There are sixty-five million Mohammedans in India. This constitutes more than one-fifth of the total population, and is considerably larger than the whole population of the Turkish Empire. There are now under the British Empire more Mohammedans than under any other government in modern, or in earlier, times. For at least ninety-five millions of the followers of the Prophet of Mecca are prospering to-day under the aegis of Great Britain; which is probably five millions in excess of the Christian population of the same empire. This is a significant fact.

And this Islamic population in India is growing, too. During the last decade it increased by 9.1 per cent, while the population of India, as a whole, increased only by 1.9 per cent.

Of the Mohammedans of India, only a small portion are descended from the Mussulmans of the West; while the remainder are the results of conversions from Hinduism.

This population is scattered all over India, though North India is the home of the majority of them. Bengal, also, has a large Mohammedan element in its population. It is that part of the country where Islam has gathered in the largest number of converts; for, of the people of that Presidency, more than one-third (25,264,342) are Mussulmans. And in certain portions of East Bengal the Mohammedans are in the large majority.

In South India, too, there is a fair representation of the members of this faith. One can hardly pass through any section of the country without seeing and recognizing them by their physiognomy, costume, or customs.

I

The History of Islam in India

It is nearly twelve hundred years since the first military expedition of this triumphant faith entered this land. It is an interesting fact that the first attack of Islam (711 A.D.) upon India almost synchronizes with the end of the millennium of Buddhistic rule in India. Thus the incoming of the new Hinduism under Sankaracharyar almost coincides with the first onslaught of the western hordes of the Arabian Prophet upon the strongholds of India.

It was a pure conquest of the sword which gave to Mohammed in India, as in other lands, a place and a possession. And those early days of Mohammedan triumph are, in the main, a record of cruel butchery and of widespread massacre. They fulfilled, to the letter, the command of the founder of their faith, which says: “When ye encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them; and bind them in bonds; and either give them a free dismission afterwards, or exact a ransom; until the war shall have laid down its arms. This shall ye do.” (Quran (Koran), xlvii, 5.)

The fanaticism and bigotry of that people carried triumph everywhere; and their triumph meant to every Hindu the acceptance of the sword, the Quran, or tribute. For some centuries, indeed, the fortunes of Islam in India wavered, and its undisputed sway was not recognized until the time of Baber, the distinguished founder of the great Mogul Empire in the sixteenth century. It is also true that, among the mild and patient population of this land, the spirit of that militant faith gradually softened until the era of Akbar the Great a ruler who was not only illustrious as a lawgiver, but also was justly celebrated for his cosmopolitanism and religious toleration. He was succeeded by another great name, Shah Jehan, a man of wonderful administrative powers, but one of narrow sympathies and occasionally given to cruel bigotry. And yet, if he did not possess the graces for a noble character, he adorned his realm with religious edifices which still stand unrivalled in their exquisite beauty.

The cruel Aurangzeeb practically closed the Mogul dynasty by his weakness, bloodthirstiness, and uncompromising bigotry.

It is strange that during the centuries of cruel dominion, of uncompromising fanaticism, and of religious intolerance, the whole population of the land was not absorbed into Islam. But the Mogul Empire passed away. And, while it left a strong impression on the country as a whole, and affected somewhat the faiths of this land and left marvellous monuments of architectural beauty, it did not seriously change the undercurrents of the life of the whole people.

II

The Present Condition of this Faith in India

Like all other faiths in this peninsula, Islam is accepted and practised in all degrees of purity, from the orthodox worship, conducted in the grand and beautiful mosques of Delhi and Agra, to the grovelling, superstitious, heathenish ceremonies which obtain among, and which constitute the religious pabulum of, the masses of Islam in remote villages and in distant sections of the land.

Generally speaking, the religion of Mohammed is not calculated to appeal to the highly poetic mind of India. It is too severe and prosaic in its character. The mind of India delights in mystical elaborations and in the multiplication of fanciful incarnations and other divine manifestations. The Allah of Islam is almost as remote and as unknowable a deity as is the Brahm of the Vedantist. But in the absence of a personal god the Vedantist and Hindus in general have built up a system of numberless incarnations which “play” upon the imagination of the votaries and give ample scope to the remarkably poetic genius of this people.

