and may at the same time "help in the diffusion of Islamic ideas in the West."

It is unnecessary to say anything here with reference to the readiness with which the author accepts modern Rationalistic theories regarding the origin of some of the leading doctrines of Christianity, and how decidedly he manifests his opposition to the truth of the Deity of our Lord, and other cardinal doctrines of the Bible. No one would expect to find him an authority upon such matters as these. But he claims to be received as such when he treats of Islam. And yet any one at all acquainted with the Qur'an and the Traditions (Ahadith) may readily perceive that in reality the Sayyid represents orthodox Muhammadanism as it actually exists and has existed from the

"Prophet's" time to the present, about as fairly as Straus, Baur, De Wette, and others of the same school may be taken to represent the Christianity of the New Testament! Any Western student of Muhammadanism who trusts to The Spirit of Islam as exponent of Muslim belief will find himself wofully mistaken. A careful reader may observe this for himself by reading between the lines. A few examples, however, of the gulf which separates Amir 'Ali and the modern "reform" party in India from Muhammad's own teachings may be noted. The GOD of Muhammad is the Almighty Creator. Amir 'Ali repeatedly professes Pantheism, or quotes with special approval Pantheistic passages (Introd., p. 664, &c.) Muhammad professed to receive the Qur'an directly from the Angel Gabriel by Divine inspiration, and taught that every word and letter was of Divine authority. Amir 'Ali tells us that Muhammad taught an eclectic faith, and confesses that he borrowed from the Docetism of Christian heretics (pp. 56-58), from

Zeid the Hanif (p. 80, note), from Zoroastrianism (pp. 387, 394), and that his teaching shows a gradual development (pp. 398-400). In this I quite agree with him; but no orthodox Muslim would consider this other than gross blasphemy.

The Sayyid has so far profited from Western thought that he is able to declare himself the foe of polygamy and slavery. But he demands too much from our credulity, or depends unduly on the crassness of our ignorance of the Qur'an when he ventures to tell us that Muhammad agreed with him in all this. His attempt to explain Muhammad's many marriages as being formed only from motives of the purest and most unselfish charity (p. 331, sqq.) is admirable as an example of able casuistry. The method in which he strives to rescue his master's memory from the stain of cruel and cowardly murder is ingenious in the extreme, if not ingenuous, but is by no means convincing to those who have even the very slightest acquaintance with Ibn Hisham and Muhammad's other Arabian biographers (p. 162, sqq.).

The Sayyid endeavours with great ability to show that the spirit of Islam has ever been forward in the encouragement of learning and science. But he (quite unintentionally) refutes himself by confessing that the very dynasties (e.g. that of the Fatimides in Egypt; and the 'Abbasides in Mesopotamia) under which Muhammadan (so called) learning flourished were devoted followers of the I'tizal and similar schools of philosophy, which he himself compares (and rightly) with the Rationalistic movement in Modern Europe (pp. 496, 520, 571, 610, sqq., 646). "Distinguished scholars, prominent physicists, mathematicians, historians—all the world of intellect in fact, including the Caliphs, belonged to the Mu'tazalite School" (p. 610).