oppression, or insult to those who do not, whilst Islam, from its very nature, is bound to make war against those who reject it, or, where it has the power, to keep them in humiliating subjection, in order to confer its benefits, such as they are, upon its professors; then it must be easy for every unprejudiced mind to discern which of the two religions in question can claim pre-eminence on the score of benevolence, or on the score of the adaptation of its nature and constitution to the requirements of mankind.

Put whilst it is certain that the politico-religious constitution of Muhammadanism is calculated to prove injurious to non-Muslims, it can by no means be proved that it is an unqualified benefit to the Muslims themselves. On the contrary, even for them it has some disadvantages which are but too obvious. For as Islam makes no distinction between civil and religious laws, but derives them both equally from one source, its author; it follows that a thoroughly Muhammadan government must enforce the observance of religious ordinances with the same rigour of the law, as the fulfilment of ordinary civil duties. But this must prove a great snare and danger to true morality amongst the Muslims; for it is plain beyond contradiction that a religious observance is only acceptable to God if it proceeds from religious motives, i.e. from obedience or love to God; and that if it proceeds from contrary motives, it has only the form of religion, not its essence, and, in fact,

becomes hypocrisy. Now if a Muslim, e.g. wishes not to fast in Ramadan, because he believes that God does not require it of him, but if he fasts nevertheless, from fear of being sent about the town on a donkey, with its tail in his hand, the religious observance which he performs is no longer a service to God, but a hypocritical act; and thus Islam, by enforcing religious practices with the threat of civil punishments, has become to him a cause of hypocrisy, i.e. of sin. So likewise a Muhammadan may become convinced that Islam is not the true religion, and may therefore wish to embrace another which he considers to be the true one; but finding that such an act, though it concerns no one but his own soul and God, would yet be regarded as a civil crime punishable with death, he outwardly remains a Musalman, though against his will, but gives his heart and affections to another religion. Now has not such a man also been led into hypocrisy by the strange laws of Islam? What use can there be in forcing a man to remain in a religion against his will? It is plain that such a law is not in conformity with God's own dealings; for He does not force any man to embrace or retain a religion against his will, but addresses him with arguments and motives calculated to influence that will — arguments, the validity of which man's own understanding, if rightly used, is able to perceive, and motives, the force of which man's heart is capable of appreciating. We indeed