Mohammedanism has nothing of the kind; it denies even the possibility of divine “descent,” and its animus throughout the centuries has been one of antagonism to the incarnation doctrine of other faiths.

The Quran is largely wanting in the tropical warmth and legendary lore which is such a resource and comfort to the Indian mind, and which therefore abounds in the sacred writings of the Brahmáns.

Doubtless, the simplicity and intelligibility of its creed one God, one prophet, one book commends Mohammedanism to the minds of many. But simplicity is not a foible of the religious mind of India. It has always craved the complex, the mystical, and the unfathomable. It delights in inconsistencies, and indulges freely in the irreconcilable mysteries of faith. Hinduism, being the child of the Hindu mind, abounds in tropical exuberance of spiritual exercise and “amusements,” which seem childish and inane to all other people.

The teaching of Mohammed has, therefore, very little that can appeal with power, carry conviction, and bring contentment to the people of India.

In nothing, perhaps, is this more manifestly marked than in the conception of the deity above referred to. Islam is a most uncompromising form of Unitarianism. It is bitterly opposed to any doctrine which brings God down to men and renders Him intelligible to the common mind. It denies the possibility of the divine putting on human, or any other, nature.

Hinduism, on the other hand, is the very antithesis of all this. At first, this was not so. But its rigid pantheism gradually necessitated manifestations of the divine, in order that faith and devotion might be made possible. And, in later centuries, the doctrine of incarnation was accepted as a haven of rest to the Hindu mind and soon became a wild passion of its soul. There is no other people on earth who have carried the doctrine of incarnation (Avatar) to such excess of imaginings as to create such abundantly grotesque and fanciful appearances of their many divinities. Normally, then, the Mohammedan faith, at its very core, must be unsatisfying and even repulsive to the tropical Hindu mind. It was brought here at the point of the sword; and, for centuries, it was the faith of a ruling power whose custom was to tax heavily all people who did not conform, outwardly at least, to the State religion.

After Islam had become established and secure in its success in India, when it could relax its grip upon the sword and relinquish something of the spirit of intolerance which characterized it, it had to meet and cope with a greater foe than that of the battle-field. Hinduism has always exercised a great benumbing influence upon all faiths which have come into contact and conflict with it. It has insinuated itself into the mind of the conquerors and laid its palsied hand upon every department of religious thought and life. So that, after a few centuries of prosperity in India, Islam began to forget its narrow bigotry and uncompromising severity and fraternized more or less with the religion of the country. Little by little a latitudinarianism crept in, which found its culmination in that remarkable man, Akbar the Great, who entertained the teachers of all faiths and encouraged a fearless discussion of their respective merits. Dr. Wherry writes: “The tolerance of Akbar, who not only removed the poll-tax from all his non-Moslem subjects, but who established a sort of parliament of religions, inviting Brahmáns, Persian Sufis, Parsee fire-worshippers, and Jesuit priests to freely discuss in his presence the special tenets of their faith and practice, was remarkable. He went farther, and promulgated an eclectic creed of his own and constituted himself a sort of priest-king in which his own dictum should override everything excepting the letter of the Quran. His own creed is set forth in the following words of India’s greatest poet, Abul Fazl:

“O God, in every temple I see those who see thee, and, in every tongue
that is spoken, thou art praised.
Polytheism and Islam grope after thee,
Each religion says, ‘Thou art one, without equal,’
Be it mosque, men murmur holy prayer; or church, the bells ring, for
love of thee;
Awhile I frequent the Christian cloister, anon the mosque:
But thee only I seek from fane to fane.
Thine elect know naught of heresy or orthodoxy, whereof neither stands
behind the screen of thy truth.
Heresy to the heretic, dogma to the orthodox,
But the dust of the rose-petal belongs to the heart of the perfume
seller."

This religious cosmopolitanism developed into what has been called an
“Eclectic Pantheism,” which welcomed all men and satisfied no one.

