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 question[89]. 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":
There's one great form of Christian faith I happened to be born in—which to teach Was given me as I grew up, on all hands As best and readiest means of living by.
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.