6. "There is no deity but God." Since God is One, His Revelation to Man cannot be other than one and the same for all time. There has therefore been and will ever be but one true religion. That religion is Islam. ?? ????? ??? ???? ??????? "Verily the (only) religion with God is Islam" (Q. iii 17). All the prophets from Adam to Muhammad received but one and the same Revelation and therefore preached Islam and Islam only. ???? ????? ???? "It was (and is) the standard religion"—Q. xii. 41.34

Whenever any people went astray and deserted Islam for idolatry a prophet arose among them to preach Islam and bring them back to righteousness.35 Each prophet or messenger of God did nothing but try to restore the universal religion to its pristine simplicity and purity.

It was only in interpreting the Revelation and applying it to the practical needs of their age, that successive prophets and their followers differed; and the differences gave rise to the so-called religions and religious systems of the world.

---

I must devote this Note also to my observations on "Islam" and "not-Islam" in order to prepare you for a just appreciation of my contention that there are many good religions in the world but Islam is the best of them36.

1. The Prophet Muhammad lived and died more than thirteen hundred years ago. There are now on the face of the earth no less than 250 millions (= 25 crores) of human beings who profess his religion, and who love and respect him just as his own immediate followers loved and respected him. These two simple facts are enough to prove—

for common experience leads us to conclude (a) that nothing which is false or unreal can survive centuries of change and (b) that none who is not good and great can be loved and respected by millions of men. No Muslim or Momin need therefore believe in any thing more than:—

Thus, your belief in one God ?? ??? ?????? makes you a Muslim38 (= peaceful), no matter by what other name you call yourself; and your belief in the goodness and greatness39 of Muhammad ???? ???? ???? makes you a Momin (= faithful), no matter by what name others may call you. Let me quote here a passage from Sir Edwin Arnold's Preface to his beautiful poem "The Pearls of Faith: the Ninety-Nine Names of Allah:" ????? ????

Unknown God' at Athens, than that of the camel-driver Muhammad, son of Abdullah and Amina, abolishing all the idols of the Arabian Pantheon, except their chief—Allahu ta 'Ala, God the Most High—and under that ancient and well-received appellation establishing the one-ness of the origin, government, and life of the Universe. Thereby that marvellous and gifted Teacher created a vast empire of new belief and new civilization, and prepared a sixth part of humanity for the developments and reconciliations which later times will bring. For Islam must be conciliated; it cannot be thrust scornfully aside or rooted out. It shares the task of the education of the world with its sister religions, and it will contribute its eventual portion to

The italics are mine. I shall have to refer to them in my subsequent Notes. Observe, the cosmopolitan poet uses only the word "Islam" and not "Muhammadanism".

2. It is not Islam or Eman ????? to deify Muhammad or to represent him to be akin to God, as sometimes some Moulvies represent him and call him "the One (Ahad) in the guise of Ahmad40." Our Prophet himself never claimed that he was anything more than a mere man. Indeed, he taught us all to say ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ? ????? that he was but "a servant and messenger of God." The only thing he ever claimed for himself was that God had chosen him to be a messenger ???? to convey His messages to men. "That an immense mass of fable and silly legend," says Rodwell, "has been built up upon the basis of the Qur'an, is beyond a doubt; but for this Muhammad is not answerable,41 any more than he is for the wild and bloodthirsty excesses of his followers in after ages."

3. God's messages which Muhammad delivered to men were all collected soon after his death and are preserved intact in a remarkable book called the Qur'an—a book which has lived through no less than thirteen centuries without undergoing the least alteration in a single word or even a dot! The difference in the messages contained in the Qur'an and the ordinary sayings of the Prophet reported in books on Hadis ???? is simply this:—that when delivering God's messages Muhammad himself felt, and those who were in his company witnessed, that he was inspired by some divine energy or power which impelled him to say what he said; whereas at other times, when he was talking like an ordinary man, no signs of divine energy or inspiration were visible. It will carry me too far if I endeavour to explain here the real nature of "the divine inspiration" under which he delivered what he and others believed to be "divine messages". You will understand it if you read such books as Professor James's Varieties of Religious Experience. Let us, like good Momins, take it as a fact, what our Prophet's intimate companions ????? vouched, that he appeared to be quite a different man when he uttered such messages. Their style or matter itself even to this day proves to all unbiassed minds that they are no ordinary sayings of an ordinary man. There is something unique in them which we can only feel but cannot define or express in words. Even historians and biographers like Gibbon and Muir and translators like Rodwell, Palmer and Lane-Poole are obliged, in spite of themselves, to admit and admire, what some of them call, the rugged grandeur and eloquence of the Qur'an. Even Sale says that some passages are really sublime.

4. We call the Qur'an the word of God, chiefly because it contains messages of high spiritual value delivered by an illiterate man like Muhammad. It is neither a history like some of the books of the Old Testament, nor a biography like the four Gospels of the Bible. It is only a collection of sermons, commands, and instructions delivered and issued from time to time as occasions required. It contains, indeed, references to stories of older Prophets and previous events well known to the people of Arabia. But they are less by way of narration than by way of illustration. They are parables more or less 42 (??? ??????? ??? ??? ????). Commentators like Zamakh-shari (????? ????) and Imam Razi (????? ????) whose learning and authority cannot be questioned, have clearly proved that there is nothing in the Qur'an which is improbable or cannot be rationally explained to be quite in accordance with the laws of Nature ????? ????. If you read Sir Syed Ahmad's Commentary ????? ????? or his Essays ????? you will find rational explanations of the ideas of Paradise and Hell, the Day of Judgment,43 etc. I need not dwell on them here. I would however draw your attention to what is called the rule of "Parsimony in Thought" which is in vogue among men of Science. It is that if and when you can explain anything by what is well-known and understood by every one, you should not believe in the existence of "supermen" or assume the occurrence of supernatural events. When, for example, we can explain any action of Muhammad as an ordinary action of a reasonable man, we should not assume or believe that he performed a miracle. If we can explain the defeat and discomfiture of Abraham's Army by natural causes, such as an epidemic, we ought not to assume the occurrence of any supernatural event44.

5. The Qur'an does not favour any particular system of Philosophy. It leaves Muslims free to adopt any system of thought that commends itself to them, provided that it is not inconsistent with the (?????) idea of the one eternal and absolute God. Thus the Qur'an confines itself to the sphere of religion—the sphere where man is brought face to face with his God.

(a) What, then, is the object or aim of the Qur'an?

?? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? (He who has understood himself has understood his God.)

(b) Why should a man be revealed unto himself?