Even though Aurangzeeb tried to stem this tide of liberalism and to rehabilitate the intolerance and cruelty of ancient Islam, his effort was not only unsuccessful, but was partly instrumental in bringing on the downfall of the Empire. And the faith of Mohammed in India has revealed, ever since, the sickly pallor and want of vigour which tropical life and contact with Hinduism necessarily entail.

When the government of this land ceased to be Mohammedan, and the sceptre passed into the hands of the British, whose glory it has been, for centuries, to protect its subjects from the bloody hand of intolerance and to vouchsafe unto all not only the blessed boon of Pax Britannica, but also the inexpressible right and privilege of religious liberty, then passed away, never to return, we hope, from this motherland of tolerance, the ghastly sceptre of bigotry and fanaticism. And thus Islam ceased to be enforced and propagated by the strong arm of law and by the pointed argument of sword and spear of the legions. It has, since then, enjoyed in this land a free and an open field for the exercise of its powers of persuasion. But its increase has not been marked. And what there has been of progress has been owing to its other characteristics, which we will mention later.

Thus the faith of the Arabian prophet has lost, in India, not only its vigour, but also its prestige and purity, by contact with the lower faiths of the land, especially with the ancestral faith of India. From that religion it has taken unto itself many of the base superstitions, and not a few of the idolatrous practices, which have characterized it.

Indeed, the great mass of the converts from Hinduism, and their descendants, have had but a distorted conception of the lofty faith of Mohammed, which they have unequally yoked with their ancient superstitions and errors.

The Indian census of 1901 tells us how the pure monotheism of Mohammed has been debased by contact with worship at human shrines: “We have seen in the case of Hinduism that the belief in one supreme God, in whom are vested all ultimate powers, is not incompatible with the belief in Supernatural Beings who exercise considerable influence over worldly affairs, and whose influence may be obtained or averted by certain ceremonies. Similarly, in the case of Islam, while the masses have, on the whole, a clearer idea of the unity and omnipotence of God than the ordinary Hindu has, they also have a firm belief in the value of offerings at certain holy places for obtaining temporal blessings. Thus the shrine of Saiyad Salar, at Bahraich, is resorted to, both by Hindus and Mussulmans, if a wife is childless, or if family quarrels cannot be composed. Diseases may be cured by a visit to the shrine of Shaik Saddo, at Amroha in Moradabad; while for help in legal difficulties Shah Mina’s dargah at Lucknow is renowned. Each of these has its appropriate offering, a long embroidered flag for the first, a cock for the second, and a piece of cloth for the third. Other celebrated shrines are those of Bahauddin Madar Shah at Nakkanpur in the Cawnpore district, and of Ala-uddin Sabir at Piran Kaliar in Saharanpur.” The same writer, in his report concerning Bengal, says: “The unreformed Mohammedans of the lower and uneducated classes are deeply infected with Hindu superstitions, and their knowledge of the faith they profess seldom extends beyond the three cardinal doctrines of the Unity of God, the mission of Mohammed, and the truth of the Quran; and they have a very faint idea of the differences between their religion and that of the Hindus. Sometimes they believe that they are descended from Abel (Hábil), while the Hindus owe their origin to Cain (Kabil). Kabil, they say, killed Hábil and dug a grave for him with a crow’s beak.”

Before the recent crusade against idolatry it was the regular practice of low-class Mohammedans to join in the Durga Puja and other Hindu religious festivals, and although they have been purged of many superstitions, many still remain. In particular, they are very careful about omens and auspicious days. Dates for weddings are often fixed after consulting a Hindu astrologer; bamboos are not cut, nor the building of new houses commenced, on certain days of the week; and journeys are often undertaken only after referring to the Hindu almanac to see if the proposed day is auspicious. When disease is prevalent, Sitala and Rakshya Kali are worshipped. Dharmaraj, Manasa, Bishahari, are also venerated by many ignorant Mohammedans. Sasthi is worshipped when a child is born. Even now, in some parts of Bengal, they observe the Durga Puja and buy new clothes for the festival, like the Hindus. “Apart from Hindu superstitions, there are certain forms of worship common amongst Mohammedans which are not based on the Quran. The most common of these is the adoration of departed Pirs.”

