew their 
 conjugal intercourse ; but should all their attempts to become reconciled 
 prove unsuccessful, then third period, in which the final separation was 
 declared to have arrived, supervened. 
 
 Mahmood, son of Waleed, narrates a tradition that the Prophet 
 was apprised of a certain individual who had given to. his wife these 
 three sejjarate notices of divorce atone and the same time, and that then 
 the Prophet, becoming exceedingly wrath, addressed the party thus : 
 “ Darest thou thus trifle with the commands of God, and that even in 
 my presence !*” Observing that the Prophet was greatly excited and 
 angry, a pex’son, approaching liim, asked “ Shall I go and slay tlie 
 offender ?” for by the wrath of the Prophet ho was erroneously led to 
 suppose tliat the crime committed was grate enough to merit that 
 severe punishment.’* 
 
 In like manner the Prophet had said that “ a woman who demands 
 divorce without strong and unavoidable necessity, will ever remain a 
 stranger to the fragrance of Paradise. 
 
 The reader will find all these traditions expressly mentioned in 
 Mishkat, in the chapter appropriated to “ Divorce.” 
 
 Now, it will be evident to every reflecting reader that the 
 indulgence of divorce allowed by Islam, under such circumstances as 
 those above specified, is not in tlie least repugnant to the laws of 
 society, but, on the contrary, is greatly conducive to its lieallh, pros- 
 perity, and welfare. 
 
 Contemplating the subject from a religious point of view, we find 
 that in Judaism, divorce is allowed in all cases and under all circum- 
 stances, and that even Christians admit its propriety and lawfulness m 
 one instance ; but John Milton has almost exhausted the subject by 
 his able ami learned treatment of it ; and we cannot resist the 
 tem|»tation of quoting the following passage from his work, entitled 
 “ A Treati.sc on Christian Doctrine ” ; — 
 
 Marriage, by its definition, is a union of the most intimate 
 
( 11 ) 
 
 nfttiue, bnt not iiuiissolul)lo or iiuli visible, as some conten<l, on tlio 
 gr.nuul of its being subjoineil, Matt. xix. they Uvo sha// be one /les/t. 
 Tlieso worJs, properly considered, do not imply that marriatre is 
 absolutely indi.s.sohible, but only that it ought not to bo lightly 
 dissolved. For it is upon the institution itself and the due observance 
 of all its parts, that what follows respecting the indissolubility of 
 marriage depemls, whether the words bo considered in the li Jit of a 
 command, or of a natural con ^cquenco. Hence it is sai'l, /or this cause 
 shall a man leare father and mother . . . and they Uco shall be one 
 
 flesh ; that is to say, if, according to the nature of the institution, as 
 laid down in the jircceding verses, Gen. ii. 18-20, the wife be an 
 help meet for the husband ; or, in other words, if good-will love, help, 
 comfort, fidelity remain unshaken on both sides, which, according to 
 universal acknowledgment, is the essential form of marriage. 13ut if 
 the essential form bo dissolved, it follows that the marriage itself is 
 virtually dissolved. 
 
 “ Great stress, however, is laid upon an expression in the next 
 verse — what God heilh joined together, let not man put asunder. 
 ■\Vhat it is that God h.ith joine.l together the institution of 
 marriage itself declares. God has only joined what admits of 
 union what is suitable, wh.at is good, what is honourable; he has not 
 made provision for unnatural and monstrous associations, pregnant only 
 with dishonour, with misety, with hatred, and with calamity. It is not 
 God who forms such unions, hut violence, or rashness, or error, or llie 
 influence of some evil ;.enius. Why, then, should it be unlawful to 
 deliver ourselves from so pressing an intestine evil ? Further, our 
 doctrine does not separate those whom God has joined together in the 
 spirit of his sacred institution, but only those whom God has him- 
 self separated by the authority of his equally sacred law ; an authority 
 which ought to have the same force wJth us now as with His people of 
 old. As to Christian jrerfectiou, the promotion of which is urged by 
 some as an argument for the iudissol^ibility of marriage, that perfection 
 is not to be forced upon us by compulsion and penal laws, but must be pro- 
 duced, if at all, by exhortation audChristianadmouition. Then only can 
 man be properly said to dissolve a marriage lawfully contracted, when, 
 adding to the Divine ordinance what the ordinance itself does not contain, 
 be separates under pretence of religion whomsoever it .suits his purpose. 
 For it ought to be remembered that God, in His just and pure and holy 
 law, has not only permitted divorce on a variety of grounds, but has 
 even ratified it in some cases, and enjoined it in others, under severe.st 
 penalties. — Ex. xxi. ■f, 10, 11 ; Dent. xxi. 14, xxiv. 1 ; Ezra x. 3 j 
 Isebem. xiii. 23, 30. 
 
 “ The third passage is Dent. xxiv. 1 : When a ?nan hath taken a 
 
 wife, and married her, and it come to 2mss that she find no favour in his 
 eyes, because he hath found some nncleanness in her, then let him write her 
 a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and se?id her out of Ids house. 
 There is no room here for the charge of hardness of heart, supposing 
 the cause alleged to be a true and not fictitious one. For since, as i.s 
 evident from the institution itself, God gave a wife to man at the begin- 
 
( 12 ) 
 
 ning to tlie intent that she should be his help and solace and delight, if 
 as often happens, she should eventually prove to be rather a source of 
 sorrow, of disgrace, of ruin, of torment, of calamitj', why should we 
 think that we are displeasing God by divorcing such a one 1 1 should 
 
 attribute hardness of heart rather to him who retained her, than to 
 him who sent her away under such circumstances ; and not I alone, 
 but Solomon lumself, or, rather, the spirit of Go.l itself speaking by 
 the mouth of Solomon. — Prov. xxx. 21, 23 : jFor three things 
 
 the earth is disquieted) and for four which it cannot bear ; /or an 
 odious woman vihen she is married. On the contiary, Eccles. i.v. 9 ; Live 
 joyfully roith the wife whom thou lovest all the days of the life of thy vanity 
 tohich He hath given thee the wife therefore which He hath given thee is 
 she whom thou lovest, not she whom thou hatest ; and thus, Mai. ii. IG, 
 whoever hateth, or, because he hateth, let him dismiss her, as all, before 
 Junius, explain the passage. God therefore appears to by that of the 
 Prophet, with the view, not of giving scope to the hard-heartedness of 
 the husband, but of rescuing the unhappy wife from its influence 
 wherever the case required it. For there is no hard-heartedness in 
 dismissing honourably and freely her whose own fault it is that she is 
 not loved. That one who i.s not beloved, who is, on the contrary, 
 deservedly neglected and an object of dislike and harted ; that a wife 
 thus situated should be retained, in pursuance of a most vexatious law 
 under a yoke of the heaviest slavery (for such is marriage without 
 love) to one who entertains for her neither attachment nor friendship, 
 would indeed be a hardship more cruel than any divorce whatever. 
 God therfore gave laws of divorce, in their proper use most equitable 
 and humane ; He even extended the benefit of them to those whom 
 He knew would abuse them through the hardness of their hearts, think- 
 ing it better to bear with the obduracy of the wicked than to refrain 
 from alleviating the misery of the righteous, or suffer the institution it- 
 self to be subverted, which, from a Divine blessing, was in danger of 
 becoming the bitterest of all calamities. 
 
