MUHAMMADANS.
All over Northern India I
may say all over India we find the followers
of Muhammad. They are very unequally distributed.
In some districts they form the majority, in others
their number is very small, while in the cities they
abound. There is among them all the variety of
station which might be expected in a community composed
of millions, ranging from princes, wealthy landholders,
and great merchants, down to labourers and beggars.
There is among them all variety of culture, from profound
learning in a narrower or wider groove, down to utter
illiteracy and gross ignorance. There is also
variety of character, many leading notoriously wicked
lives, while others are noted for goodness, and are
honourable and useful members of society.
Looking at the Quran and the Bible,
one might suppose there is a close accord between
them, as both assert the unity and sovereignty of God,
both condemn idolatry, and in both the same names continually
meet us, such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, David, Solomon,
and our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, however,
in India, as elsewhere, Muhammadanism has shown itself
intensely hostile to the Gospel. The reason is
apparent. I think it is difficult for any one
to read with candour the Quran on the one hand, and
the Bible, especially the New Testament, on the other,
without perceiving the marked contrariety between them,
notwithstanding their agreement on some points.
A true follower of Jesus Christ, one
imbued with the spirit of His teaching and bent on
the imitation of His example, cannot fail to cultivate
holiness of heart and life, to cherish a humble, lowly
temper, to look on all with love, however unworthy
of love their character and conduct may be, and to
promote their good in every way within his power.
A follower of Muhammad, so far as he is imbued with
his teaching, regards God with profound reverence
as the Sovereign of the universe, deems homage to
Him most due, looks with indignation on the worship
of idols, attaches immense importance to outward rites
and services, glories in Islam, pays comparatively
little attention to inward excellence, and sees no
need for a change of heart. As a worshipper and
servant of Allah, following the precepts of the Prophet
of the later age, he deems himself the spiritual aristocrat
of the race, and looks down with scorn on all outside
the pale of his community, whom he is in some cases
bound to put to death, and in all cases to subject
to degrading conditions, so far as he has the power.
However wicked his conduct may be, as a worshipper
of Allah he is sure of more tender treatment in another
world than that which awaits Christians and idolaters.
Thus the typical Muhammadan is one who scrupulously
observes the laws of Islam, goes through his devotions
with all the regularity of a soldier on drill, fasts
at the appointed season, gives alms to the poor, attends
to all prescribed rites, and at least once in his life
goes on pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. Outward
religiousness, pride and self-righteousness, are his
distinguishing characteristics.
Much has been said about the sensuality
of Muhammadans. The sanction given by Muhammad
to polygamy and extreme facility of divorce has borne
bitter fruit. His own example has had a depraving
influence. He alleged, indeed, a special Divine
sanction for the dissoluteness of his later life,
but this has not deterred his followers from thinking
they could not go far wrong in imitating him.
In addition to these facilities for a life of sensual
enjoyment, the teaching of the Prophet in reference
to female slaves has had a most depraving effect on
family life. The Hindustanee expression for libertine,
profligate luchcha is,
I think, more frequently applied to Muhammadans in
Northern India than to any other class of the community.
It must be confessed, however, there is so much licentiousness
among other classes not only among Hindus,
but I am grieved to say among many from our own land,
soldiers and others that I can scarcely
join in declaring Muhammadans sinners in this respect
above all others. There is this difference between
the licentiousness of so-called Christians and Muhammadans,
that in the teachings of the Gospel, while no unnatural
restraint is laid on those who accept it, the strongest
motives are brought to bear on them in favour of purity
of heart and in opposition to licentiousness of life;
while in the teachings of the Quran, amidst severe
condemnation of the gratification of unlawful desire
in some forms, there is much, if not to encourage,
at least to give every facility for a life fatal to
personal and domestic purity, a facility of which
the adherents of Islam have largely availed themselves.
While agreeing with the views generally
held by Christians regarding the teaching of the Quran
and its influence in the formation of character, I
cannot join in the sweeping condemnation of the Muhammadans
which I have sometimes heard, as if they were one
mass of corruption. In the middle and lower classes
in Northern India we are told, by those whose testimony
can be trusted, monogamy is the rule. Many lead
a quiet, orderly life, with the domestic affections
in full play which beautify and gladden the home.
A Muhammadan writer, who may be supposed to know his
own people, tells us that polygamy is getting out of
favour, and that a strong feeling has set in in favour
of a man having only one woman to wife. Among
them there are undoubtedly persons of high character,
whose bearing would do honour to the adherents of a
far higher creed. I have conversed with some
who seemed to me set on knowing and doing the will
of God, who showed, so far as I could obtain an insight
into their character, a reverent, earnest, humble temper,
as if they had come under the power of the few passages,
occurring here and there in the Quran, which inculcate
spirituality of mind and love to all men, and as if
they had in a measure escaped from the externalism
so prominent in that book, and from its hard, fierce,
bitter tone towards all who refuse to receive it as
a revelation from heaven. With two Muhammadans
I was for years on as friendly terms as I could be
with any whose belief and practice differed so widely
from my own. As to courteous, kindly demeanour,
they were all that could be desired. I had many
an earnest talk with them on the highest subjects,
and I was struck with the apparent candour with which
they listened to all I had to say. They read
with evident interest books I gave them, and in the
case of one such an impression was made that I hoped
he was coming to the acknowledgment of Christ as his
Lord and Saviour; but after going to his Moulvies
he kept to Muhammad, though with manifest misgiving.