In order that he might know his true relation with the rest of the world so that he might shape his conduct accordingly i.e., be true to himself, true to others, and true to his God in thoughts, words, and deeds.

(c) How does the Qur'an reveal a man unto himself?

By showing him:—

(1) God in History45 (??? ?? ?? ? ????? He is the First and the Last.)

(2) God in Nature46 (? ???? ?? He is the Manifest.)

(3) God in Man's Conscience47 (??????? and He is the Hidden—Qur'an lvii. 3.)

In this sense the Qur'an is truly a revelation!

His sign is in all things,	line	* ??? ?? ?? ?? ???
Indicating that He is One.		* ??? ???? ??? ? ???

---

MY real task begins with this Note. I have to explain to you why I consider Islam48 the best of the religions that are now professed by men all over the world. Mark, I do not say that other religions are not good, but I only say that Islam is the best religion of all those I know. Why do I say so? Because no other religion accords so well as Islam with the modern ideas of Science.

By applying the adjectives "good," "better" and "best" to religions, I indicate the degree to which each religion, by its tenets and teaching, induces men to seek their welfare ????: and by the word "Science" ??? I mean simply the systematised knowledge of things known and knowable.

Science discovers things that are necessary or desirable for human welfare. Arts generally show the way in which those things can be obtained or manufactured. Governments provide, or ought to provide, facilities for scientific investigation and for improvement in arts. And it is Religion that should move men to take the fullest advantage of the science and arts of the time. You may take a horse to a river but you cannot make him drink unless he is thirsty. If he is thirsty he will drink of his own accord; but if he is not, neither the appearance of clear water, nor the easy way to get at it, nor indeed your whip or coaxing can ever induce him to drink. In the same way Science may show you water or anything that is useful, Arts may show you different ways of getting it, the Government of your State may offer rewards or even threaten punishment; but you will not drink, that is to say, you will not take advantage of the good things shown you and placed at your disposal, unless you are thirsty, unless there is something in you which impels you to it. This thirst, this something that is the moving force or motive, is created or furnished by Religion.

The chief use of religion lies in the desire that it fosters in men to live well, and virtuously.49 It is true that for most men the fear of punishment and the hope of reward, either here or hereafter, are motives for right conduct: and some religions (and even Islam as taught by some Moulvies) give glowing pictures of Heaven and Hell awaiting good and bad people after death.50 But these motives are unworthy of the higher nature ??? ?? ???? ?? of man. They are like the crack of a whip or the show of green grass to a horse that will not run. They are not so effective and lasting as the high spiritual motive for a virtuous life furnished by true religion. I cannot dwell further on this point without entering upon a philosophical or metaphysical discussion which is foreign to the purpose of these Notes. Suffice it to say that the spiritual or religious motive for virtuous conduct is the best of all motives, as it conforms to the higher or angelic ???? ?? nature of man and assists him in subduing his lower or animal ??? ??? nature.51

"The son of man is a unique and complex product (of Evolution) which has combined in him the natures of both the angel and the beast. If he leans towards the latter, his animal nature, he falls lower than the beast itself, but if he turns his attention to the former, his angelic nature, he rises higher than the angel himself."

vertical line

???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????

It is but religion, true Religion, that enables the "son of man" i.e., mankind to surpass angels in godliness. Note, this is exactly what Sir Oliver Lodge says in his book, The Substance of Faith allied with Science.

There is another use of Religion to which I should refer briefly before I pass on to the main argument. You always intend doing many things but never succeed in doing them all, either because you change your mind or because somebody or something prevents you from carrying them out. It is nevertheless important to yourself and society that your wishes, which are naturally more numerous than your actions, should be as good as the actions themselves. Laws and social conventions cannot adequately control them, for they take account of only outward manifestations, that is, actions which flow or result from your inward desires, passions and prejudices. These are controlled by such religions as true Christianity and true Islam which take that as done which was merely intended to be done, and inhibit bad intentions even before they appear in action.

Now, whatever religion supplies the best motives for virtuous conduct and most effectively prevents mischievous intentions, must necessarily be one which conforms best with the most approved ideas of the science and arts of the time. I hold that Islam is such a religion.52

Let me begin by showing a conformity of Islam to a modern idea, that there are more worlds than one.53 There are still some religions which assume that there is no other world than the world we live in, and that God created and maintains it for men only. Science has proved that such assumptions are unwarranted, and has even suggested grounds for believing that there are beings in the innumerable worlds of stars. This world of ours with its inhabitants has therefore no right to monopolise God to itself. Nor indeed have we, human beings, any right to consider ourselves as its superior inhabitants. Science is now-a-days on the track of finding out beings who are or who may be superior to man. Note that all this is implied in the expression ?? ???? ???? "the Lord of the worlds" contained in the Sura and other parts of the Qur'an. It does not say "the king of the world" (?? ????????) or of men ?? ?????? but says generally and truly that God is the King or Lord of great or grand worlds: ?? ???????, the definite article ?? ???????? in Arabic is often used to express greatness or grandeur as in the word ?? which means the Most High God.

According to Islam there are two sources of knowledge, Science and Revelation: the one represents man's effort to learn God's ways, and the other represents God's grace to discover His ways to man.54 I for one believe that the difference between the two sources of knowledge corresponds to the difference between "Experience" and "Intuition," between Acquired Ideas and Innate Ideas—a difference which modern philosophers (Spencer and Bergson) consider to be one of degree only and not of kind.

---

I cannot go over the whole field of Muslim theology to show how its ideas are in accord with the scientific thought of our days. I will confine myself to three principles and three maxims implied in the analysis of the Opening Sura ???? ???? given in one of my previous Notes56.

I. The verse ????? ??? ?? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? points to the Principle of Unity:

From this results the Maxim of Union & Loyalty:

II. The verse ???? ???? ? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ???????? points to the Principle of Perfection:

From this results the Maxim of Self-help:

III. The verse ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ? ?? ??????? points to the Principle of Moderation:

From this results the Maxim of the Average:

I will now endeavour to shew, as briefly and as simply as possible, how the principles and maxims I have stated correspond with the best scientific ideas of the present age. By "the best scientific ideas," I mean nothing more than conclusions arrived at by eminent men of science after severe study and prolonged investigation. I can only refer to the conclusions as such without attempting to summarise the reasoning, etc. by which they have been reached. You may read the works of authors I shall name, if you wish to learn more of their thoughts.