 “Ctirist hiTiiself, v. 9, permitted divoce for the cause of fornication, 
 which could not have been, if those whom God had once joined in the 
 bands of matrimony were never afterwards to be disunited. According 
 to the idiom of the-Eastern langtiagcs, however, the word fornication 
 signfics, not adultery only, but eitlmr what is called any unclean thing, 
 or a defect in some particular which might justly be required in a wife, 
 Pent. XXIV. 1 (as Selden was the first to prove by numerous 
 Rabbinical testimonies in his Uxor Hehrcca) ; or it signifies 
 whatever is found to bo irreconcilably that variance with love, 
 or fidelity, or help, or society, that is, with the objects of the 
 original institution, — as Selden jrroves, and as 1 have myself 
 ehown, in another treatise, from several texts of Scripture. For 
 it would have been absurd, when the Pharisees asked whether 
 it was allowable to put away a wife for every cause, to answer 
 that it was not lawful, except in case of adultery, when it was 
 well known already to be not only lawful but necessary to put 
 away an adulteress, and that, not by divorce, but by death. 
 Fornication, therefore must bo here understood in a much wider 
 
( 13 ) 
 
 fiensft tlian that of simple adultery, as is clear from many passapfcs 
 of Scriptiii’c, ami particularly Iroin Judges xix. 2 : — /ns concubine 
 j)/a>/ed the whore against him) not by committing adultery, lor 
 ill that case she would not have dared to flee to her father’s house, 
 hut hy i-efractory behaviour towards her husband. Nor could Paul 
 have allowed divorce in consequence of the departure of an 
 \ii\heliever, unless this also were a species of fornication. It docs 
 not afl’oct the question that case alluded to is that of a heathen 
 since whoever deserts her family is worse t/ian an infidel 1 Tim. v. 8 
 Nor could anything he more natural or more agreeable to the 
 original institution than that the bond which had been formed by 
 love, and the hope of mutual assistance through life, and honour- 
 able moti\'es, should be dissolved by haired and implacable enmity and 
 disgraceful conduct on either side For man, therefore, in his state 
 of innocence in Paradise, previously to the entrance of sin into the 
 world, God ordained that marriage should be indis.soluble ; after the 
 fall, in compliance with the alteration of circumstances, and to prevent 
 the innocent from being exposed to perpetual injury from the wicked, 
 he permitted its dissolution, and this permission forms part of the law 
 of nature and of AJose?, and is not disallowed by Christ. Thus every 
 covenant, when originally concluded, is intended to be perpetual and 
 indissoluble, however soon it may be broken by the bad faith of one of 
 the parties, nor has any good reason vet been given why marriage 
 should differ in this respect from all other contracts, especially since the 
 apostle has pronounced that a brother or a sister is not under bondage, not 
 merely in a case of desertion, but in such cases, that is, in all cases that 
 produce an unworthy bondage, 1 Cor. vii. 15 : a brother or a sister is 
 not under bondage in such cases ; but God /lath called us in j>eace, or to 
 fecLce) He has not therefore called us to the end that we should be 
 harassed with constant discord and vexations, for the object of our call 
 as peace and liberty, — not marriage, much less perpetual discord and 
 the slavish bondage of an unha[ipy union, which the Apostle declares to 
 be, above all things, unw'orthy of a free man and a Christian. It is 
 not to be supposed that Christ would expunge from the Mosaic law any 
 enactment which could afford scope for the exercise of mercy towards 
 the xvretched and afflicted, or that his declaration on the present 
 occasion was intended to have the force of a judicial decree, ordaining 
 new and severer regulations on the subject ; but that, having exposed 
 the abuses of the lawq he proceeded after his usual manner to lay down 
 a more perfect rule of conduct, disclaiming on this, as on all other 
 occasions, the office of a judge, and inculcating truth by simple 
 admonition, not by compulsory decrees. It is therefore a most flagrant 
 error to convert a Gospel precept into a civil statute, and enfoice it by 
 legal penalties.” 
 
 One of the gravest charges which has been brought against 
 Islam, and which is represented to be hostile to the laws of society, is 
 the lawfulness of slavery. We say “ hostile to the laws of society,” since 
 -on viewing the subject through a religious medium, neither Jews ncr 
 Christians can be bold enough to find fault with or object to it, since 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 almost every p.i,<?e of the Old Testament teems with passages which 
 admit the legality of slavery, and since there is nowhere to be found in 
 the iQew one a single passage that forbids the same iniiurnan practice. 
 Before making any remarks of our own upon this subject, we shall quote 
 the following remarks of Godfrey Higgins : — 
 
 “ It seems unfortunat* for the cause of humanity that neither 
 Jesus nor Mohammad should have thou^lit it right to abolish slav'ery. 
 It may be said that when they directed their proselytes to do to otliers 
 as they would be done unto, they virtually abolished it. Tiiis is plau- 
 sible but unfortunately it is not in practice true. Tl\e domestic slavery 
 of the Muhammadans is no doubt indefensible, but what is this compar- 
 ed to the cruelty and horrors of the African s'ave trade, and the plan- 
 tations of the West Indies? We hear enough in all conscii-nce of 
 Popes of Rome and Archbishops of Canterbury, of Councils and Con- 
 vocations, of Bulls, Articles, Canons, and Concordates ; but when did 
 we ever hear of any public act of these men against this horrible 
 traffic? Show me the Bull, show me the Canon or Act of Convocation. 
 The Bishops of Rome and Canterbury themselves deserve the epithet 
 of panders to the base j^assiotis of their followers, which they give to 
 Mohammad, for not having, when the atrocity of this traffic was clearly 
 proved, excommunicated all those engaged in cari-ying it on, as was 
 done by the Quakers. 
 
 “ I am aware that they may make a plausible defence, by alleging 
 that they cannot excommunicato a man for the fact of being the owner 
 of slaves because the legality of slavery is admitted in almost every 
 page of the Gospels and Epistles ; as wherever the word servus, 
 is found and translated servant, the word used ought to be slave — the 
 word servus literally meaning a person bought or sold in a market, the 
 freedman answering to our hired servant. But if domestic slavery be 
 unfortunately allowed to Christians, it by no means follows that the 
 African slave trade is allowed, the horrors of which could never have 
 been suspected by the ancients, and which in every respect differs from 
 their domestic slavery. 
 