In Rajputana, the Mohammedans of local origin “still retain their ancient Hindu customs and ideas. The local saints and deities are regularly worshipped, the Brahman officiates at all family cérémonials side by side with the Mussulman priest, and, if in matters of creed they are Mohammedans, in matters of form they are Hindus.”

In Baluchistan, we are told of the Mohammedan that “his practice is, to say the least of it, un-Islamic. Though he repeats every day that there is one God only who is worthy of worship, he almost invariably prefers to worship some saint or tomb. The Saints, or Pirs, in fact, are invested with all the attributes of God. It is the Saint who can avert calamity, cure disease, procure children for the childless, bless the efforts of the hunter, or even improve the circumstances of the dead. The underlying feeling seems to be that man is too sinful to approach God direct, and therefore the intervention of some one worthy must be sought.”

In South India, also, Hindus and Mohammedans fraternize not a little, especially in the religious festivities. Mohammedans do not hesitate, under certain conditions, to bring offerings to particular Hindu shrines. And it is a very common thing to see Hindus pay their respects to Mohammedan fakirs. The Mohurram, in South India, is participated in, at least in its festive aspects, by multitudes of Hindus. Many Mohammedans are feeling keenly the degradation of this contact. A well-known Mussulman writer moans over the situation in the following words:

“The baneful influence that Hindu customs have had on Mussulmans is painful to read of. Many a Hindu ceremonial has been incorporated by the followers of the Prophet. The marriage ceremonies, instead of keeping to the simple form prescribed by the Quran, have been greatly elaborated, and include processions. Even in religious matters, Hindu and Mussulman practices have become curiously blended. Hindus take a leading part in the celebration of Mohurram. Passages from the Quran are sometimes chanted in the Hindu fashion; Mohammedan women of the lower classes break cocoanuts at Hindu temples in fulfilment of vows. Strangest of all, there is said to be a Hindu temple at a village near Trichinopoly which is sacred to a goddess called the Mussulmans’ lady, who is said to be the wife of the Hindu god Ranganatha at Srirangam. These are some of the sad features which the census report has brought to light. They tend to show that, except in a few dead formalities, the life of Mussulmans in South India is nothing different from that of the Hindus. In many cases the followers of the Arabian prophet would seem to have forgotten even the root principles of their religion the unity of God, the formless, and the unincarnate. This fact alone is more than enough to fill the mind of the true Mussulman with anxious concern with regard to the future prospects of Islam in this country. His pious soul can find no rest with the view before him of hundreds and thousands of his coreligionists sunk deep in the degrading practices of the heathen around.”

In this connection it should not be forgotten that the Sikh faith in North India is really a compromise between these two faiths. Its founder, Nanak Shah, possessed the very laudable ambition of producing a religion possessed of the best elements of both of these faiths. And though the more than two millions of his present followers have drifted very much toward Hinduism, which is the drift of all things in this land, and are hardly to be distinguished from their neighbours in creed and custom, yet the religion stands as a testimony to the mutual influence of these two faiths.

Nor should one forget what is now going on on this line among Hindus. Dr. Grierson tells us, in his recent interesting lecture, that “Allah the God of the Mussulman the God of the Jews and ourselves has Himself been admitted to the Hindu pantheon, together with His prophet, and a new section of the never completed Hindu bible, the ‘Allah Upanishad,’ has been provided in His honour.”

Moreover, Hindus charge the Mohammedan faith with being the cause of the zenana system of this land. The seclusion of women began, they say, on account of the licentiousness of the Arabs. However this may be, it is true that the Mohammedan Purdah system, which separates so thoroughly women from the other sex, found adoption, or at least emphasis, among the Hindus. In ancient times, so far as we can learn, the women of Brahmanism found considerable freedom and independence of life. Probably the truth is that, as Hinduism developed certain types of doctrine which bore heavily upon the weaker sex, the range of privilege and opportunity which women enjoyed found gradual limitation and curtailment which found marked impetus upon the advent of the Arab hordes.