1. The first Principle of Unity ????? implies that there is but one Energy or Force whose different transformations we call forces, but one Life whose appearance in different shapes we call lives, and but one Mind whose different manifestations we call minds. But the universal Energy, the universal Life, and the universal Mind57 ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???????? are themselves but so many forms, appearances or manifestations of the one Being ???? who is Infinite ????? and Absolute ?? ??? ? ?? ???? ? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???. This is exactly what scientific men and philosophers have said and are saying to-day. Read the works of any of the eminent men mentioned in the margin, 1. Herbert Spencer.
2. Dr. A.R. Wallace.
3. Prof. James.
4. Sir Oliver Lodge.
5. Dr. Theodore Merz. and you will find that the conclusion they have reached after life-long investigations, tallies remarkably with the conception of God which Islam formulated centuries ago.

Every child begins with the experience of 'This is mine' and 'That is not mine.' This experience matures in the adult into "I" and "not-I"—the subject that knows and the object that is known. We call the knower or subject, Mind; and the known or object, Matter. Most modern Philosophers agree in believing that Mind and Matter are but two aspects of One Reality underlying All. Just as a big building like the Falaknuma Palace presents different aspects when viewed from different directions, and yet is one and the same building; so the Reality of Existence appears to us in different aspects as Mind and Matter, and yet is one and the same Reality58.

Dr. Theodore Merz of the Durham University, at the end of his grand survey of the Scientific Thought of Europe in the 19th Century,59 says: "The scientific mind advances from the idea of Order or arrangement to that of Unity through the idea of Continuity."

The process adopted by Science of arriving at Unity is only the reverse of what Islam adopted: the former begins a posteriori with Order, finds Continuity and arrives at Unity, but the latter started a priori with Unity, passed over Continuity, and found Order, thus:—

Science.	Islam.
1. Order	1. Order 1. Unity = ???? = ?? ???????? The Reality58 of which both Mind and Matter are different aspects.
2. Continuity	2. Continuity = ?????? ?????? = Force or Energy.
3. Unity	3. Order60 = ??? ??? ????? = Order or Process.

What Sir Edwin Arnold calls the soul of Islam, i.e., the Principle of Unity, so patently corresponds with the ultimate results of modern Science and Philosophy, that I need not dwell on it at any great length. It is sufficient to point out that Science has now proved three Unities, the Unity of Substance, the Unity of Force, and the Unity of Process; and Philosophy has shown that the three Unities resolve themselves into One Infinite Power.61

"There is no strength (to avoid evil) nor ability (to do good)except through God who is great and supreme."

paranthesis

?? ??? ? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????

Maxim of Union and Loyalty.

2. How is the Maxim of Union and Loyalty inferred from the principle of Unity? Man, being a creature of God, should try to be godly and godlike, try to imitate God in actions, try to co-operate with his fellow creatures for the good of all, and should thus attain the ideal: "Union is Strength." This is the Islamic doctrine of Atonement62 (= at-one-ment ??? ?? ????): to be at one with God by union and co-operation with God's creatures so far as your and their constitutions and environments allow. But you need not bother yourself with theories at present. It will be enough if you remember that the ultimate aim or the sole object of the Prophet's mission was to establish the universal union and brotherhood of mankind by means of a firm belief in the eternal truth of God's unity. He preached the Unity of God and worked all his life for the union of men into a universal Brotherhood.

In order that you should co-operate, i.e., work together with your fellow-men for the good of all, your work must needs be co-ordinated. It must be guided and directed so that it tallies with the work of others. This guidance and direction comes from your leader, whom you and your fellow-workers must obey, in order to attain the best results. Co-operation thus implies Co-ordination which requires a leader—Caliph or King—whom you ought to follow loyally. Loyalty to your leader is therefore the gist of co-operation. The Qur'an and the Traditions are full of injunctions for obedience to "those in authority among you" 63 ????? ????? ???? "The surest way of pleasing God is to obey the King."

Modern Science teaches exactly the same thing. I have a series of little books in my Library called "People's Books" published at 6d. each by Messrs. Jack, London. One of them on "Zoology" is written by Professor MacBride, F.R.S. He traces the development of Man from Protozoa,—little specks of animalculÆ—and points out how each species of animals has risen higher than another by (i) greater "inventive capacity", the capacity of adopting new means to an old end and old means to a new end: and (ii) higher "tribal morality" implied in co-operation and loyalty to leaders. He says: "Mankind progresses by the appearance of individuals in whom (besides the inventive genius) the instincts of co-operation and loyalty are more strongly developed". It is precisely those instincts that Islam fosters by its doctrine of the universal brotherhood of Muslims—a doctrine which implies primarily loyalty to your King. Just as the affairs of a family like yours, consisting of a dozen members, cannot prosper unless each follows loyally the lead of the eldest, or the wisest among you; so the affairs of a nation can never be in a satisfactory condition unless each individual is loyal to his King and country, and co-operates with his Government by willingly doing what is required of him.

Muhammad enjoined ???? ????? ? ?? ??? ?????? "Seek knowledge even if thou hast to go for it to China"—(the farthest country known in his days).

He said that wisdom was the birthright of every Muslim who should seize it wherever he found it. He thus encouraged the learning of Science and the consequent acquirement of inventive capacity which is biologically as essential for human progress as co-operation and loyalty.

A study of animal life from the lowest animalcule to the highly civilized man, teaches us to know, feel and act, in a particular manner, viz.,

"Knowledge, Sympathy and Loyalty" are thus the watchwords of the Science of to-day no less than of the Islam of our ancestors.64

---

ALLOW me to explain here that my object is not to persuade you to believe what I say but only to make you think for yourself. I will therefore avoid arguments and discussions as much as possible and content myself with bare outlines of certain Islamic doctrines and brief references to the corresponding ideas of modern Science. I shall be very pleased if they serve to excite your curiosity and stimulate your thought.

1. The second Muslim doctrine which I have called the Principle of Perfection may be inferred from the second part of the Sura:—It is essential for our perfect development that we should worship God and implore Him for help and guidance in the discharge of the three-fold duty of our life.

No sane man thinks that he is perfect as he is. There is always a feeling of some sort in our mind that somehow, and in some respect or other, we are not as perfect as we should be. It is to remove this feeling of imperfection inherent in us that we have to worship God and supplicate His help and guidance. If you ask: "Why should I worship God?" Islam answers your question by asking another: "Why should you admire beauty in Nature and Art?" You can answer only: "Because it is beautiful. I am so constituted that I cannot do otherwise than admire a beautiful object when I see it". You are unable to give any other reason satisfactorily accounting for your admiration of the beautiful. Islam returns a similar answer to your question: "You should worship God because He is God". You, as one of His creatures, cannot help worshipping or reverently adoring Him when you see, at every instant of your life, manifold manifestations of His divine Goodness and Beauty. Some Sufis65 even go to the extent of identifying God with "Infinite Beauty" ??? ???? which is the object of their love ??? and ecstacy ???.