 “ Although jthe Prophet did not, as he ought to have done, abolish 
 that horrid custom, he did not leave it altogether unnoticed, but, in 
 declaring that all Mohammadans arc brothers, and that no man should 
 hold his brother in slavery, he at once liberated a vast mass of 
 mankind. The moment a slave declares himself a believer he is free. 
 Although Mohammad did not in this go so far as he ought to have 
 done yet he did something, and that was better than nothing ; and 
 while it has probably induced some to avow themselves prostlytes 
 without convi tion (on which account it will be reprobated and 
 attributed to a bad motive by the pious Christian, whose zeal is warmed 
 by a live coal from oft’ the alter), yet it has saved from misery millions 
 upon millions. Another modilication of slavey, cr alleviation of its 
 evils, is to be found in the ordinance, that in the sale of slaves the 
 mother shall on no account be separated from the children — a crime 
 committed by our West Indiana every day, I have not observed any 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 ordiiianco of this kind in tlie Gosjicls ; llicreforo Moliatumad did not 
 copy it from flieni. 
 
 “ We make many jn-ofessions of a wish to convert the poor 
 Negroes; I advise o»ir Missionary Societies to use their enoiinous wealtli 
 in giving the Negroes their freedom as soon as converted, declaring 
 them brothers, after the example of the Mohammadans. I can assure 
 them that this will make more proselytes than all their sermons. 
 
 “The JVestminster AVriVw says: — ‘His law of .‘lavery is, “If 
 slaves come to yon, you shall" — «<?/ imprison and then sell by public 
 sale, though no claimant appears, as in the ninetventh century 
 is tne law of Christian England in her i>rovinces, but — “ re- 
 deem them ; — and it is forbidden to you tc send them forth.” And 
 this was a man standing up iu the wilds of Arabia in the seventh cen- 
 tury. 
 
 “ Mohammad says ‘ Unto such of yonr slaves as desire a written 
 instrument, allowing them to redeem themselves on paying a certain 
 sum, write one ; and if ye know good in them, give them of the riches 
 of God which He hath given you.’ 1 have not found this iu the 
 Gospels." 
 
 With all due thanks to that learned author for his tolented and warm 
 defence of Islam, we would observe that, to his remark, “ Another 
 moditicatiou of slavery, or alleviation of its evils, is to be found in the 
 ordinance, that in the sale of slaves the mother shall on no account be 
 separated from the childern," may be added several other ordinance 
 wliich were equally well suited for the “ modiheation of slavery" and 
 “ the alleviation of its evils.” The following ordinance greatly contribute 
 to the abolition of slavery : — “ All persons in your posession are your bro- 
 thers, both of you being of one human race ; therefore treat theni with 
 kindness, feed them and clothe them in the same manner as you do your- 
 selves.” The above ordiuauce produced so much effect upon the minds of 
 the people, that all persons in former times clothed their slaves with the 
 same cloth which they themselves wore, allowed them to sit along with 
 themselves at the same table and partake of the same food as they did, 
 and when on the slave used to ride ou the same camel, and walk by 
 turns. 
 
 In his splendid Caliphate, Omar, consider him as you may — 
 either as a successor of the Prophet, or as the monarch of the greatest 
 empire of the world — used to lead, by the nose-string, in the burning 
 sands and scorching wind with mingled emotions of delight and self- 
 approval, the camel mounted by his slave, whose turn it was to ride. 
 Fatimah, the Prophet’s daughter, used to sit with her female slaves, 
 and grind wheat together, so that the labour and trouble might fall 
 equally on both. If this he the slavery which Wir Wni. Muir represents 
 as “ disorganizing society,’’ we cannot conceive what equality of 
 rights would be. Such a slavery, indeed — .if slavery it can be called 
 at all — would highly organize society and impro\ e public morals. The 
 Prophet went further, and ordered that no one should address his male 
 
( ^6 ) 
 
 or female slaves by that degrading appellation, but by the more decent 
 iis well as aSectionate nime of “ My young men,” or *• My young 
 maid.” According to his order, no act upon earth is more mcitoj ious, 
 more desers'ing of God’s favour and blessing, than the granting of 
 liberty to slaves ; and Mohammad concentrated his chief pleasure in 
 this. All the above will be found in Bokharee, in the chapter devoted 
 to the freedom of slaves. To the remark of Mr. Higgins that “ it 
 is unfortunate for the cause of humanity; that neither Jesus noi’ 
 Alohatnmad should have thought it rii;ht to abolish slavery,” we wish 
 to add that Mo ;ammad did almost entirely abolish slavery. 
 
 The rules by which one man became the slave of otliers, in 
 ancient times, and which were in force among the Pagans, and also 
 upheid by the sacred lawgiver, Moses, were practised in Arabia so late 
 even as in the lifetime of the Prophet ; but lie in a very short time 
 entirely rejected all those rules ; so that all that can be found in Islam 
 relative to slavery is the following verse of the Koran : — “ When ye 
 encounter the imbelieveis, strike olf their heads, until ye have made a 
 great slaughter, and bind them in bonds, and either give them a free 
 dismission afterwards, or exact a i-ansom, until the war shall have laid 
 down its arms” (chap, vlvii. It will be evident from the above 
 
 passage that tlie order for making captives of the unbelievers, when 
 overpowered, was with the intention of saving their lives. Two rules 
 are laid down for the treatment of such cajitives after the war : one is that 
 ofgiviug them afree dismission ; the other that of exacting a ransom. INo 
 third mode of treating them is mentioned. But when the captive cannot 
 give ransom, and when the owner is unwilling to grant him his liberty, 
 in that case alone he can become a slave, remaining so only until he 
 pays ransom, or till the owner emancipates him. It must, therefore, bo 
 now evident to our readers that the Prophet did almost entirely abolish, 
 slavery. 
 
 Our lawyers are divided in their opinions as to the circumstances 
 under which free dismission is to be granted to war-captives. Some 
 maintain that they are to be liberated only when they consent to reside 
 within the Moslem territories, as subjects of the Mussulman authorities. 
 Others, however and with much plausibility, hold that wax’-captives 
 should be granted a free dismission, without being subjected to any con- 
 ditions whatsoever, and that after being freed they are at liberty to re- 
 side within the dominions of the Mohammadans as subjects, or to re- 
 turn to their own country. It will be evident from the above-quoted 
 passage of the Koran that that Holy BooU lays clown no condition what- 
 ever for a free emancipation, and that therefore the opinion of the latter 
 authors is the more authoritative of the two. 
 
 We are not a little sorry to witness the wretched character of the 
 domestic slavery practised (as in some Christian countries also) in 
 
 * Tliis rule cannot hold good in the present time, as almost all wars are 
 now waged on account of political misunderstanding.'^, whilst tliose referred to 
 by this rule must be uudertakeu for rcasous which wo shall presently cxplaiu. 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 Mohammadan States ; but we assure our readers that those wlio cither 
 practise it themselves or allow others so to do are evidently acting m 
 oppobition to the principle of their religion, and must one day stand as 
 guilty sinners before the awful tribunal of tlie lufallibe Judge. 
 
 Sir Win. Muir remaks that in Islam “freedom of judgment in re- 
 liffion is crushed and annihilated.” 
 
 O 
 
 Now, the precise import of this dictum of Sir William is very difficult 
 to comprehend ; for we are quite at a loss to find what it is in 
 Islam that crushes and annihilates “ freedom of judgment ” in re- 
 ligious matters, and what there is in other religions that allows it. 
 
