above. If this is not a warning to the Moslem to defend himself, or even to assume the aggressive against the Cross, I do not know what other language is.

Will it be believed that, in order to give my very innocent words this warlike appearance, the Moulvie has deliberately omitted the following passage? In speaking of the Crusaders' efforts to rescue the Holy Sepulchre, which they fondly regarded as an enterprise blessed of Heaven,' I added:

6

We know how great an error this was, and how fearfully these Crusades failed. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, and they that take the sword must perish with the sword. We are not now bidden to go forth with the weapons of slaughter and death in our hands to lay low mortal foes, &c.

...

I leave it to any impartial reader to judge whether it is honest and straightforward to suppress this passage in the midst of a quotation, and then accuse me of bloodthirstily endeavouring to stir up strife. Such a method of controversy condemns itself.

Sir W. Muir is well able to defend himself; and his reputation as a scholar, and an able and impartial administrator in the Panjab formerly, is too well known for any such attack on him as the Moulvie has seen fit to make to need a reply. But what must we think of the weakness of the cause which the Moulvie undertakes to defend with such weapons as I have mentioned above? Because, forsooth, many Moslems are subjects of our Queen, therefore no one is to be permitted, even in England and in the English language, to write such a work as Sir W. Muir's able Life of Mahomet, although he draws all his information from Muhammadan authors! Nor must he write a review of a book on Muhammadanism, even for the Nineteenth Century, lest he should stir up political and administrative troubles'!

The Moulvie does not really deal with any of the arguments which I have brought forward even in the book of mine which he seems to have read. He informs us, however, that 'the Coran itself repeatedly answers them.' Sir W. Muir, in his article, has already given Muhammad's answer,3 and your readers can judge for themselves what it is worth. I think I have proved in a fairly conclusive manner-and all scholars who read my Sources of Islâm and the proofs there given in full will agree with me that the Coran and Islâm in general have largely borrowed from (1) the traditions and customs of the ancient Arabs, (2) the Talmud and other Jewish writings and traditions, (3) apocryphal and heretical works once current among certain Christian sects in the East, (4) Zoroastrian books and traditions, and (5) the teaching of the Hanîfs, especially Zeid ibn 'Amr, contemporary with Muhammad. It is not at all a question of plagiarising one or more passages, but the force of the argument lies in this, that the Coran claims to be a Divine

Sûrah, xvi. 103.

revelation written on the 'Preserved Tablet' ages before the creation of the world. If so, how is it that we find in it, e.g., the story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, in Decius's reign, or again mention by name of the old Armenian deities, Hârût and Mârût (in Armenian, Hôrôt and Môrôt)? Even the quotation from the Psalms by name is strange, as the Psalms were not written before the Creation. Of course, one can see the reason why the Moulvie should act according to the (apocryphal ?) lawyer's advice, 'We have no case: abuse the other side.' Hence he proceeds to prove, on the authority of Professor Johnson,' that-if I understand him aright-the Jewish Scriptures (including the Psalms, quoted in the Coran ?) were written between A.D. 1 and A D. 1000! Readers of Tacitus and Josephus, and those who know that the Septuagint version of the Old Testament dates from the third and second centuries B.C., will marvel at this discovery, especially when they learn that the Jews enter the field of historical observation about the middle of the eleventh century.' At any rate, I fail to see how an attack on the Bible can uphold the Coran, more particularly as the Coran so frequently refers to the Old and New Testaments (the Taurât and the Injil) as true and of Divine origin. If the Coran is wrong in holding this view, then how does such an error support its claim to be a 'revealed book'? Of course, all scholars know that the Coran does not assert that the Scriptures had been forged and interpolated,' though it accuses the Jews of twisting their tongues' in explaining to Muhammad certain provisions of their Law. With this matter Sir W. Muir has well dealt in The Coran, its Composition and its Teaching, a work of which the Moulvie does not approve.

6

The Moulvie may be right in thinking that Luther was misled by a mistranslation of the Coran. But I think my books show that I do not rely on any translation, but quote the original. But if the Moulvie is not satisfied with Professor Palmer's or Mr. Rodwell's versions, why should he not make a new one? He need not call it a Revised Version,' if such expressions suggest alterations.'

In conclusion, I venture to assert that if the Moulvie will condescend to read the book which he has attacked, viz. The Sources of Islâm, in the Persian original, he will not find in it one word of unkindness or vituperation against Muhammad or his faith, although I have honestly endeavoured to prove from what sources the latter derived much of what he has, with much eloquence, composed and handed down to his followers under the name of the Coran.

Your obedient servant,

W. ST. CLAIR-TISDALL.

I have not read Professor Johnson's work, and possibly he is as much misquoted

as I have been.

THE QUESTION OF THE NATIVE RACES

IN SOUTH AFRICA

WHATEVER be the issue of the war in South Africa, it will probably leave behind it a struggle not less enduring or grave: a struggle between the white races and the coloured; between a minority of about three-quarters of a million and a majority of about four millions; between a vigorous modern industrial civilisation and primitive communities falling into decay: an economic struggle on a large and hitherto unknown scale. As chairman of the South African Native Races Committee, a committee formed to investigate dispassionately the social and economic condition of the natives; a committee including Dr. Stewart of Lovedale, Mr. Moffat, and others intimately acquainted with the subject, I have had some exceptional opportunities of ascertaining the opinions of many persons in South Africa.1 Very diverse are the opinions of those who have lived most of their lives among the natives. Even while agreeing in resenting outside criticism, they differ much among themselves as to the policy to be pursued. Not a little depends on the locality of which observers speak: often you can reconcile discrepancies when you know where they have lived. But having lately studied a large mass of communications from all parts of South Africa with respect to the condition of the natives, I am inclined to think that not so much the local experience of the observer as the character of his views respecting some fundamental principles-in particular as to the rights of the weak, the duties of the strong-determines the complexion of his opinions as to the future of the natives. Even those who sincerely desire to be impartial, and who complain of others looking at facts through coloured glasses, use them themselves.