You remember the verse which every devout Muslim recites when he hears the news of the death of any one: ??? ??? ? ??? ???? ??????

This as well as some other verses support the Islamic belief in the re-union of a man's soul with God. As I have mentioned in my previous Note, Islam conceives that there is but one Universal Soul. Small parts—infinitesimal fractions—of the Universal Soul are confined in men's bodies and break free at death to re-join the Whole66. This belief is in entire accord with Sir Oliver Lodge's theory (or "speculation", as he calls it) put forward in his book, Faith allied to Science. Without stopping to enquire how far the belief indicated by Qur'anic verses, or the theory advanced by a man of science, is supported by scientific facts, I would only point out that it gives a clear and intelligible meaning to the word "worship" ?????. It is the communion of the fractional soul, which is somehow confined in a man's living body, with the Whole Soul, the Soul of the Universe, to which it—the fractional soul—shall return some day freed from the trammels of the flesh. This "communion" ????? includes Adoration ????? ? ????? and Prayer ???.

I cannot do better than quote Sir Oliver Lodge's admirable description of the meaning and object of Prayer:—

"In prayer we come into close communion with a Higher than we know, and seek to contemplate Divine perfection. Its climax and consummation is attained when we realize the universal Permeance, the entire Goodness and the Fatherly Love of the Divine Being."

[???? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????

Praise be to God, Lord of the worlds, compassionate and merciful, King of the day of Reckoning.]

"Through prayer we admit our dependance on a Higher Power, for existence and health and everything we possess; we are encouraged to ask for whatever we need as children ask parents; [?????? ????? ???Call upon me—I will hearken unto you] and we inevitably cry for mercy and comfort in times of tribulation and anguish."

"The spirit of simple supplication may desire chiefly:—

"1. Insight and receptiveness to truth and knowledge.

"2. Help and guidance in the practical management of life.

"3. Ability and willingness to follow the light withersoever it leads."

Compare the verses I have placed in brackets with what Sir Oliver says, and you will observe how well he has interpreted the Qur'an. It looks as if he had the Opening Sura ???? ????? before him when he wrote. Even the sequence of his ideas corresponds practically with the order of the verses. But you may be quite sure that he never thought of the Qur'an at all. He evolved it all from his own inner consciousness well trained by scientific studies.

Maxim of Self-help.

2. There are numerous verses in the Qur'an which enjoin "purification ?? ??? of one's self" and prohibit "cruelty ??? to one's own mind". They obviously imply the rule of conduct which I have called the Maxim of Self-help. No one has expressed it more beautifully and truthfully than Shakespeare in the well-known speech of Polonius.

It is the basis of the ethical system advocated by authors mentioned in the margin. There are at present two contending schools of Morality. Each tries to determine what is 'good' or 'bad', and sets up a 'standard' or test by which men's actions should be judged as 'right' or 'wrong'. The standard according to the one school is Happiness (the surplus of pleasure over pain); according to the other it is Perfection (the fullest development of men as social beings). I think the latter school is more in favour now than it was at the end of the last century. Men of science now-a-days realize with Herbert Spencer that every one ought to develop himself by freely exercising all the powers of his mind and body to the fullest extent consistent with, and limited by, the like exercise by his fellow men.67 I cannot expatiate on this subject without entering into the realms of philosophy and metaphysics. I have only to say that the teaching of Islam as regards self-development is in entire accord with the views of latter-day moralists.

If you are a student of Ethics you will observe that the doctrine of "making the most of oneself" (Perfection) is, in accordance with the Islamic principle of Moderation, the mean of two extreme doctrines:—the doctrine of "duty for duty's sake" (Rigourism) on the one hand, and the doctrine of "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" (Utilitarianism) on the other.

I have to add that "self-perfection" really means "self-help," = due exercise of one's faculties with patience and perseverance. If you have not read Dr. Smiles' book on Self-help, you had better read it at your earliest convenience. I can recommend no better commentary on the saying: "God helps those who help themselves."68

---

Islam69 is, so to speak, the youngest of all the great religions that are now professed by millions of people. Like a child who is heir to all the mental and physical tendencies inherited and acquired by his ancestors, Islam inherited all the revelations which "one hundred and eighty thousand" (i.e. innumerable) prophets had communicated to the world before the advent of Muhammad. I have already referred to the injunction, contained in the Qur'an, that we should believe not only what was revealed to Muhammad himself, but also what was revealed to all "Messengers of God" who had come before him; provided always that we have authentic records of those revelations.70 (This proviso is very important.) It is therefore no detraction from the merits of Islam that some of its doctrines resemble those of other revealed religions. Parsis say that Islam borrowed: ??? ???? ?????? ?????? "In the name of God the most merciful and most compassionate"71 from their holy scripture, Zendavesta, which begins with the words ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??. Some Christian writers on Islam seem to take delight in pointing out that the Prophet of Arabia borrowed this, that, and the other doctrine from certain Christians and Jews whom he had met in his earlier life. It is very doubtful whether he had ever met such people. But it is certain that he was too illiterate ??? to understand their recondite doctrines if they had condescended to teach him. Even if we admit that he borrowed doctrines from other religions, his own religion is not thereby rendered the less valuable; for there is no religion which is absolutely original. He never denounced former religions but only claimed to have confirmed and supplemented them by the religion revealed to him. He always referred to "former revelations" with great respect.

---

Muslims picture the Supreme Truth as a beautiful citadel built on the top of a steep mountain. Different religions are but so many paths ??? ?? leading to it from different directions. In their estimation Islam is the best and the easiest path of all. This fanciful idea implies that some of the paths might cross each other at different parts of their course, and others might run parallel to one another or even run together for a considerable distance. Many religions may therefore have certain doctrines bearing close resemblance to each other like parallel paths. Some religions may even have certain doctrines in common, like paths running together. All religions are, and purport to be, paths leading to one and the same citadel of Truth.72 None the less has each of them an individuality of its own and a claim that it is better and easier than all others.73

I have prefaced this Note with the above remarks because the Principle of Moderation and the connected Maxim of the Mean, which are indicated in the third and last part of the Sura, were enunciated by Plato ??? ??? and his disciple Aristotle ????? who lived more than 1,000 years before Muhammad. Some Muslims count those great sages of ancient Greece among the innumerable (1,800,000) Messengers of God who preceded our Prophet.74 The records75 ????? possess an authority second only to that of the Qur'an itself, being in fact revelations which God vouchsafed from time to time for the benefit and guidance of mankind.