 The Jews, whose books from the basis both of Christianity and 
 Mohammadanism, implicitly believe that every word of the Old 
 Testament, including the historical parts, notwithstanding the anthors 
 are unknown, is a Revelation from on high, and therefore infallible, 
 and that every person must, without the least hesitation or objection, 
 and without making any use of his reasoning powers, put faith 
 therein. 
 
 As for the Christians, they are divided into two classes as regards 
 belief — those who believe in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, 
 and those who believe them to be only partially inspired — the latter 
 denying inspiration to the purely historical parts, and confining it to 
 matters of doctrine, etc., etc. 
 
 But independently of this modified belief in the inspiration of 
 the Scriptures, Christians are required to give their assent to two 
 other main and indispensable articles of faith, which still more 
 efi’ectuallj' crush and annihilate “ freedom of judgment in religious 
 matters ; ” and therefore in this respect Christians are worse off than 
 God’s chosen people. 
 
 The first of these articles of belief is that of “ The Trinity in 
 Unity, and the Unity in Trinity,” and a very peculiar one it is ; for 
 the very word Trinity was not introduced to express the three sacred 
 persons of the Godhead until the second century after Christ, when 
 Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, invented it ; nor was the doctrine of 
 the Trinity settled until the Council of Nice, or Nicea, held three 
 hundred and twenty-five years after Christ, and at which the doctrines 
 of Arius were condemned. Nor is this all, for, by the labours of 
 Person, and other eminent Greek scholars, it has been proved that 
 the text — which is the sole authority for the doctrine — is an interpo- 
 lation ; therefore if the merit of belief is to be estimated in proportion 
 to its difficulty, great indeed must be that of Christians. Now, every 
 person, before he can bear the name and enjoy the religious 
 privileges of a Christian, must implicitly believe in this doctrine. 
 All Christians declare that notwithstanding this dogma is wholly 
 opposed to nature and reason, it must be believed in, blindly and dog- 
 gedly, all exercise of reason and judgment being interdicted. 
 
( 18 •) 
 
 The second principle is the doctrine of the sacrifice of Christ for 
 the 'past, present, and future sins of mankind — a doctrine alike antagonistic 
 to nature and to reason, and which crushes and annihilates " freedom 
 of judgment in religion.” This doctrine, by doing away with man’s 
 responsibility for his actions, opens the floodgates of vice and immo- 
 rality, since the greater and more numerous sins a person commits, the 
 greater is the goodness of the Redeemer ; — and hence, the greater the 
 sinner, the greater the saint ! It must not be, however, supposed 
 that, in consequence of this doctrine, Hell will be unpeopled, because 
 all unbelievers — and “ their name is legion” — will occupy its gloomy 
 regions. Another atricle of the Christian faith, equally mischievous 
 to society, is that of predestination ; for should the believer in it be of 
 a confident, hopeful disposition, he easily persuades himself tliat God 
 has, from all eternity, inscribed his name iii the Rook of Life, and 
 therefore, were his crimes and sins as numerous as the sands on the 
 sea-shore, they would net blot his name out of the page of salvation. 
 If he be of a saturnine, gloomy character, he feels confident that his 
 name does not appear on the page of life, and therefore he has no 
 inducement to curb the evil propensities of his natural disposition. 
 
 With respect to Islam, it can be safely and confidently asserted 
 that its nature is diametrically opposed to the remark of Sir Wm. 
 Muir, and that perhaps, there is no religion upon earth superior to it 
 in respect of the liberty of judgment which it grants in matters of re- 
 ligious faith. 
 
 We shall here quote the following remark of a celebrated French 
 author — M. de St. Hilaire — demonstrating, as it does, that in sup- 
 port of our own observ tions we can adduce as witnesses not only our 
 co-religionists, but also liberal and judicious professors of other re- 
 ligious — nay, even of Christianity itself. 
 
 “ There is nothing mysterious,” writes the above-named author 
 — “ nothing supernatural, in Moharamadanism. It is itself averse to 
 being concealed under any mask, nor is it to blame if a few obscuriti -t 
 are still to bo found in it, for from its very origin it has been as candid 
 and ingenuous as was possible.” All the Mohammadan traditions 
 are, according to Islam, open to the free judgment of every person, 
 as well as for free inquby and investigation, as regards the narrators 
 and also the subject-matter, and ho is at liberty to reject entirely all 
 such traditions which, accci’ding to his free and unbiassed judgment, 
 and after patient investigation, prove themselves to be contraiy 
 to reason and nature, or which, by any other way, are found to bo 
 spurious. 
 
 But we do not find any such liberty granted ns as regards either 
 the Old or the New Testament. Not oven the grandest, and indeou 
 the main, principle of Islam — the e.xistencc of God and his Unity — i , 
 rccpiircd by tlmt religion to be blindly and slavishly accepted by hs 
 jirofessors. The Koran itself teaches and inculcates this sublime 
 doctrine, not by a compulsory iron hand, but by alignments and by 
 appealing to Nature. It first establishes the existence and unity of 
 
C 15 ) 
 
 God by the existence of all objocts in N’ature, and tlion requires us to 
 embrace that eternal truth. “ Ijook over tlio world,” siys that Holy 
 Hook — “ is it not wonderful, the work of Allah V — wholly a sign to 
 you if 3 'onr eyes were open ! This earth — God made it for you. 
 
 . . appointed paths in it. You can live iu it — go to and fro on it. 
 
 Great clouds born iu the deerp bo.som of the Ui»))cr rmmensity — where 
 do they come from ? Tlicy hang there. The great black monsters 
 pour down their rain-deluges to revive a dead earth, the gra.ss springs, 
 aud tall leafy palm-tress, with their ilatc-clustcrs hanging round, is 
 not that a sign ? Your cattle, too — Allah made them ; — serviccablo 
 dumb creatures : they change the grass) into milk ; you have your clothing 
 from them. Verystrange creatures : they come ranking homo at evening 
 time . . . and are a credit to you ! Ships, also — huge moving 
 
 moiuitains : they spread out their cloth wings — go bounding through 
 the water there. Heaven's wind driving them; — anon they lio motion- 
 less — God has withdrawn the wind — they lie dead and cannot stir! 
 Miracles? . . . What miracle would you have? Are not you 
 
 yourselves there? God made you — shaped you out of a little clay! 
 Ye were small once; a few years ago ye were not at all. Ye have 
 beauty, strength, thoughts ; ye have compassion on one another. Old 
 age comes on you, and grey hairs : your strength fades into feebleness ; 
 ye sink down, and again are not. Ye have compassion on one an- 
 other . . . Allah might have made you having no compassion on 
 
 one another — how had it been thou ?” — The Koran is full of passages, 
 like the above, inculcating the worship of the Unity of God, both by 
 argument and refcrenco to Nature, 
 
 The remark that “ the sword is the inevitable penalty for the 
 denial of Islam,” is one of the gravest charges falsely imputed to this 
 faith by the professors of other religions, and arises from the utter 
 ignorance of those who make the accusation. Islam inculcates and 
 demands a hearty and sincere belief in all that it teaches; aud that 
 genuine faith which proceeds from a person’s heart cannot be obtain- 
 ed by force or violence. Judicious readers will not fail to observe 
 that the above-quoted remark is entirely contrary to the fundamental 
 principles of the Moslem faith, wherein it is inculcated, in the clearest 
 language possible — “ Mere he no forcing in religion, the right way 
 
 has been made clearly distinguishable from the wrong one" (chap, x. 98). 
 And also. If t1ie Lord had pleased, all who are on the earth would have 
 helieroed together ; and will thou force men to be believers ? No man 
 can believe but by the permission of God, and He will pour out His indigna- 
 tion on those who will not understaiul." (chap. ii. 257). 
 
