A more plausible case is made out by Canon Taylor, Dr. Blyden, and others on the question of temperance.  It is true that Moslems, as a rule, are not hard drinkers.  Men and races of men have their besetting sins.  Drinking was not the special vice of the Arabs.  Their country was too arid; but they had another vice of which Mohammed was the chief exemplar.  Canon Taylor is doubtless correct also in the statement that the English protectorate in Egypt has greatly increased the degree of intemperance, and that in this respect the presence of European races generally has been a curse.  Certainly too much cannot be said in condemnation of the wholesale liquor trade carried on in Africa by unscrupulous subjects of Christian nations.  But it should be remembered that the whiskey of Cairo and of the West Coast does not represent Christianity any more than the Greek assassin or the Italian pickpocket in Cairo represents Islam.  Christian philanthropists in Europe and America are seeking to suppress the evil.  If Christian missionaries in West Africa were selling rum as Moslem Mollahs are buying and selling slaves in Uganda, if the Bible authorized the system as the Koran encourages slavery and concubinage, as means of propagandism, a parallel might be presented; but the very reverse is true.

As a rule Nomadic races are not as greatly inclined to the use of ardent spirits as are the descendants of the ancient tribes of Northern Europe.  The difference is due to climate, temperament, heredity, and the amount of supply.  The Koran discourages intemperance and so does the Bible; both are disregarded when the means of gratification are abundant.

The Moguls of India were sots almost as a rule.  Wealthy Persian Moslems are the chief purchasers of the native wines.  Lander, Schweinfurth, and even Mungo Parke all speak of communities in Central Africa as wholly given to intemperance.[122] Egyptians even, according to Canon Taylor, find the abundant supplies afforded by Europeans too tempting for the restraints of the Koran.

One of the most significant indications that the sober judgment of all enlightened men favors the immense superiority of the Christian faith over all ethnic systems is the fact that even those zealous apologists who have most plausibly defended the non-Christian religions have subsequently evinced some misgivings and have even become advocates of the superior light of Christianity.  Sir Edwin Arnold, seeing how seriously some ill-grounded Christian people had interpreted “The Light of Asia,” has since made amends by writing “The Light of the World.”  And E. Bosworth Smith, on reading the extravagant glorification given to Islam by Canon Isaac Taylor, whom he accuses of plagiarism and absurd exaggeration, has come to the stand as a witness against his extreme views.  Without acknowledging any important modification of his own former views he has greatly changed the place of emphasis.  He has not only recorded his