Morals of Mahometanism.

It is pretended that Mahomet gained proselytes by accommodating his morals to the corruption of men’s hearts; but as to that point, I do not see that this false prophet has derogated from the morality of the gospel. On the contrary, I perceive, that as to ceremonies, he has considerably increased the yoke of Christians. He ordains circumcision, which is a thing very harsh to adult persons; he requires them to abstain from certain meats, which is a slavery that does not well agree with worldly men; he forbids the use of wine, which is a precept indeed that is not so very harsh to the Asiatic people as to the northern nations, and which had certainly made Willibrod and Bonifacius miscarry in their design; but yet it is inconvenient in all countries where wine grows; and we know by ancient and modern history, that this liquor does not displease the Oriental people. Besides, Mahomet imposed fastings and ablutions,

which are very troublesome, and so frequent a use of prayers as is tedious and uneasy. He enjoins also pilgrimages; and, in a word, you need only consider the forty aphorisms of his morals, and there you will find every thing opposite to the corruption of man’s heart, the precept of patience in adversity, of not speaking evil of our neighbours, of being charitable, of renouncing vanity, of doing no injury to any man; and lastly, that which is the epitome of the law and the prophets, ‘ Do to your neighbour, whatever you would that he should do unto you.’

It is therefore an illusion to pretend that the only reason why the law of Mahomet was propagated so readily, and spread to so great an extent, was, because it eased men of the yoke of good works, and troublesome observances, and allowed them freedom in evil courses. If I mistake not, the only things wherein it opened the gap which the gospel had shut, are marriage and revenge; for it permits polygamy, and to return evil for evil; but the Jews and Pagans scarcely gained any thing by this, for they were already in possession of a custom which did not much trouble them in this respect. Hottinger has given us a long catalogue of the moral aphorisms or apophthegms of the Mahometans. We may say, without flattering this religion, that the most excellent precepts that can be given to man for the practice of virtue, and avoiding of vice, are contained in these aphorisms. Hottinger makes no scruple to exalt this morality above that of many monks. Mr Simon has spoken no less advantageously of the Mahometan religion, with respect to morality: “It consists,” says he, “in doing good, and shunning evil, and therefore they examine carefully virtues and vices; and their casuists are no less subtle in these points than ours.” After he has related some of their principles concerning the necessity of faith, and trust in God, and humility and repentance, &c. he adds, “I pass over in silence the

rest of their morals, because what has been said is sufficient to show what they are; and I can assure you, that they are not so loose as those of some casuists in our age. I shall only add, that they have many good precepts about the duties of private persons to their neighbour, wherein they do also give rules of' civility. They have also written of the behaviour that is due to a prince; and one of their maxims is, ‘ That it is never lawful to kill him, nor even to speak evil of him under pretence that he is a tyrant.'

With respect to a sensual paradise, it must be granted that this promise might be a bait to allure the Pagans, who had but confused notions of the happiness of another life, but I do not know whether it was proper to entice the Jews, neither do I think that it could have any force upon Christians, and yet how many Christians have been drawn into apostacy by this false prophet? Suppose what he says of the pleasures of his paradise ought to be literally understood, “that each person there shall have the strength of one hundred men, to enjoy a full satisfaction with women, as well as to drink and eat —this would not balance the idea the scripture has given us of the happiness of another life; for it speaks of it as a state which surpasses all that “eyes have seen or ears heard, or hath entered into the heart of man to conceive.” So that, if we believe the scripture, the happiness of paradise is something that surpasses imagination, and has no bounds set to it. Endeavour to have a fixed idea of it, you can never compass it, but your hopes still carry you higher, and launch out farther beyond all bounds. Mahomet did not allow you this liberty, but confined you within certain limits; he multiplied a hundred times the pleasures you have already tried, and there he left you; but what is a hundred times in comparison with a number indefinite? Some, indeed, may say, “the scripture speaks only of pleasure in general and if it make use of corporeal images, as

when it promises “that we shall be satisfied with the fatness of the house of God, and that we shall drink of the rivers of his pleasures,” you are presently warned that these are metaphors, under which spiritual pleasures are veiled: but that this does not move worldly souls like sensible pleasures. I answer, that the souls which are most immersed in matter, will always prefer the paradise of the Gospel before that of Mahomet, provided they give an historical faith to the description of the beatific vision, though they should give the same faith to the Koran. I shall explain my meaning by this supposition: let us represent to ourselves two preachers, the one a Christian, and the other a Mahometan, preaching before Pagans, each of them endeavouring to allure them to his party, by laying open the joys of paradise. The Mahometan promises feasts and fine women; and, the better to move his auditors, he tells them that, in the other world, the pleasures of sense will be a hundred times more delicious than in this. The Christian declares that the pleasures of paradise will neither consist in eating nor drinking, nor in the conjunction of the two sexes, but that they shall be so substantial, that no man’s imagination is able to reach them; and that all that can be conceived, by multiplying the pleasures of this world a hundred times, a thousand times, a hundred thousand thousand times, &c. is nothing, in comparison of the happiness which God imparts to the soul, by “seeing him face to face,” &c. Is it not certain that the most unchaste and gluttonous hearers would rather follow the Christian preacher than the other, though we should suppose that they give as much credit to the promises of the Mahometan as to those of the Christian? They would doubtless do the same thing which a soldier would do to two captains, who would hire him for a price; for, though he was persuaded that they were both of them sincere, and would give all that they had promised, he would certainly list himself with him that offered most. So, likewise, these Pagans would prefer the paradise of the gospel before that of Mahomet, though they should be persuaded that both of these preachers would make good to their disciples the reward which they had promised. For it must not be imagined that a voluptuous man loves the pleasures of sense merely because they flow from that source; he would equally love them, if they came from any other: make him feel more pleasure by sucking in the air in a cave, than by eating the best ragouts, he will quit with all his heart the best meals, to go into the cave. Make him feel more pleasure in examining a geometrical problem than in enjoying a fine woman, he will readily quit the fine woman for this problem; and consequently it would be unreasonable to suppose that a Mahometan should draw after him all the hearers that are lovers of pleasure: for, since they love the pleasures of sense only because they can find none better, it is plain that they would renounce them with ease, to enjoy a greater happiness.