 The principle upon which Moses was allowed to use the sword — 
 to extirpate all idolaters and infidels, without exception of one single 
 individual — is by no means applicable, to Islam. Mohammadanism 
 grasped the sword, not to destroy all infidels and Pagans, not to 
 force men to become Moslems at the sword’s point, but only to proclaim 
 that eternal truth — the unity of the Godhead thi’oughout the whole ex- 
 tent of the then known globe. 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 According to Islam, the best and the most meritorious act is the 
 preaching and making generally known the existence of one invisible 
 God. It could hardly be expected that, in the infidel countries tliere 
 could be sufficient personal security for such Moslems wlio might 
 choose to inculcate by precept, exhort by preaching, and practice 
 openly the worship of the unity of God, and therefore appeal was at 
 once made to the sword in order to establish the superiority of the 
 Moslem power, and to insure security and tranquility for such Moham- 
 madans as might choose to preach the wholesome doctrine of their 
 faith, and to live in peace in those countries, so that their habits, con- 
 duct, and manner of living might serve as example for the unbelievers. 
 The eflect so desirable, viz., that the Moslems might live in peace and 
 preach the worship of the one only true God was only attainable by 
 one of three ways. First : The voluntary conversion of the people. 
 
 Secondly : The establishment of peace and security by means of alli- 
 ances, offensive and defensive, and, Thirdly : By conquest. As soon 
 
 as the desired object was secured the sword was immediately sheathed. 
 If tranquillity was established by either of the two last methods, tho 
 partie.s had no authority to interfere with the religious observances of 
 the subject or of each other; and every person was at liberty to observe, 
 unmolested by any one, all the cex’eraonies and rites, whatever they 
 might be, of liis creed. 
 
 The preceding observations likewise show clearly the gross mistake 
 into which some writers have fallen, when they assert that in Islam 
 “ toleration is unknown.” But in saying this, wo do not mean to 
 deny that some of the later Mohammadan conquerors were guilty of 
 cruelty and intolerance, but that tho doctrines of our religion ought 
 not to be judged from their actions. We must, however, inquire, in 
 order to discover whether they acted according to it or not, and we 
 shall then arrive at an undeniable conclusion that their actions were in 
 opposition to the doctrines of their religion. But, at the same time, 
 we find that those conquerors who were anxious to act according to 
 the doctrines of their religion did practice tolerance, and granted am- 
 nesty, security, and protection to all their subjects, irrespective of 
 caste or creed. History furnishes us with innumerable instances of 
 the tolerance of Moslem conquerors, and we shall here quote a few re- 
 marks made by various Christian writers which prove the tolerant 
 spirit of Islam. A Christian writer who, of all others, is the least ex- 
 pected to show any partiality towards Islam, in an article upon tho 
 general history of Spain, thus expresses himself upon tl\e subject. 
 
 “ One remarkable feature,” says he, “ of their (the Ommiadcs of 
 Spain) rule deserves mention, as it contrasts them so favourably with 
 tlio contemporary and subseciuent rule of Spain, even to tho present 
 time (I'Jth century)), and that is their universal toleration in religious 
 matters,” (Chambers's Cyclopaedia). 
 
 Godfrey Higgin writes on the subject as follows : “ Nothing is 
 
 SO common as to hoar tho Christian priesli abuse tho religion of 
 
Mohammad for its bigotry and intolerance. ^ onderful assurance and 
 bvpoori.sv ' Who was it expelletl the Moriscoea tiom Spam, because 
 th^' would not turn Christian ? Who was it murdered the millions 
 of Mexico and Peru, and gave them all away as slaves becau^se they 
 were not Christians? What a contrast have the Moharamadans ex- 
 hibited in Greece ! For many centuries the Christians have been 
 permittetl to live in the peaceable possession of their properties, their 
 reliirion, their priests, bishops, patriarchs, and chuirhes ; and at the 
 present moment the war between the Greeks and Turks is no more 
 waire<l on account of religion than was the late war between the ne- 
 groes in Demerara and the English. The Greeks and the >egroes 
 
 want to throw ott’ the yoke of their conquerors, and they are both 
 justified in so doing. Wherever the Caliphs conquered, it the inhabi- 
 tants turned Mohammadans, they were instantly on a footing of per- 
 fect equality with the conquerors. An ingenious and learned Dissenter, 
 speaking otUhe Sar.tcens, says, ‘ they persecuted nobody; Jews and 
 Christians idl liveil happy among them. 
 
 “ But though we are told the Moroscocs were banished, because 
 they would not turn Christians, I suspect there was another cause. I 
 suspect they, by their arguments, so gained upon the Christians, that 
 the ignorant monks thought that the only way their arguments 
 could be answered was by the Inquisition and the sword ; and I have 
 no doubt they were right as far as Uuir wretched powers of answering 
 them e.xtended. In the countries conquered by the Caliphs, the peaceable 
 inhabitants, whether Greeks, Persians, Sabeans, or Hindoos, were not 
 put to the sword as the Christians have represented ; but after the con- 
 quest was terminated, were left in the jieaceable possession of their 
 properties and religion, paying a tax for the enjoyment of this latter 
 privilege, so trifling as to be an oppression to none. In all the his- 
 tory of the Caliphs, there cannot be shown anything half so infamous 
 as the Inquisition, nor a single instance of an individual burnt for his 
 religious opinion : nor, do I believe, put to death in a time of peace 
 for simply not embracing the religion of Islam. No doubt the later 
 Mohammadan conquerors in their expeditions have been guilty of great 
 cruelties these Christians authors have sedulously laid to the charge of 
 their religiou ; but this is not just. Assuredly, religious bigotry in- 
 creased the evils of war, but in this the Mohammadan conquerors were 
 not worse than the Christians.” 
 
 The same author remarks that ‘‘ the exertions of the missionaries 
 of the Christians, though evidently allowed the greatest latitude, do 
 not appear to have had any great success. I have some doubt as to 
 what would happen, even in this enlightened age, as it calls itself, if 
 the Grand Seignior were to send (as our missionaries did a Mr. 
 Drummond to Geneva, to teach their peculiar doctrines) one of the 
 richest of his Mufties to build a mosque and to preach the doctrines 
 of the Koran in the centre of London. I suspect, a well grounded 
 fear that this would cause renewal, under the auspices of the priests, of 
 the fires of the year eighty, or of those of more recent date at Binning- 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 ham, would cauae our ministers to answer him by the mouth of one of 
 our admirals, who might entertain an opinion that it was possible to 
 bombard Constantinople.” 
 