And it should be remembered that the persistent attitude of Mohammedans toward slavery and toward polygamy has had a deleterious effect upon the Hindu people.

Though Islam came to India uninvited, and though its pathway has been marked with blood, it has not been without great opportunity to impress the people of this land with its nobility. But, as we have seen, the opportunity does not seem to have been improved. After twelve centuries of active propagandism and some centuries of political rule and religious oppression, this religion is still an exotic, and finds, on the whole, small place in the affection of the people. This is owing in part to its want of adaptation and inherent lack of vital power. As Sir Monier William has said: “There is a finality and a want of elasticity about Mohammedanism which precludes its expanding beyond a certain fixed line of demarcation. Having once reached this line, it appears to lapse backwards to tend toward mental and moral slavery, to contract with the narrower and narrower circles of bigotry and exclusiveness.”

Add again to this the fact, already mentioned, that its new environment in India has been deleterious to the vitality of the Mohammedan faith. “Mohammedanism, as a quiescent non-proselytizing religion, could only become corrupt and rotten. The effect of all this policy on the mass of Mohammedans was to deprive their religious sentiment of that intolerance which constituted its strength. Its moral power was gone when it ceased to be intolerant.... These two religions have thus settled down beside each other on terms of mutual charity and toleration. This does not imply any great change or deterioration in Hinduism, for its principles admit every belief as truth, and every religion as a way of salvation. All that it requires is acknowledgment of the same principle from other religions, and this is the position which it has practically forced Mohammedanism to assume in India. But such a position is utterly opposed to the principles and claims of the latter religion; and in forcing Mohammedanism to accept it, Hinduism has undoubtedly gained the triumph."

And yet let it not be supposed that Islam in India is either dead or moribund. It is evidently sensible of its defects and has made, from time to time, efforts to reform itself.

Under the stress of circumstances and the sense of waning power they have even translated the Quran into Urdu, with a view to reaching the common people. This is an unique effort on their part. Like Romanists, in the use of the Latin service, the Mohammedans cling, with deathly tenacity, to their Arabic bible and Arabic worship, foolishly believing that to vernacularize their faith is to degrade and corrupt it. In Madura, where there is a mosque of some pretension, there are only two or three who can pronounce their Arabic Quran. And while they have learned to pronounce, in the ancient tongue, their beloved book, they do not understand the meaning of what they say, and merely parrot the whole ritual. But a break has been made from this inane method of worship, and their holy book has now been translated into one vernacular of India.

Islam has also revealed definite redeeming qualities which seem distinctive and are worthy of enumeration.

Its prohibition of the use of intoxicating drinks is definite, and its attitude toward that accursed habit has been consistently and vehemently antagonistic. Hence, the Mohammedan of India is recognized as a sober man, faithful to his religion in this matter wherein the Christian reveals so much weakness. It is true that in some parts of the country Mussulmans are too often addicted to the use of opiates. But a drunken member of this faith is rarely to be found. In this, Islam has joined forces with Hinduism itself in proscribing a habit which is the curse and ruin of too many Christian lands. And it is a distinct blot upon the Christian Church in India that many of its followers, in this land of sobriety and abstinence, so easily fall into the temptation of the cup and become the victims of intemperance.

Islam also enforces the law of usury among its followers. With the Jew, the Mohammedan has been strictly forbidden to make money by the use of money. And though they find ways of evading this law, to some extent, the ideal which they have before them is a restraint and a blessing in a land where the usurer is a ubiquitous curse, because of his rapacity and the expertness with which he draws the common people into his net and leads millions to financial loss and ruin.

The supreme place given in this faith to the duty of almsgiving, and the effective way with which it is carried out among its members, is another praise-worthy feature. At the time of their political rule and extensive sway there was a well-known tax whose purpose was to carry relief to the poor and the suffering. And Mohammedans feel to-day that there is hardly a religious duty which is more sacred and carries with it more of reward than that of distributing alms to the poor. Far more than Christianity has it given importance and distinction to this as a special form of its religious activity.