While I cannot join in the sweeping
condemnation of Muhammadans, I must acknowledge my
experience accords with that of my missionary brethren
regarding those with whom I have come ordinarily into
contact. When I have been speaking to a company
of Hindus, and have apparently secured their attention,
I have been sorry to see a Mussulman coming up, as
past experience had prepared me for the immediate
introduction of such questions as the Trinity, the
Sonship of Christ, His propitiatory sacrifice, and
not infrequently the eating of pork. I have done
my best to stave off such untimely discussion, and
to keep to the subject I was teaching, but in not
a few instances my audience has been broken up by
the new-comer insisting on being heard. During
my long missionary career I have had many discussions
with Muhammadans in public and in private, in some
cases conducted with a calmness and fairness which
promised good results; but in still more numerous
cases with a readiness on their part to resort to
the veriest sophistry, and fly from one point to another,
and with a love of disputation which led to wrangling,
and could accomplish no good. The controversy
between Christianity and Muhammadanism has been carried
on by the press as well as by oral discussion.
In this department the late Dr. Pffander, Sir William
Muir, and Mr. Hughes of Peshawur, have done excellent
service.
It might be supposed that as Muhammadanism
is so near to Christianity that it may almost be called
a Christian heresy, and as we have in consequence
much common ground, we might expect to find its adherents
more accessible than Hindus to the Christian missionary.
The opposite is the case, furnishing another illustration
of the fact that no religionists are so antagonistic
to each other as those who most nearly approximate.
At the present time all over the world, Popery, under
the conduct of the Jesuits, is far more hostile to
Protestant missions than any form of heathenism.
It ought to be mentioned to the credit
of Muhammadanism that it arose as a protest against
polytheism and the worship of idols. This protest
it has maintained down to our day. Not even a
religious symbol is allowed to appear in their places
of worship, and hence the marked contrast mosques
present not only to Hindu temples, but to Christian
churches.
Muhammadanism is a proselytizing religion
as well as Christianity. During my Indian career
I have heard of a convert now and then from Hinduism
in the North-West, and very occasionally one from Christianity;
but these accessions have been very few. In Bengal,
on the other hand, it appears that during the last
thirty or forty years a great number of low-caste
people have been drawn into the Muhammadan ranks, many
of them small farmers, who think that by belonging
to a large and influential community they can the
better contend with the landlords. It is said
that the change is simply one of name and ritual.
The accessions from Muhammadanism
to Christianity have been very few; but some of the
best converts in the North-West belong to this class.
For centuries Hindus and Muhammadans
have been near neighbours in India. In the ordinary
course of life they have had much intercourse with
each other, and have exerted a strong mutual influence,
the Muhammadans, especially of the lower class, having
become in a measure Hinduized, while the Hindus of
the lower class have become, if I may use such a word,
in some degree Muhammadanized. I believe the stricter
Muhammadans are of pure Mogul and Pathan descent,
while the more lax are the many who at different times
have been drawn or forced into Islam. Our Muhammadan
servants speak continually of their caste, have many
Hindu notions, and follow many Hindu practices.
Low-caste Hindus, on the other hand, are prominent
in some Muhammadan processions. Both Muhammadans
and Hindus, as a rule, are satisfied with their respective
position, as assigned to them by Allah or Fate, have
no repugnance to each other, and no wish to disturb
each other.
So far, however, as Muhammadans and
Hindus are imbued with their respective systems they
must be antagonistic; and their antagonism, though
generally latent, every now and then breaks out into
fierce strife, which but for the interposition of
Government would lead to civil war. Early in
this century there was in Benares a pitched battle
between them, when they assailed each other with the
utmost fury, and were separated by military force.
All have heard of a recent conflict in Southern India,
where blood was shed and property destroyed. About
thirty years ago Oude was threatened with the outbreak
of a war between the parties. There have been
recently conflicts in Rohilkund on the occasion of
processions, which but for prompt interference would
have led to disastrous results.
Of late years a reforming party has
arisen among the Muhammadans with both political and
religious ends in view. This party painfully
realizes the loss incurred by their fellow-religionists
on account of their neglect of the English language,
and their failure to accommodate themselves to their
new masters, thus allowing the Hindus to get in advance
of them. They consequently discourage exclusive
attention to Arabic and Persian literature, and advocate
the cultivation of English. A few of this class
have come to England to prosecute their studies, but
for the many who must remain in their own land an institution
has been opened at Allygurh, in the North-West, in
which provision is made for imparting a liberal education.
It cannot be expected that Indian Muhammadans can
have a strong liking to the English Government, but
this reforming party wishes to reconcile itself to
the new order of things, and to identify itself with
our rule so far as the Quran permits. In religious
belief these reformers range from strict orthodoxy
to rank rationalism. Their leader is an able
and ardent advocate of Islam, though he has thrown
off what he deems unauthorized and hurtful accretions,
and many of his followers no doubt agree with him.
A Bengalee Muhammadan, a graduate of Cambridge, has
published a book entitled “The Life of Muhammad,”
which is saturated with rationalistic views.
I cannot suppose he stands alone in his rationalism,
but I have no means of knowing to what extent his
views are shared by others. The whole party is
the antipodes to the Wahabees, the extreme Puritans
of Islam, who aim at following strictly the instructions
of the Quran and the Traditions, and wage war to the
knife against Christians and idolaters. Between
the Wahabees and the reformers there is a very numerous
party it is supposed the great majority
of Muhammadans who have little sympathy
with the strictness of the former, but as little with
the looseness of the latter, who in their opinion are
sacrificing Islam to their ambitious and selfish views.
Between the reformers and those who cannot advance
with them there has been sharp controversy, and there
is no prospect of its coming to an end.