1. I need not repeat what I have already said as to 'the Path of Grace' ???? ????? ????? ????? being the mean between two extremes, 'the Path of Sin' ??? ??????? ????? and 'the Path of Error' ? ?? ???????. I may however explain that the pursuit of the Path of Grace implies the Principle of Moderation in the sense that we should fully and freely exercise all our mental and physical powers with due regard to their respective limitations. For all practical purposes, you may take Reason, Passion and Action as the principal representatives of a man's powers, and view Reason as the guiding force in his constitution,

Passion as the moving force, and Action (voluntary acts and omissions) as the resultant of the guiding and moving forces thus:—

Now, the Principle of Moderation means simply that you should not allow your passions to influence your actions unduly, nor should you allow your reason to control your passions unduly; but you should ever try to hold the balance even between them in order that the resultant action might be quite right—might discharge the three-fold duty of man,—and might thereby tend (be it in ever so small a degree) to the perfection of the individual and the race. If at any time your passion over-rides your reason, you commit Sin; and on the contrary, if you exercise your reason so much as to stifle your passion altogether, you fall into Error. If you permit neither reason, nor passion to discharge their respective functions, you lapse into Inaction which is again an Error. Undue suppression of Passion, and over-exercise of Reason, as well as non-exercise of both—militate against the Principle of Moderation, the essence of which is (as Aristotle pointed out) that no power should tyrannize over any other in our constitution.

What is "due" or "undue" exercise of a power, is a question which your common sense should decide in each case with reference to the person acting and the circumstances under which he acts. The only general rule that can be laid down is implied in the ideal of perfection explained in the previous Notes. Every exercise of any of your mental or bodily power is right or wrong according as it does, or does not, tend to the perfection of yourselves or your offspring, and your community or race.

I have only to add that the Principle of Moderation, in the form in which I have roughly described it, is fully recognized by such up-to-date writers on the Science of Ethics as Sir Leslie Stephen, one of the two talented Editors of the Dictionary of National Biography.

2. Addressing Muslims the Qur'an says:—
??? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?????
"We have thus made you a middle nation (= a moderate people) in order that you should be an example to mankind."—i. 137.

One of the ways in which God has made Muslims a moderate people is by enjoining them to avoid extreme courses of action and to adopt the middle or the mean course whenever and wherever it is possible76.

The Maxim of the Mean is the objective counter-part of the subjective Principle of Moderation. The latter says: Don't over-, or under-exercise any of your faculties; and the former says: Don't have too much or too little of any thing. Too much of any thing is good for nothing. Too little of it is worse than nothing. "Too much" and "too little" are relative terms and signify nothing by themselves. It is only with reference to oneself and one's environment at any particular time and place that they acquire a meaning as "excess" and "defect" respectively. I cannot explain it better than give a few instances in a tabular form where the "mean" comes between the "excess" and the "defect" of a quality of the head or heart, or a course of action.

(1) Qualities of the Head (Reason):—

Excess.	Mean.	Defect.
Caution	Prudence	Neglect
Doubt	Conviction	Uncertainty
Conceit	Modesty	Diffidence
Sensitive	Attentive	Indifferent

(2) Qualities of the Heart (Passions):—

Cowardice	Courage	Rashness
Sensuality	Temperance	Abstinence
Bigot	Enthusiastic	Lukewarm

(3) Courses of Action:—

Restriction	Liberty	Licence
Favouritism	Justice	Injustice
Prodigal	Generous	Miserly

You will find out for yourself what are the appropriate qualities or courses of conduct, of which the excess, mean and defect are expressed by the words given above. Fear, for example, is the feeling of which excess is Cowardice and defect is Rashness, while the mean is Courage. Similarly as regards one's own opinion of one's powers, excess is Conceit and defect is Diffidence, while the mean is Modesty. Again too much or too little restraint on action is Restriction or Licence while the mean is Liberty.

It will be a useful exercise to make a long list of such words as express the difference of degrees of the various qualities or functions of Reason, Passion and Action (= Knowledge, Feeling and Will.) But it will not always be possible to find three contrasted words, like those in the table, for every quality or action; because no language is so perfect as to have separate and single words to express the immense number and manifold shades of ideas which our mind is capable of entertaining. Still the fact is duly recognized by modern Science that there are differences not only of kind but also of degree in everything—ideas, feelings, desires, actions, objects and attributes of objects—with which we are concerned. Although you may not have a word expressive of degree in every case, yet you can practically ascertain the extremes and the mean in all cases without exception, and can so order your conduct as to avoid the one and adopt the other in all cases. I may point out here that "the Mean" is not the "arithmetical mean" (like 6½ which is the arithmetical mean of 5 and 8) but only an approximately medium or middle course of conduct—via media.77 ???? ?? ?? ? ? ? ???

You may object that, since the ascertainment of the mean in each case requires calm thought with reference to yourself and your environment, the rule is too difficult to follow in these days of quick communication, speedy locomotion, and urgent action. I answer that it is but an ideal rule of conduct. Like all rules of Logic (Thought), Æsthetics (Beauty), or Ethics (Conduct), it sets before you an ideal which you should ever strive to attain though you may not attain it fully at any time. No thinker may have been absolutely logical, no Artist may have wrought a perfect work of beauty, and no man may have ever been quite moral. But that is no reason why thinkers, artists, and men generally, should not endeavour to attain perfection in their respective spheres of thought and action.

There is a further and greater objection to the rule of the middle course, viz., that, if followed strictly, it will reduce all men to a dead level of mediocrity, and will not foster the development of men of genius. I have to admit regretfully that such will be the case, and, as my next Note will show, it will be in accordance with a Law of Nature recently discovered. Some writers have even attempted to prove that genius or excessive intelligence is a form of madness as bad as its opposite form, imbecility or defective intelligence. They seem to believe that only the men of average intelligence are quite sane.

The late Sir John Gorst created a sensation when he declared in the House of Commons that great countries were governed by mediocrities only.

---

IT was Adolphe Quetelet, Astronomer-Royal of Belgium, who in the seventies of the last century attempted to prove that "the average man is to a nation what the centre of gravity is to a body." A similar, if not quite the same, conclusion has since been reached by Sir Francis Galton and Professor Karl Pearson in their researches into men's physical and intellectual qualities in the light of Darwin's theory of Natural Selection or Survival of the Fittest. This theory which, in its more extended form, is called the Law of Evolution, has profoundly influenced, if not entirely revolutionized, the Science and Philosophy of our own times. It has not however succeeded, as was at first feared, in destroying men's belief in God, the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. For it has done no more than disclose but a few of the numerous ways in which He creates and rules.