 John Davenport, in his “ Apology,” writes in the following 
 strain : — “ It was at the Council of Nicea that Constantine invested 
 the priesthood with that power whence flowed the most disastrous con- 
 sequences, as the following summary will show : the massacres and de- 
 vastations of nine mad crusades of Christians against unoffending 
 Turks, during nearly two hundred years, in which many millions of 
 human beings perished ; the massacres of the Anabaptists ; the mass- 
 acres of the Lutherans and Papists, from the Rhine to the extremities 
 of the North ; the massacres ordered by Henry Vlll.andhis daughter 
 Mary ; the massacres of St. Bartholomew in France ; and forty years 
 more of other massacres, between the time of Francis I. and entry of 
 Henry IV. into Paris ; the massacres of the Inquisition, which are 
 more execrable still, as being judicially committed ; to say nothing 
 of the innumerable schisms, and twenty years of popes against popes, 
 bishops against bishops ; the poisonings, assassinations : the cruel ra- 
 pines and insolent pretensions of more than a dozen popes, who far ex- 
 ceeded a Nero or a Caligula in every species of crime, vice, and wicked- 
 ness ; and, lastly, to conculude this frightful list, the massacre of 
 twelve millions of the inhabitants of the New World, executed crucifix 
 in hand ! It surely must be confessed that so hideous and almost 
 uninterrupted a chain of religious wars, for fourteen centuries, never 
 subsisted but among Christians, and that none of the numerous na- 
 tions, stigmatized as heathen, even spilled a dx’op of blood on the scores 
 of theological arguments.” 
 
 The celebrated Mr. Gibbon, the greatest of the modern historians* 
 and whose authority cannot be doubted or questioned, writes asfollows- 
 “ The wars of the Mohammadans were sanctified by the Prophet, but* 
 among the various precepts and examples of his life, the Caliphs selected 
 the lessons of toleration that might tend to disarm the resistance of the 
 unbelieving. Arabia was the temple and patrimony of the God of Moham- 
 mad ; but he beheld with le.ss jealousy end afiection the other nations 
 of the earth. The polytheists and idolaters who were ignorant of his 
 name might be lawfully extirpated, but a wise policy supplied the 
 obligations of justice, and, after some acta of intolerant zeal, the 
 Mohamiuadan conquerors of Hindostan have spared the pagodas of 
 that devout and populous country. The disciples of Abraham, of 
 Moses, and of Jesus were solemnly invited to accept the more perfect re- 
 velalion of Mohammad ; but if they preferred the payment of a moderate 
 trihbute 7vere entitled to the freedum of conscience and religions loorship.” 
 
 The author of article, entitled “ Islam ns a Political System,” in- 
 serted in The East and the IVesi, thus expresses himself on the subject 
 under consideration : — '• Moh.ammad was the only founder of a religion 
 who was at the same time a temporal prince and a warrior. Their 
 ])owor lay exclusively in restraining violence and ambition; his tempta- 
 tion was ambition, and the sword was at his disposal. It is 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 Uicrefure to be expected that, making religion a means to temporal 
 power, and having obtained that sway over the minds of his followers 
 by which they accepted as law and right whatever he chose to pro- 
 mulgates, his code should be found at variance with all others, and even 
 in opposition to those dictates of justice which are implanted in tho 
 breasts of all men. If, then, we find that it is not so — if we find liini 
 establishing maxims of right international dealings, of clemency in 
 the use of victory, moderation in that of power above all, of toleration 
 in religion, we must acknowledge that, amongst men who have run a 
 distinguished course, he possesses peculiar claims to the admiration of 
 his fcilow-creaturcs.” Again, he says ; — “ Islam has never interfered 
 with the dogmas of any faith, never persecuted, never established an 
 Inquisition, never aimed at proselytism. It offered its religion, but 
 never cnforcetl it ; and the acceptance of that religion conferred co- 
 equal rights with the conquering body, and emancipated the vanquished 
 States from the conditions which every conqueror, since the world 
 existeil, up to the period of Mohammad, has invariably imposed. For 
 its proselytes there was no obligation of denial and revilement of their 
 former creed ; the repetition of a single phrase was the only form re- 
 quired or pledge exacted.” 
 
 “ A spirit the very reverse of this (intolerance),” remarks the 
 same author, “ is evinced in every page of history of Islam, in every 
 country to which it has extended ; so that in Palestine a Christian 
 poet (Lamartine) has exclaimed, twelve centuries after the events to 
 which we are referring, ‘ The Mobammadans are the only tolerant 
 people on the face of the earth ’ ; and an English traveller (Slade) re- 
 proaches them with being too tolerant.” What a contrast do these 
 remarks of so many impartial and liberal Christian writers afford to the 
 unsupported assertion of Sir Wm. Muir. — “toleration is unknown” 
 in Islamisra ! ! 
 
 Section III. — Benefits and Advatitages which Judaism and 
 Christianity derived from Islam, 
 
 The reason for mentioning Judaism and Christianity jointly is. be- 
 cause we be believe that Jesus Christ did not, for the most part, alter 
 or reject any of the doctrines contained in the Law of Moses ; and Jiis 
 own declaration — “ Think not I am come to destroy the Law, or the 
 prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil,” (Matt. v. 17) — 
 
 demonstrates the truth of our assertion, Christianity, therefore, must 
 necessarily, be represented as having been benefited by Islam in those 
 particulars in which Judaism was advantaged. Judaism undoubtedly 
 proceeded from a Divine source, and it inculcated and taught that 
 eternal truth — the existence and Unity of God — only to such an ex- 
 tent as was necessary for securing eternal salvation, and capable of be- 
 ing comprehended by individual living at that period. The perfection 
 of God was promulgated by Islam, and the doctrine of Judaism also re- 
 ceived its perfection. 
 
 The Divine Unity is said to receive its perfection when three 
 qualifications unite in one — viz. ; Unity of the Essence of God — that 
 is, when no other person or object is represented to be a partner' there- 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 of ; Unity of the Attributes of God — that is, when tliose attributes 
 cannot be applied to other object ; and Unity of the Reverence and 
 Adoration of God — that is, when that reverence and worship cannot be 
 paid to any other object except God himself. The first two of these 
 qualifications were imperfectly promulgated by Judaism, while the 
 third was left entirely unnoticed. Islam gave complete perfection to 
 the first two, and, by fully indicating and fixing particular methods of 
 paying reverence and offering adoration to God, completed the per- 
 fection of the Unity of Godhead ; and it is in reference to this fact 
 that God says, in the Koran, “This day have I perfected your religion 
 for you, and have completed my mercy upon you ; and I have chosen 
 for you Islam to be your religion.” 
 