Moreover, its command to observe the five seasons of daily prayer is important, with a view to maintaining and enforcing the ordinary forms and observances of a living faith. Many a time have I been impressed with the way Mohammedans, in this land, faithfully and boldly observe this rule and privilege of their faith by spreading their mats in most unexpected places, even in the presence of gaping crowds, and prostrating themselves in prayer with their faces Mecca-ward as a proof of their sincerity and as a testimony to the power of their religion.

But there is nothing in which Islam exerts a more salutary influence in this caste-ridden land than in its attitude toward this monster evil of Hinduism. Islam is neither founded upon race, colour, nor nationality. It has been well said that in Islam “all believers belong to the highest caste.” It recognizes to the full the brotherhood of all the members of its faith. Even its slaves have been exalted to its throne and have achieved highest distinction. The last census correctly says: “On its social side, the religion of Mohammed is equally opposed to the Hindu scheme of a hierarchy of castes, an elaborate stratification of society based upon subtle distinctions of food, dress, drink, marriage, and ceremonial usage. In the sight of God and of His Prophet all followers of Islam are equal. In India, however, caste is in the air; its contagion has spread even to the Mohammedans; and we find its evolution proceeding on characteristically Hindu lines. In both communities, foreign descent forms the highest claim to social distinction; in both, promotion cometh from the West. As the twice-born Aryan is to the mass of Hindus, so is the Mohammedan of alleged Arab, Persian, Afghan, or Mogul origin to the rank and file of his coreligionists.”

I admit that there are social distinctions and class cleavages among the members of this faith, as among all peoples. These are in no sense religious, however, as they are in Hinduism. Among the members of that faith there is equality of right; and every Islamite, by his own industry and character, can enjoy that right in this land. It is true that Islam has yet to learn the brotherhood of man as such, and to recognize that the non-Mussulman and the Mussulman alike are possessed of equal rights and favours in the sight of God. But within the faith itself, caste, as such, is unknown. This is much more than can be said of the Indian Christian Church at the present day, notwithstanding the spirit of our religion and its definite injunctions. The Hindu caste system has been transferred too much into the Christian fold. Most of the accessions from Hinduism to Mohammedanism at the present time are from the lowest classes of Hinduism, with a view to securing a definitely higher social status which Mohammedanism distinctly promises and invariably confers upon these newcomers. It were well if modern converts to Christianity from the outcasts could hope for and receive from the Hindus the same recognized advance in social position and esteem by becoming members of our religion, as they do by entering the faith of Islam. This is not the fault of Christianity, but the folly of its converts, who do not leave their heathenish conceptions and estimates outside the precincts of Christianity. This difference, which I have emphasized, is, as might be expected, more marked and manifest in South India than elsewhere. A Christian worker in this land cannot help envying Islam the noble stand which it has taken concerning caste.

At the present time the Muslims of India are divided into two sects, something like the Catholics and Protestants of Christianity. The Sunnis are the traditionists, and constitute the large majority of that faith. The Shiahs are the dissenters. For twelve hundred years has this division existed, and the two parties are as irreconcilable to-day as ever. There is also a sect of mystics known as Sufis.

In the seventeenth century a new sect of Purists was formed in Arabia. They reject the glosses of Immams, will not accept the authority of the Sultan, and make light of the great Prophet himself. They are a fanatical sect and delight in proclaiming jihad, or holy war, against the infidels. These are the Wahabbis. This sect was introduced to India by Sayad Ahmed Shah, and it has gained many converts. It is largely a movement toward reforming the faith from within. In spirit, it is not very unlike the movement of the fanatics known as Ghazis, whose zeal burns against all infidels, especially those of the European Christian type.

III

What is the Character of the Mohammedan Population in India?

It will be interesting to appraise them largely by comparing them with the Hindu population which surrounds them. Generally speaking, they are morally on a level with their neighbours. In South India, especially, it is difficult to discriminate between the ethical standards which obtain among Mohammedans and Hindus. In both cases they are low and unworthy. This is unexpected, as Islam has always stood for a worthy ethical standing, while Hinduism has, from time immemorial, divorced morality from piety. Nevertheless, it is a fact that those who have passed on from Hinduism to Mohammedanism have rarely ascended in the ethical standard of life.

