474 HISTORICAL POSITION OF MOHAMMEDANISM. [BK. III.

the power. He naturally could not show himself intolerant so long as his own existence depended upon the toleration of others; or insult and fight the Christians, whilst his followers enjoyed the protection of Christian Abyssinia. If a man steals as soon as he is let out of prison, his abstaining from theft whilst shut up between four walls, cannot prove him to be an honest character. The difference between the preaching prophet of Mecca and the fighting prophet of Medina is not owing to a change of principles, to a spiritual lapse — as some wrongly regard it — but simply to the removal of restrictions whereby his real character obtained scope for manifestation.

In the light of impartial history, Mohammed appears equally anti-Christian by the religion he taught and by the policy he practised; and Islamism has ever since retained the anti-Christian stamp impressed upon it by its author. 1

1 That the Islamic system is not at all intended to co-exist in loving harmony with Christianity as a sister of equal rank, but that it rather regards it with disdain and hostility, appears particularly also from its notorious law, decreeing capital punishment on every Mussulman who secedes from the Mohammedan to the Christian religion. How deeply this odious law is ingrained in Islam, and how it is still regarded as forming an integral part of it, became glaringly manifest by its application to a Christian convert from Mohammedanism in Turkey, as recently as the middle of the present century. The case formed the subject of an official correspondence between the English and the Ottoman Governments, and is recorded in Part xviii. of the printed papers presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty, A.D. 1856. It appears from those documents that in the latter portion of the year 1853, when the English and French fleets were assembled in Turkish waters for the protection of Turkey, a young man was judicially condemned to death and publicly executed in Adrianople, by the Ottoman authorities, for the crime of having apostatised from Islam to Christianity. He had openly declared that Christ was the true Prophet, and that having Him, we had no need of Mohammed, who therefore was a false Prophet. He was cast into prison and cruelly tortured to induce him to recant, but in vain. On being beheaded, he exclaimed with his last breath, 'I profess Jesus Christ, and for Him I die.' On September 17th, 1855, the Earl of Clarendon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, wrote to Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, the British Ambassador at Constantinople, 'The Christian Powers, who are making gigantic efforts and submitting to enormous sacrifices, to save the Turkish Empire from ruin and destruction, cannot permit the continuance of a law in Turkey, which is not only a standing insult to them, but a source of cruel persecution to their co-religionists, which they never can consent to perpetuate by the successes of their fleets and armies. They are entitled to demand, and Her Majesty's Government do distinctly demand, that no punishment whatever shall attach to the Mahometan who becomes a Christian.' The same noble language of Christian patriotism had also been held earlier by the Earl of Aberdeen, who wrote to Sir
SEC. VI.] CONVERTS PUNISHED WITH DEATH. 475

VI. — The Mohammedan World, under the direction of the ARABS, and acting in the spirit of its Prophet, pursues an interior and exterior Policy decidedly anti-Christian.

The 1300 years of the existence of Islamism in the world can be divided into two not very unequal periods, in the first of which the Arabs, and in the second the Turks, were the chief exponents of its power and the directors of its policy. They have proved of one and the same mind in their hostile attitude towards Christianity and its professors; because they were equally animated by the anti-Christian spirit of their religion.

As it was by Mohammed's own inspiration and instigation that the army of Mussulman Arabs, in first crossing the borders of their country, attacked the Christian world, so, during the subsequent ages of war and conquest, it was by virtue of their Faith, and in full accord with the innate tendencies of Islam, that the Mohammedan Powers kept the one aim constantly in view, namely, the overthrow of the Christian Governments and the subjugation of the Christians throughout the world. In carrying out this policy they were

Stratford Canning on January 16th, 1844, 'The Christian Powers will not endure that the Porte should insult and trample on their faith, by treating as a criminal any person who embraces it.' The intention was, to induce the Porte to renounce and abrogate the law in question. But the spirited correspondence with the Turkish Government, even under those exceptionally favourable circumstances, led to no greater result than that, early in the year 1856, a Memorandum was agreed upon containing these words: 'As all forms of religion are and shall be freely professed in the Ottoman dominions, no subject of His Majesty the Sultan shall be hindered in the exercise of the religion that he professes, nor shall be in any way annoyed on this account. None shall be compelled to change their religion.' The discovery had been made that the objectionable law, being regarded as invested with a Divine character, could not be annulled or abrogated by any human authority whatsoever. Therefore the British Ambassador considered it best to advise his Government to be content with the afore-mentioned clause, saying in his despatch to the Earl of Clarendon, dated February 12th, 1856, 'The law of the Koran is not abolished, it is true, respecting renegades, and the Sultan's Ministers affirm that such a stretch of authority would exceed even His Majesty's legal powers. But, however that may be, the practical application of it is renounced by means of a public document, and Her Majesty's Government would at any time be justified in complaining of a breach of engagement if the Porte were to authorise or to permit any exception to its own official declaration.'