I have been a student of Evolution Literature ever since I left College. Speaking for myself I can say that my study of it has not in the least shaken my belief in God, but has rather strengthened it. I entirely agree with a popular writer78 on "the Scientific Ideas of To-day," who says:

The Law of Evolution or the Development Hypothesis, as it has been called, is in fact a clever guess at truth—very valuable as a formula which enables us not only to remember the result of numerous observations and experiments, but also to predict certain events to be verified by subsequent observations and experiments. It is impossible to convey a clear idea of it in a few sentences. A great man like Herbert Spencer spent 50 years of his life in explaining and illustrating it in no less than ten stout volumes of his "Synthetic Philosophy." The central idea may however be expressed in the following propositions, using the word "thing" in its widest sense as any object of perception, or knowable objects79.

1. Nothing exists absolutely by itself; everything exists in relation with something else which is its "environment."

2. A thing and its environment cannot exist side by side for any considerable time without each affecting or influencing the other in some respects at least: a thing A and its environment B, which cannot but exist together, must needs act and re-act on each other.

3. The action and re-action of the thing A and its environment B on each other, brings about mutual adjustment, the fitting of each into the other.

4. According as this mutual adjustment or fitting is relatively complete or incomplete, there is Evolution or Dissolution, survival or extinction, of the thing (A) itself.80

5. The process of Evolution or Survival is characterized by:—

6. In the opposite process of Dissolution or Extinction the thing undergoes the same changes in the reverse order before it disappears as such.

In other words, given a thing and its environment, the one has to adapt and adjust itself to the other, or cease to exist. Nothing survives, as an individual, which does not change. Like a picture in its setting, a thing has to fit itself to its environment in order that it might survive for the best advantage of itself and its kind. Thus, the fit lives and the unfit dies81. As the Qur'an expresses it ?? ????? ?? "the Earth is inherited by only the fit among My creatures."82 This applies not only to plants and animals, man and society, but also to inanimate or inorganic things, as the President of the British Association announced some years ago.

A man, for example, has for his environment, the atmosphere of the place he inhabits, the society he lives in, the occupation he follows, the laws he obeys, etc. He can live long and happily only when the qualities of his body and mind befit him to that environment, i.e., when they enable him (to become ?? ??) to adapt himself continuously to the circumstances of his position. What, then, is the general nature of such qualities?

You know that one of the best methods of Science is Measurement. No scientific knowledge is exact unless it enables you not only to distinguish one quality from another, but also to measure each quality or determine its degrees in some way or other. It is not sufficient to know hot from cold but the degrees of temperature must be measured by a thermometer.

The new methods of Statistics and graphic representation have been applied to a large number of men and women for the purpose of finding "the fittest" qualities or "characters" as they are technically called. Professor Karl Pearson83 and others have thus found that among a large number of men and women in a given community any physical or mental character which deviates largely, by excess or defect, from the mean or average, renders them the less fit to survive the struggle for existence. Individuals possessing any character which deviates extremely from the mean tend to disappear. For example, the average height of men has been found by measurement of a large number of people to be (say) 5ft. 6in. and it has also been found by statistical methods that men who are 7ft. or men who are only 3ft. are very rare. It is therefore concluded that men who are too tall or too short i.e., who deviate extremely from the mean, tend to disappear and are therefore unfit to survive.

This is only a rough and ready example of what is called the Law of Periodic Selection which has now superseded the Belgian philosopher's Law of the Average (or "the Mean"). It applies to human conduct as well as to human qualities. That conduct alone (i.e., only that particular course of deliberate action) befits a man to his environment, which deviates the least from a standard or average of such conduct. It is the indispensable condition of his happiness and longevity.

You thus see that the Islamic Maxim of the Mean is justified by Science.

---

LET me devote this concluding Note to a few general remarks. The meanings and definitions of certain words given below are somewhat arbitrary, but I trust they will enable you to understand and remember certain abstruse matters.

(a) Take the word "thing" to mean any object of thought, such as, for example, a house, a labourer, redness, distance, home, charity, eloquence, or the British Constitution. All these are things which you can think of.

(b) You may then define a "fact" as a known or knowable thing or relation between things; in other words, a fact is any thing or relation, which you know or can know if you take the necessary trouble.

(c) The word "Nature", with a capital N, is but a name for the sum-total of all facts known and knowable. Poets, philosophers, and even some men of Science, personify this sum-total of facts known and knowable, i.e., Nature and refer to it as "she" or "her". It is but a convenient way of saying, by implication, that there is the same uniformity, continuity and unity in Nature as in our idea of a person.

Now, all thinking men of all ages of history have ever tried to understand Nature as a whole and to answer regarding her three important questions represented by three interrogatives, what? how? and why?

Broadly speaking, I may say that Science (with its various departments called "Sciences") tries to answer the first question what, the question as to facts of Nature. Philosophy tries to answer the second question how, the question as to the explanation of Nature. Religion or Theology (which includes highest Poetry) tries to answer the third and last question why, the question as to the reason of Nature. You may thus clearly remember the respective provinces of Science, Philosophy and Religion by remembering three words What, How and Why. When you read a book which treats of facts or the what of Nature; or of the explanation or the how of her; or of the reason or the why of her; you may be sure it is Science, Philosophy or Religion respectively that you are reading, whatever be the name of the book itself.

I have said that Science, Philosophy or Religion "tries to answer" and not "answers", because the answer of any of them can never be final or immutable. None of them can ever reach finality. As the experience of mankind grows continuously, new facts or new phases of old facts are discovered in the course of time. Just as men have to adapt or adjust themselves to new facts (or to changes in old facts) or else die; so men's Science, Philosophy and Theology have to adjust themselves to new facts or else become empty nothings.85

I have often said that I believe Islam to be the best religion because (so far as I know) it accords best with the current ideas of Science. If you accept my view of the respective provinces of Science, Philosophy, and Religion, you can easily comprehend that a Religion like Islam which purports to expound the reason why of Nature must needs correspond with the what (Science) as well as with the how (Philosophy) of Nature. The three great divisions of Human Thought—I mean, Science, Philosophy and Religion—are necessarily connected with one another, as otherwise they cannot make up the whole Universe of Human Thought and cannot satisfy men's craving for complete and consistent knowledge.

The Law of Evolution which I mentioned in the previous Note is but a Theory of Creation, an explanation of how Nature has come to be what she is. New facts which future ages may discover may prove the theory to be either right or wrong. At present it is the best hypothesis—the best guess—because it accords best with known facts. It acts as a guide to knowable facts as well. It has shown that men cannot progress, indeed cannot long survive, if they fail to adapt themselves to the circumstances of their position, if they fail to fit into their environment which surrounds them like an envelope. Ceaseless change is the order of Nature. Continuous adaptation is the law of life. Adaptability is therefore the sine qua non of men's life and existence. The religion which suits them must also have the quality of adaptability. I hold Islam has this quality in an eminent degree and is therefore the most suitable religion.