The elements of the struggle which long ago began, and which is likely to be lasting, are these: in British territory south of the Zambesi are three to four million natives-the exact number is unknown, for as

1

It is distinctly to be understood none of the Committee are in any way responsible for the opinions here expressed. The report of the Committee, entitled The Native Races of South Africa: their Social and Economic Condition,' is ublished by Mr. Murray.

to Natal, the Transvaal, and the Orange River State, there has been no trustworthy census. Excluding the Bushmen and other unimportant races, the number is about four millions, and they are, according to the best information, growing rapidly-even more rapidly than the Dutch. An aggressive industrial civilisation comes in contact with races showing no sign of withering away in the presence of the white man, and with many-sided aptitudes: races which have produced in recent times warriors such as Tshaka, and statesmen such as Khama; people who do not readily take to regular toil, but, possessing considerable physical strength and no small ingenuity, are capable of performing many kinds of work admirably. Commercial or tribal land tenure comes in conflict with private ownership, the power of the chiefs with the requirements and organisation of Government. The mining companies, impatient at the loose ways of working of the natives, demand cheap, regular labour; and the farmers complain because they do not get labour at the old rates. Into a few years have been crowded changes which in other countries have been spread over centuries. A great economic slide has taken place, and primitive economic communities find themselves in the presence of a highly organised civilisation, bent on predominance, and not always scrupulous as to the ways of attaining it.

Almost all the chief questions which have arisen or are on the horizon fall into three groups-the labour question, the land question, the relations of the natives to the Government. Many of the data necessary to form a safe opinion on these questions do not exist. Passages in the valuable report of the Royal Commission of 1883 on native laws and customs do not hold good as to the present order of things; the Commissioners did not deal with many of the questions now most pressing; and one of the first steps to be taken at the close of hostilities should be to institute an inquiry into several questions now obscure.3

Until lately there existed among all tribes in South Africa, though

2 This has been questioned by some authorities. My impression is distinctly that, while natives are increasing and not "dying out" as elsewhere, Europeans in South Africa are increasing at a greater rate than are the coloured people.'-Rev. John Mackenzie.

3 The South African Races Committee recommended an inquiry into some of the following matters :

(1) Laws, customs, and land tenure of the natives in districts which were not the subject of examination by the Cape Government Commission;

(2) The operation of the existing tribal system, and the expediency of maintaining it;

(3) The advisability of setting aside large areas (such as the whole or part of the Zoutpansberg district and Swaziland) to be administered for the exclusive use and benefit of the native tribes ;

(4) The condition of existing native locations and reserves, the terms upon which lands are secured to the natives, and the need and method of providing further lands for the surplus native population;

(5) The provision of further facilities for the flow of labour to centres of industry, and, if practicable, for the migration of families to such centres; the

with local differences, 'tribal communism,' which is thus described by the Royal Commission of 1883: 'The land occupied by a tribe is regarded theoretically as the property of the paramount chief; in relation to the tribe he is a trustee, holding it for the people, who occupy and use it, in subordination to him, on communistic principles.' The description of the system by two natives is apter:

Under the tribal tenure, the chief would have the power to dispossess any person and to put another in possession. I have heard of this, but have never done so myself. The way in which land is allotted is this. A man goes to the head chief and applies for a place to settle. He sends him to a petty chief, who allots him a place in the section occupied by himself. The man does not give the chief anything for this, but he has to work for the chief when called upon without reward, and generally to obey his wishes.

Another description, also by a native, runs thus:

All the land really belongs to the king, but this man has leave from the king to live there and take care of it for the king.

The system is wasteful and rude, but it has its merits. It is compatible with a certain degree of cultivation. It is elastic; it provides for the growth of population, new comers being entitled to a share of the land. I am not sure that in some districts one day it may not be necessary to try to give otherwise what the old land system of the country provided. The Commission of 1883 did not advise the rapid destruction of this system, but it regarded this result as desirable; and that has been in Cape Colony the dominant view.

This should be steadily kept in view by the Government, with the distinct object of taking advantage of every favouring opportunity at the request of the people or from other encouraging circumstances to establish that system, so that at the earliest practicable period the native custom in the matter of land tenure shall be superseded by the better system of holding land under individual right and by separate title deed.

The Glen Grey Act-regarded by many of Mr. Rhodes' admirers as his greatest service to Cape Colony-made a great change and one in the spirit of this recommendation. The Act was intended to substitute the 'better system' of private ownership for that which existed all over South Africa, according to which the chief had control over the whole land, subject to the influence of the tribe, which in effect

supervision of contracts of service; the securing of safe and healthy conditions of labour in the mines, and other occupations;

(6) The provision of advice and assistance for natives at industrial centres, and of facilities for the deposit and transmission of their earnings;

(7) The need for further Government aid for native education, and for reforms in the present system;

(8) The effects of existing methods of taxation on the economic and social condition of the natives;

(9) The working of the Pass Laws, with a view to ascertaining whether their mitigation or abolition is practicable;

(10) The administration of the Liquor Laws.

Act No. 26, 1894.