arose, and found expression in such statements as that already quoted.
But Muhammed's preaching had obviously striven to honour the future
life by painting the actual world in the gloomiest colours, and the
material optimism of the secular-minded was unable to check the
advance of Christian asceticism among the classes which felt a real
interest in religion. Hence that surprising similarity of views upon
the problem of existence, which we have now to outline. In details of
outward form great divergency is apparent. Christianity possessed a
clergy while Islam did not: yet the force of Christian influence
produced a priestly class in Islam. It was a class acting not as
mediator between God and man through sacraments and mysteries, but as
moral leaders and legal experts; as such it was no less important than
the scribes under Judaism. Unanimity among these scholars could
produce decisions no less binding than those of the Christian clergy
assembled in church councils. They are representatives of the
congregation which "has no unanimity, for such would be an error."
Islam naturally preferred to adopt unanimous conclusions in silence
rather than to vote in assemblies. As a matter of fact a body of
orthodox opinion was developed by this means with no less success than
in Christendom. Any agreement which the quiet work of the scholars had
secured upon any question was ratified by God and was thus irrevocably
and eternally binding. For instance, the proclamation to the faithful
of new ideas upon the exposition of the Qoran or of tradition was
absolutely forbidden; the scholars, in other words the clergy, had
convinced themselves, by the fact of their unanimity upon the point,
that the customary and traditional mode of exposition was the one
pleasing to God. Ideas of this kind naturally remind us of Roman
Catholic practice. The influence of Eastern Christianity upon Islam is
undoubtedly visible here. This influence could not in the face of
Muhammedan tradition and custom, create an organised clergy, but it