Please remember that I speak of Islam as taught by the Qur'an itself and not "Muhammadanism" as professed by some so-called followers of the Prophet. You have to interpret the Qur'an86 quite naturally as any other book or historic document, but not in the way in which some Muhammadans do it with the aid of marvellous fictions and miraculous traditions. Islam has to resist (to use a big word) the anthropomorphic tendency of the human mind, viz., the tendency to view abstract qualities or agencies as persons having a separate existence as individual beings.

I have said that there is no inherent antagonism between Christianity and Islam if and when the sayings and doings of the founders of each are rightly viewed and understood in a simple and natural manner. Muhammad never ceased saying that he had come to attest and complete the mission of Jesus and his predecessors, who were God's messengers like himself.87 The greatest and the best rule of human conduct which Jesus laid down was: "Love thy neighbour as thyself".

You remember the well-known lines of Burns:

The gift which the poet prays for is vouchsafed to very few mortals. Almost all of us have naturally, and often unconsciously, such a high opinion of ourselves that, even if we would, we could not see ourselves as others see us. The next best thing that we can do is, therefore, to see others as we see ourselves, to cherish the same regard for others as we instinctively cherish for ourselves. If (to take an extreme case for example) we cannot detest ourselves as others sometimes detest or hate us, we can at least try to love others as we love ourselves, "try to do unto others as we wish that others should do unto us". Thus the rule: "Love thy neighbour as thyself", is quite consistent with human nature and is the most comprehensive rule of conduct which has ever been laid down for the guidance of mankind. To my mind there is no better proof of the identity in spirit of Christianity and Islam than the confirmation of Christ's command by Muhammad himself.

No-one will be a faithful Muslim until he loves his neighbour as he loves himself.

line

?? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????

For this reason, I believe that there is no difference between the two religions if the metaphysical doctrines engrafted on both be eliminated. True Islam is but true Christianity writ short.88 Both recognize that the source of virtue is love,

For love is Heaven and Heaven is love.

---

---

We are indebted to Mr. J.C. Molony for the following illuminating criticism which affords food for serious thought—Editor.

If we assume the existence of a God, interested in the governance of this world, it becomes impossible to deny that Muhammad was God's messenger, or, at least, God's prophet. It seems to me unlikely that a man could change the belief of nations by chance, incredible that he should do so were he an impostor. Muhammad was certainly honest; the persistence of the faith called after him leads me to consider him as inspired. Or, if "inspired" be objected to as a general religious term of very indefinite meaning, let us say that he saw into the heart and reality of life further and more clearly than any man has done since his day. How then comes the fact, noted by Amjad and Mahmood and admitted by you, that Islamic countries in the main have wretched governments, and are crumbling away before Christian Powers? I do not think that you have answered this question89. You have merely pointed out that Islam, if rightly understood, is an excellent religion.

The boys, I think, have stated their dilemma too sharply; the contrast is not entirely between Islam and Christianity. India is for all practical purposes a "Hindu" country, and the power of the old Indian Kingdoms has faded before Christian invaders. In that section of the world in which Christianity is the prevailing and accepted form of religious belief, the temporal might of those nations professing one great form of the Christian creed, the Roman Catholic, has undoubtedly waned in comparison with that of the nations professing what is generally called the Protestant faith. There are many varieties of non-Roman Catholic Christianity, but Protestantism is a label sufficiently comprehensive and sufficiently well understood for our purposes. I speak without sectarian bitterness; I am not, I fear, a convinced adherent of any particular form of religious faith. I have met many good men, and have many friends, among Muhammadans, Hindus, and Roman Catholics. But I think that the objective truth of what I say, particularly in the Christian sphere, is indubitable. Compare for instance the decay of Spain with the grandeur of England, the feebleness of Austria with the strength and order (turned to ill uses though they may be) of Germany.90 The question at once arises whether religion has anything to say to the matter. I think that it has.

Muhammadanism, Hinduism, and Catholicism (I omit the prefix Roman) have concerned themselves too much with Heaven and Hell, with the avoidance of future damnation and the obtaining of future bliss. These religions have afforded some justification for the gibe that Auguste Comte levelled at Christianity; he said that it sprang from "a servile terror and an immense cupidity." Religion should be rather a guide of life here than a guide to a life to come. Kant would have curtailed the beatitude "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" into "blessed are the pure in heart". It is good to be good; it is not good to be good in the hope of some ultimate gain thereby.91 The great Catholic Bishop of Pondicherry, Monseigneur Bonnand, wrote to one of his desponding priests: "Continue a missionary to the end, and you will assuredly be saved". In my opinion he was wrong; I should think little of a missionary, whether Christian or Muhammadan, who endured the trials of a missionary life (and some of those old French priests did endure abundantly) solely in the hope of making a personal, albeit spiritual and eternal, profit at the end of it all.

Now, "Bishop Blougram", a character created by the poet Browning, though supposedly inspired by the personality of Cardinal Wiseman, says in his "Apology":

The same, I fear, might now be said of Muhammadanism. But to my mind there is no fixity, no absolute truth in any form of religious dogma. Religion is a thing that must grow with man's intelligence; it is not a box of spiritual truths packed once and for ever, and unpacked for the gaze of successive generations. It is not enough to believe in certain facts that happened long ago, or to obey certain injunctions given long ago in a particular country; we must apply the spirit of a religion to the circumstances in which we live. We shall never attain to final absolute truth, "the end is not yet, and the purposes of God to man are but half revealed" (Jowett).

Unfortunately when any religion has taken itself as final it has developed a priesthood, and that priesthood has been apt to lay down a code of fixed rules wherewith alone compliance is required. It is a fatally easy thing to live in conformity with any definite code of rules. Muhammad himself, I imagine, was a singularly liberal theologian. He laid down certain regulations for the conduct of life, excellent considering his place and time; the modern Muhammadan has accepted these as a maximum spiritual demand, ignoring the fact that they probably represented the minimum demands of common sense in Muhammad's time and country.

Muhammad directed that a Muhammadan should not drink alcohol. This is a maxim of excellent sense in Arabia; Haji Burton, who much appreciated good wine, has told us that in the Arabian deserts wine is positively distasteful as well as unwholesome. I have not the least desire that Muhammadans should drink wine. I merely say that there is no merit, other than that of common sense, in obeying this excellent instruction in countries wherein circumstances render it excellent. I do not believe that Muhammad would find the least fault with disregard of his maxim in countries where the climate makes the moderate drinking of wine both pleasant and beneficial.

