ope for no real relief or deliverance without this one great remedy.
This panacea must, however, be administered by a wise and skilled
physician, for in the hands of an incompetent all the cures that the Lord
of men has ever created to heal men's ills could produce no health, and
would on the contrary only destroy the helpless and burden the hearts of
the already afflicted.

That Source of Divine wisdom, that Manifestation of Universal Prophethood
(Muhammad), encouraging mankind to acquire sciences and arts and similar
advantages has commanded them to seek these even in the furthermost
reaches of China; yet the incompetent and caviling doctors forbid this,
offering as their justification the saying, "He who imitates a people is
one of them." They have not even grasped what is meant by the "imitation"
referred to, nor do they know that the Divine religions enjoin upon and
encourage all the faithful to adopt such principles as will conduce to
continuous improvements, and to acquire from other peoples sciences and
arts. Whoever expresses himself to the contrary has never drunk of the
nectar of knowledge and is astray in his own ignorance, groping after the
mirage of his desires.

Judge this aright: which one of these modern developments, whether in
themselves or in their application, is contrary to the Divine
commandments? If they mean the establishment of parliaments, these are
enjoined by the very text of the holy verse: "and whose affairs are guided
by mutual counsel."(67) And again, addressing the Dayspring of all
knowledge, the Source of perfection (Muhammad), in spite of His being in
possession of universal wisdom, the words are: "and consult them in the
affair."(68) In view of this how can the question of mutual consultation
be in conflict with the religious Law? The great advantages of
consultation can be established by logical arguments as well.

Can they say that it would be contrary to the laws of God to make a death
sentence conditional on the most careful investigations, on the sanction
of numerous bodies, on legal proof and the royal order? Can they claim
that what went on under the previous government was in conformity with the
Qur'an? For example, in the days when Haji Mirza Aqasi was Prime Minister,
it was heard from many sources that the governor of Gulpaygan seized
thirteen defenseless bailiffs of that region, all of them of holy lineage,
all of them guiltless, and without a trial, and without obtaining