The personal habits of the Indian Mussulman are not clean, to say the least of them. In this they are a contrast to the Brahmáns, and to some other high-class Hindus, whose ceremonial ablutions are many. In South India, the Mohammedan is described by a vernacular expression which is as uncomplimentary as it is filthy, and which is intended to classify them among the lowest in their habits. When cholera and similar epidemics prevail in the regions with which I am familiar, the Mohammedan, with the Pariah, on account of unclean habits, becomes the first victim of its ravages.

Add to this their strong belief in fate, which leads them, during these epidemics, to neglect or to decline the use of medical remedies. Many a Muslim perishes during such times because of his fatalistic convictions.

They are also among the most ignorant of all classes in India. While, in the total population of the land, hardly more than 5 per cent are, in any sense, literate, the Mohammedans, as a class, have only 3 per cent. And of the Mohammedan population nearly all the women are analphabet. In the educational system of India the government places Mohammedans among the “backward classes,” and every effort has been made by the State, even to the doubling of educational grants, to stimulate the members of this faith on educational lines.

It is one of the most discouraging facts connected with the Muslim population that while they are brave in bearing arms and loyal to the government, they have an apparent aversion to the schoolhouse, and can with difficulty be induced to secure even an elementary education. This bears very heavily against their prosperity and influence. Public offices in India are wisely placed in charge of those who are competent, by a thorough training and a broad education, to well fill them. The consequence is that the Mohammedan has been gradually driven out from nearly all public positions of trust by the intellectually more alert Brahman, and even by lower-class Hindus, who are availing themselves of the opportunities for higher education.

It is not strange that the political influence of this community has correspondingly waned, so that only a very small number relatively of Muslims is found to-day in the councils of the Empire.

A new ambition, however, seems to be taking possession of the community. They have recently organized many schools under the direction of “The Society for the Aid of Islam.” These schools, without neglecting the study of the Quran and their sacred language and the tenets of their faith, give instruction on western lines, and in the English language.

They have established, also, under the inspiration of the late Sir Sayid Ahmed Khan, a college at Aligarh. Though the rationalistic teaching of the founder causes the institution to be discredited by orthodox leaders, the college has developed wonderfully, and is beginning to assume the proportions of a Muslim University. Of this institution a learned Mussulman remarked in an address:

“We want Aligarh to be such a home of learning as to command the same respect of scholars as Berlin or Oxford, Leipsic or Paris. And we want those branches of learning relative to Islam which are fast falling into decay to be added by Moslem scholars to the stock of the world’s knowledge. And, above all, we want to create for our people an intellectual and moral capital a city which shall be the home of elevated ideas and pure ideals; a centre from which light and guidance shall be diffused among the Moslems of India.”

Much may be expected from the institution. But what is one such school among the many millions of this community in India? Government is anxious to aid and inspire the community on these lines; and the present success of the institution is, in good part, owing to the smile of the State upon it.

The recent organization of the Pan-Islamic Movement is full of hope. The leading representatives of the community in India seem anxious and determined to rouse their coreligionists from their lethargy and to create within them a new ambition for a higher and a more honourable place in intelligence and official usefulness. This is much needed, because the community has reached its lowest ebb of influence among the people.

In the present unrest Mohammedans mainly stand with the government against the Hindu Extremists. They wisely realize that the British Raj presents to them, as a community, far better opportunity and larger favours than would accrue to them under any other possible government, even though their warlike traits might lead them once more to subdue and rule the land themselves.

IV

Christian Effort in India in Behalf of the Mussulman

Missionaries have everywhere presented to Mohammedan and Hindu alike the Gospel Message. The follower of Mohammed has never been ignored in the proclaiming of Christ and in the work of the Mission school.

Generally speaking, they are a very hard class to reach; they very rarely seem impressed, or are willing to consider the message as a personal call to themselves. The high character of their faith above that of the surrounding people partly accounts for this. Moreover, the religion itself inculcates intolerance, and naturally narrows the vision of appreciation and sympathy amongst its followers.