 In the Pentateuch nothing is mentioned respecting the day of 
 resurrection and the state of the soul after death. The rewards of 
 virtue were — triumph over the enemy, longevity, and freedom from 
 penury ; while, on the other hand, the punishment for the sins of 
 mankind was death, plague, famine, and other adversities. Other 
 prophets after Moses, including Christ, preached something respecting 
 the final day, resurrection and true condition of the soul after death ; 
 but none of those prophets mentioned them at the length and 
 perfection as was done by Islam, for whom the task was purposely 
 reserved by God. As it was almost impossible to describe and 
 delineate those spiritual conditions — the afflictions of the souls of 
 sinners, and the happiness of those of the virtuous — otherwise than 
 by comparing them to such objects and condition as can be perceived 
 and felt by the senses of man, it was therefore promulgated under the 
 allegory of Paradise and Hell, and the various modes of enjoying the 
 happiness or of sufl'ering the torments, afflictions, etc. 
 
 All Jews aud Christians, previously to Islam, imputed to many 
 prophets and holy personages acts of the grossest immorality ; and 
 although, according to us, these passages had nothing to do with the 
 doctrines of their religion, yet they were, notwithstanding, considered 
 to be such by all Christians and Jews. 
 
 Islam vindicated the pure character of those godly personages, 
 and triumphantly refuted the charges brought against them by Jews 
 and Christians. Mohammadan divines examined the whole of the 
 Pentateuch, and exposed all the mistakes of the Christians and Jews. 
 They traced these mistakes either to the wrong interpretation of the 
 passages of the Pentateuch by Jews and Christians, or to errors in 
 early Codices, or to historical blunders ; and, had it not been for 
 Islam, the character of those prophets and holy individuals — of 
 Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Judah, of the wives and sons of Jacob, of Aaron 
 David, and Solomon, for example — would have been as disparaging in 
 the eyes of the present generation as that of culprits condemned to 
 ti’ausportation for life or to expiate their crime upon the scattbld. 
 
 Suction IV . — Advantages derived from Islam by Christianity 
 particularly. 
 
 No religion upon earth is more friendly to Christianity than 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 Islam, aiul the latter Las been to none more beneficial and advan- 
 tageous than to Christianity. The whole interest of Christianity con- 
 centrated in that extraordinary character, Jesus Christ, and in the 
 Ksseuian, John tlie Baptist ; and it was with the most steady resolu- 
 tion, and the most undaunted heart, and the most unflinching persever- 
 ance that Islam fought against Judaism in favour of Christianity, and 
 openly aud manfully did it declare that the mission of John tho 
 Baptist was undoubtedly true, and that Jesus Christ was unquestion- 
 ably '• the Word of God ” and *• tho Spirit of God.” What other 
 faith, then, can pretend to have proved itself more beneficial to, and 
 to have done more for, the cause of Christianity than Islam. The 
 worst of corruptions that crept into Christianity after the Apostles, 
 was the doctrine of the Trinity — a doctrine which was at once in 
 opposition to eternal truth and contrary to the pure precepts inculca- 
 ted by Christ. It is to the eternal glory of Islam that it re-established 
 the worship of the Unity of the Godhead, and revived that pure religion 
 inculcated and promulgated hy Christ himself ; it constantly warned 
 tlie then-called Christians of their errors, and invited them to accept 
 the true religion — a religion preached by Christ. Many Christians, 
 whose eyes were opened by the loud watchword of Islam, perceived 
 the degraded state into which they had been plunged, and thencefor- 
 ward strove to recover their former position in the scale of tho 
 religions — in general, of the world. This class of men is now distin- 
 guished by the proud appellation of Unitarian Christians. 
 
 Now, were this Unitarianism taken away from the world for a 
 moment, the following remark of Gibbon would be in every re.spect 
 aj)posite : — “ If tlie Christian apostles, St. Peter or St. Paul, could 
 return to the Vatican, they might possibly inquire the name of 
 the Deity who is woi’shipped with such mysterious rites in that 
 magniliceut temple. At Oxford or Geneva tliey would experience less 
 surprise ; but it might still be incumbent on them to peruse tho 
 Catechism of the Church, and to study the Orthodox Commenta- 
 tors on their own writings and the words of their Master.” 
 
 The greatest of all boons conferred by Islam upon Christianity is 
 the spirit of resistance which it breathed into the Christians against 
 the exorbitant power of the Popes, under which they had so long 
 g'roaned. The Pope was looked upon as the infallible vicar of Christ. 
 He could open the gates of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. He 
 arrogated to himself the power or purging away, by means of 
 Indulgences, the sins of whomsoever he pleased. He was invested with 
 full power to make what was unlawful, lawful. In fact, in the 
 authority he possessed, and the jurisdiction he exercised, he was in 
 no way inferior to Christ himself. The Koran, in the following 
 passage, pointed out the evils flowing therefrom, reprimanded tho 
 Christians for their sla^'ish servility, and exhorted them to throw 
 oil' so ignomiuous a yoke, and to seek out the truth for 
 themselves. 
 
 The Koran says : — Say, O ye who have received the 
 Scriptures— come to a just determination between us aud you — that 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 we worship not any besides God, and associate no creature with Him, 
 and that the one of us take not the others for Lords (ttie High Priests 
 and the Popes) besides God “ (chap. iii. 57**). When this passage 
 was revealed, Adee Ibni Hatim, a new convert to Islam, said, to 
 Mohammad, “ O Prophet of the Lord, we did not use to worship 
 the Pope as our God.” Whereupon the Prophet replied, “ Had 
 he not the power to pronounce to be lawful that which was unlawful, 
 according to religion, and vice versa ? And did you not put faith in 
 his words as in the words of God?” He replied, “ Verily, O messenger 
 of the Lord — that we used to do.” The Prophet rejoined, “ This is to 
 take others for Lords (Popes) besides God.” For a time this 
 wholesome truth, inculcated by the Koran, was looked upon by 
 Christians with impatience and hatred ; but as truth never fails, at 
 the last, to impress itself upon the minds of men, it gradually engrafted 
 itself upon that of Luther, who, when he came in contact with the 
 above-quoted passage of the Koran, at once comprehended the truth 
 it inculcated, and, clearly perceiving the slavish and degrading position 
 in which his co-religionists were plunged, at once stood up to preach 
 publicly against that servile practice ; and although some of his 
 adversaries denounced him as being a Mohammadan at heart, f he 
 never desisted from his endeavours, and, at last, succeeded in eflecting 
 the grand reform generally known as Protestantism, or the Reforma- 
 tion and for this emancipation of the human mind from the worst of 
 all slavery — a priestly one — Christianity should for ever remaiu 
 thankful to Islam. 
 
 * “ Besides other charges of idolatry on the Jews and Cliristians, Moham- 
 mad accused them of paying too implicit an obedieiice to their priests and 
 monks, who took upon them to prononuce what things were lawful, and 
 what unlawful, and to dispense with the laws of God.” — Koran, vol. i. 
 p. 63, ‘2nd Note. 
 