Muhammad instituted the Ramzan fast, mainly, I am told, to harden his soldiers. But the Muhammadan of to-day finds a positive merit in fasting. There is none; else the jockey's profession comprises the most virtuous men in the world.

Muhammad permitted polygamy, and enjoined the practical seclusion of women. This, as Sir Syed Ahmad has pointed out, was the counsel of common sense in Arabia at the time of the Prophet. Apparently there were more women than men, and if a woman was not under the protection of some man, and was not under guard, she was very likely to come to harm. But I do not think that this counsel holds good for all time. Polygamy among Indian Muhammadans is dying out, but the general Muhammadan here still imprisons his womankind in the comfortable assurance that he is thereby paving his own way to salvation. I do not see much hope for the physical and mental development of Muhammadans so long as one half of the people remains in seclusion and ignorance, in a habit of life necessarily unhealthy. If you observe that you thereby escape the evils that are published to the world in European divorce courts, I would answer that in the first place I doubt the completeness of your escape, (it is a matter on which I have heard much sardonic comment from Muslim friends), and that in the second place, even granting what you say, 80% of women free, educated, virtuous and healthy, is a far better result than 100% merely virtuous, and that by constraint.

Muhammad laid down that a man should pray five times a day. To my mind this was merely the Prophet's way of saying that man's whole life should be a prayer: the modern Muhammadan too often "repeats prayers" five times a day and is satisfied. He might as well repeat the multiplication table five times a day. "Words without thoughts to Heaven never go" said the king in Hamlet. I do not know if our friend D.B. prays ten times a day, or five times, or not at all, and (candidly) I do not care. All I know is that in his responsible position he would die rather than take a bribe, tell a lie, intrigue against his master. And I fancy that the Prophet, could he return to earth, would find this abundantly sufficient.

You mention a few other points of orthodoxy; the cut of one's hair, the length of one's trousers. Dr. Khaja Hussain told me that he once saw a Muhammadan Street aroused to frenzy and riot by the appearance of a true believer in Feringhi (or Kafir) boots. It is all of a piece. Muhammadans have concentrated their attention on these ready-made rules for getting to heaven; their prophet found no such easy road to bliss. I do not imagine that it would ever have occurred to his great soul to claim any particular merit in that he did not drink wine, in that he repeated prayers (he at least understood these prayers) five times a day, in that he did not let his wives roam the country a prey to any marauder of those wild times. After all any one can obey these regulations with very little trouble to himself; it is not quite so easy to adopt the spirit that guided Muhammad's life. Sir Afsur, I do not doubt, will tell you that it is an advisable thing for a soldier to drill smartly, to keep his arms and accoutrements clean, and that with a little trouble it is not difficult for a soldier to do all this. But he will tell you, I feel sure, that this is far from being all; the supreme duty of a soldier is to be brave in battle—an affair of much more difficulty. A soldier may be smart and clean, but if he fails in battle his smartness and cleanness are worth nothing—he is a bad soldier.

Muhammadanism has lost touch with life; it contents itself with the letter of the Prophet's teaching and shuts its eyes to, does not search for, the indwelling spirit. It is a small kernel rattling in a very big shell, as Charles Kingsley said in "Yeast" of the Church service at St. Paul's in the fifties of the last century. Religion has been divorced from life, and so the followers of Islam as nations have decayed.

It is the same with the other religions that I have mentioned. The old time Brahmin called himself such because he was educated, intelligent, sanitary in his habits, upright; he did not claim to be all this simply because he was the son of his father. The great obstacle to progress down here is the fact that people imagine it is sufficient to follow in a mechanical unintelligent way the letter, while totally disregarding the spirit, of some old and after all not very important rules. Ireland is said to have been an "Isle of Saints", I have my doubts on the subject, but suppose it so. It is now full of fine churches and religious establishments; no people in the world go to church with greater regularity, abstain more thoroughly from meat on Fridays, etc. etc. But with the mechanical observances they are, I fear, too well satisfied. Drunkenness, idleness, utter disregard for truth, are rampant in Southern Ireland, and therefore Southern Ireland is what it is. Formal devotion is no substitute whether in the daily battle of the world, or (I believe) in the ultimate judgment of God, for the proper ordering of one's every day actions.

If Muhammadans breathe the breath of life on the dry bones of their religion I see no reason why the temporal power of Islamic countries and the spiritual strength of the Muhammadan Church should not revive. Something of the kind has happened in France. Zola cried out against "the nightmare of Catholicism"; antagonism to the Catholic Church had been growing up long before M. Combes started to "strafe" the religious establishments of the country. The orthodox imagined that France was losing all religion: Auguste Comte, an unbeliever, proclaimed that France was daily becoming more religious. RÈnÈ Bazin, a Catholic writer, implicitly admits that Comte was right. The people were sick of the dry, lifeless, formal rules that were offered to them; the priesthood have had this truth hammered into them, and they are quickening their formulÆ with life to fit the life of the people, not striving to dessicate the people's life to fit their formulÆ.

---

As a socio-political institution Islam is, in the middle of its fourteenth century (1340 A.H.), in the same vicissitudes of development, as Christianity was in the middle of its fourteenth century (1350 A.D.)—an institution weakened by contending sects and rendered stagnant by rigid formalism. "It is a dispensation of providence", says Syed Ameer Ali, "that whenever a religion becomes reduced to formalism cross-currents set in to restore spiritual vitality." As in Christianity in its fourteenth century, so in Islam of our own times, the vitalising cross-currents have set in and we are now witnessing a Muslim Renaissance all over the world. Its pioneers in India were Sir Syed Ahmad, Mowlana Shibli, and the poet Hali. The Rt. Hon. Ameer Ali, Dr. Iqbal and a host of others bear aloft the New Light. The Muslim Reformation is coming on as surely as the Christian Reformation came in the wake of Patristicism and Formalism. It need not necessarily mean Political Revolutions as in Europe.

---

All praise is due to Thee, O God! None other than Thee we adore. Thou art the Master of the Worlds, Thine aid alone do we implore.

Thou art Compassion; lead Thou on To Thy right path our human race. Thy Mercy floweth evermore, Do guide us to the path of Grace.

Thou art the Lord of Judgment-day, For sure shall all be judged by Thee, O keep us off the path of Sin And Error's way. So mote it be!

---

5 There is no place in Islam for either priests or monks. Yet the Muhammadanism of to-day has both. There are Tartuffes and Pecksniffs in this religion as well as in any other religion.