It is also, in some measure, due to their supreme ignorance of the teaching of their own faith. They have many fantastic notions about Islam, such as intelligent members of their faith repudiate, and such as make them inaccessible to the Christian worker.

And yet they are not reached and impressed with more difficulty than are the Brahmáns and some other high-class Hindus. Though conversions from among them have been relatively few, accessions from Islam to the Christian faith have been continuous during the last century. There have not been many mass movements among them. It has been largely the struggle of individual souls from the trammels of one faith into the liberty of the other. Dr. Wherry informs us that: “In the North, especially the Punjab, and the Northwest Frontier Province, every congregation has a representation from the Moslem ranks. Some of the churches have a majority of their membership gathered from amongst the Mussulmans. In a few cases there has been something like a movement among Moslems toward Christianity, and a considerable number have come out at one time. But perhaps the fact that tells most clearly the story of the advance of Christianity among Moslems in India, is this, that among the native pastors and Christian preachers and teachers in North India there are at least two hundred who were once followers of Islam. Among the names of those who have gone to their reward (many of them, after long lives of faithful service), some of my readers will recall the names of the Rev. Maulvie Imaduddin, D.D., Maulvie Safdar Ali, E.A.C., Munshi Mohammed Hanif, Sayyad Abdullah Athim, E.A.C., the Rev. Rajab Ali, Sain Gumu Shah, the Rev. Abdul Masih, the Rev. Asraf Ali, the Rev. Jani Ali, and Dilawur Khan. These faithful servants of God have left behind them memories which still live. Many of them have bequeathed volumes of literature, which have added much to the literary wealth of all the churches. They give an index wherewith to guide us as to what the strength and character of the Church of the future will be when the strong champions of the Crescent shall have become the Champions of the Cross.”

We are also told by the Rev. Maulvie Imaduddin, D.D., of North India, that “117 men of position and influence have become Christians, of whom 62 became clergy and leading men in many of the Indian Missions, and 51 are gentlemen occupying positions professional and official. Out of 956 baptisms of the Church Missionary Society in the Amritsar District, 152 were Mohammedan converts. In the Punjab there are at least two congregations made up entirely of Mohammedans, while in Bengal there is a body of more than 6000 Christians composed almost entirely of Mohammedan converts and their descendants, a large number having come over en masse some years ago. These last were converts in the first instance from Hinduism to Mohammedanism, and hence were not bound so strongly to Islam.”

In South India, less attention has been paid to Mohammedans as a class, and the results therefore have been very meagre. A few individuals, here and there, have accepted our faith, and that is practically all. This is not strange when we remember that out of the eleven hundred Protestant missionaries, male and female, in Southern India, perhaps not a dozen have any special training and aptitude for work among Mohammedans, and hardly more than that number are giving themselves entirely to the work.

The difficulty of this work should appeal more than it does to the heroic element in missionaries and missionary societies alike. The above facts indicate that there is encouragement for one who gives himself heartily to this people. In no other land has missionary effort for the members of this religion achieved greater results than in India. If their numbers are few, they are more resolute and pronounced in their Christian character than many others. In the roll of honour among the converts from Islam have been found the names of a number of distinguished pastors and able writers.

In the recent Conference of Missionaries, held in Cairo, a new purpose was manifested to take up with more discriminating and pronounced zeal and better methods the work of reaching and converting the Mohammedans of the world.

In India, a better organized and a wider campaign for the conversion of Islam is needed. Men and women who are to take up work in their behalf must not only be well trained for this specific work by a thorough knowledge of both faiths; they must also be imbued with abundant sympathy for the people, and with a sympathetic appreciation of the vital truths which have thus far animated the Mohammedan faith. The constructive, rather than the destructive, method of activity must increasingly animate all. The Mohammedans are peculiarly sensitive; and there is so much of contact between their faith and ours that through the pathway of the harmonies of the faiths men must be led to know and feel the supreme excellence and power of the faith of the Christ.