 * t “ Thereupon Genebrard, on the Papal side, charged the German Refor- 
 mers, chiefly Luther, with endeavouring to introduce Mohammadanisin iido 
 the Christian world,, and to take over the whole clergy to that faith. Maracci 
 is of opinion that Mohammadanisin and Lutheranism are not very dissimilar — 
 witness the iconoclastic tendencies of both ! More systematically does Martimis 
 Alphonsus Vivaldus marshal up exactly thirteen points to prove that there is 
 not a shadow of difference between the two. Mohammad points to that vhxvh 
 is luritten down — so do these heretics. He has altered the time of the fast — 
 they abhor all fasts. He has changed Sunday into Fridaj’ — they observe no 
 least at all. lie rejects the worship of the Saints— so do these Lutherans. 
 Mohammad has no baptism — nor does Calvin consider such requisite. They 
 both allow divorce- and so forth.”— TAe Quarterly Ueiiexc, No. 254. 
 
 KISIS. 
 
COMPANIONS AND FRIENDS. 
 
 I Some connections are made for ns by God. We are born into the world, 
 liembers of the families witbout.any choice on onr j)art. There are also con- 
 lections which we largely make for ourselves. Tho companions in whoso 
 lociety wc take delight, the friends wc receive into intimacy are left open to 
 I s. Their choice forms an important part of the probation of life. 
 
 I There is a great dittereuce hotw'eeu ati acquaintance and a friend. It is 
 l>ur duty to be courteous to all. There may ho pleasant intercourse and an 
 nterchange of kindly offices between many peraons who arc not, in th« highest 
 .ense of the word friend. “ A friend is one to whom wc give our hearts, whoso 
 society and companionship we seek, in whom we repose our secrets, by whoso 
 )pinious and advice we are influenced : in short, he is a kind of second self, 
 •eciprocally giving and receiving sympathy and aid.” 
 
 To walk with wise men is to choose them for our associates ; and this 
 implies to a similarity of tastes, “ can two walk together except they bo 
 agreed 1 ” 
 
 Solomon says, “ He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a 
 companion of fools shall be destroyed. ” By “ wise men ” are here meant 
 those who fear God, by “ fools ” those who love and practice sin. He that 
 walks with true religious men will become religious ; but a companion of the 
 wicked will come to a bad end. If the good are our chosen friends, they will 
 encourage us in whatever is right and frown upon every thing that is wrong. 
 This will be a great support to virtue. On the other hand if the w’icked are 
 our companions, they will ridicule us when we wish to obey conscience and 
 tempt us to follow their example. If we go among persons having small-pox, 
 we are liable to catch the disease. The risk is far greater of taking the infec- 
 tion of vice from wicked companions. Evil communications corrupt good 
 manners.” 
 
 No one who is immoral, whatever may be his talents, should be selected 
 as a friend. Vice is like the drop of poison in milk, causing the whole to be 
 thrown away. Neglect of this rule has been the ruin of untold millions. 
 
 Frivolous triflers should be shunned. There are some men who are not 
 vicious, who are sprightly and entertaining; but who lack industry and moral 
 earnestness. Idleness is very apt eventually to lead such persons into a down- 
 ward course. Even if they should not go so far, their life can neither bo 
 happy nor useful. The influence of such men can be only injurious. 
 
 Our chosen friends should be amiable in disposition and sound in judg- 
 ment. He who is wanting in prudence, is altogether unfit to advise us in our 
 difficulties. Choose those friends who fear God and who keep His precepts. 
 Friendship founded on such principles will prove an unmingled blessing, and 
 can never be broken. Our friends should be chosen, as far as possible, from 
 persons of the same rank as ourselves. They can best sympathise with us, 
 and aid us by their counsel. Friends should be few and well selected. The 
 human heart is not large enough to find room for many. He who boast of a 
 long list of friends is generally little esteemed. We may have many acquain- 
 tances, but we can have only a few friends. 
 
 “ True happiness, 
 
 Consists not in a multitude of friends^ 
 
 But in their worth and choice.” 
 

 
 llVJ (tnaA-^ 
 
 
 Friendsliip has its duties. “ A man that hath friends must show himself 
 friendly. ’’ He who can say, “ I care for nobody, " will find it also true,! 
 “ nobody cares for me. ” If we have no friends, it is not our misfortune, but! 
 our fault. It shows that by our selfishness, or other bad qualities, we have] 
 not deserved them. 
 
 Friends should be treated with courtesy. They should sympathise with] 
 one another. They should be confiding, telling each other their joys and 1 
 sorrows. Happiness will thus be increased and grief will be lightened. 
 While, however, friends should be open in their intercourse, wisdom is neces- 1 
 sary. Friendship does not affect other duties. Evil speaking is forbidden. 
 It is wrong to report to a friend any tale of slander which we hear unless 
 there is some good object to be gained. We should not mention to him 
 ill-natured remarks even about himself. We should defend, if possible, au 
 absent friend, but avoid giving him needless pain. 
 
 Friends should be ready to assist each other. Kind offices ought never 
 to be omitted, but they are especially called for in seasons of affection. 
 
 “ A friend in need is a friend indeed.” We should be the first at the side of a 
 sick friend, and it should be our pleasure to endeavour to alleviate sorrows. 
 The same remark applies to aiiy other trial. 
 
 The help rendered to friends mast be regulated by justice. I lay it down 
 as a rule without exception, that no degree of friendship can either justify or 
 excuse the commission of a criminial action. 
 
 Friends should encourage each other in well-doing. This is the most 
 important office of friendship, and it should be shown more frequently in this 
 way than in reproof. When a person is struggling to resist some temptation 
 on seeking to discharge some difficult duty, it is cheering to have the sympa- 
 thy of a friend. Strength is often thus imported which enables victor^’ to be 
 secured. 
 
 There are few relations more truly noble and holy than the union by 
 which two school boys begin the bottle of life together in a place like this, 
 to one another by a strong, and manly, and thoughtful alleclion, and then 
 carry it on hereafter perhaps at college, perhaps in some common profession, or 
 if separated, by letters, by joyful meetings and hopeful parting, by the commn- 
 nication of different experiences and plans, anxieties and interest, by praying 
 to God for each other’s welfare both of soul and body and seeking in all things 
 each other’s improvement. 
 
 One of the most important means by which we can benefit our friends is 
 prayer. However separated we may be on earth ; it is comforting tt> think 
 that we arc always equally near to n throne of grace. Especially in times 
 of trial should friends intercede for each other. 
 
 We are far from being perfect ourselves, and we can expect perfection in 
 our friends. We require to bear one another’s burdens, to make allowances for 
 each other. Having once contracted a friendship, retain it, unless there bo 
 strong reasotis for breaking it off. The chief of these is, when our friend, in 
 spite of our warnings and entreaties, adopt a course of conduct which renders 
 him unworthy of our respect and esteem. In such a case, wo should withdraw 
 from hin), but more in sorrow than in anger. 
 
 Earthly friends may change ; one by one they will be removed by death. 
 
 But there is one whoso love is warmer than a brothers and parents ' and 
 every thing else and histing as eternity. Seek to have God for your friend. 
 Ho will satisfy the desires of your soul, and bestow upon you every blessing 
 that really be for your good. ■ ■ ■■ ■■