Skip to main content

Full text of "A manual of the leading Muhammadan objections to Christianity"

See other formats 


•co 


:LT) 


CO 


\ 


A  Manual  of  the  Leading 

Miiliammadan  Objections 
to  Christianity. 


COMPILED   BY   THE 


REV.  W.  ST.  CLAIR  TIS^ALL,  M.A.,  D.D., 

C.M.S. 


"  Of  all  men  .  .  .  thou  shalt  certainly  find  those  to  be  nearest 
in  affection  to  them  (i.e.  to  Muslims)  who  say,  'We  are 
Christiana  '."—(Silrah  Al  Mdidah,  V.,  85.) 


"Aftab  amad  dalll  i  aftab; 
Gar  dalllat  bayad,  az  vai  ru  ma  tab." — 


LONDON 
SOCIETY  FOR  PROMOTING  CHRISTIAN  KNOWLEDGE 

NiilUMI   .MlU:i{|..\NI)     \\IMK,    W.C.  ;     4;J,    Ul'KKV    VICTORIA    STUEKT,     E.t  . 

BitioiiTox  :   129,  NORTH  Sim  i  i 

NEW  YORK  :   E.  S.  GORHAM 

1904 


PUBLISHED   UNDER  DIRECTION   OF  THE   TRACT  COMMITTEE. 


Rv 


IZ 


JAN    2  IS  }) 


PREFACE. 

I.  AN  English  reader,  unacquainted  with  the 
East  and  with  the  Muhammadan  controversy,  will 
be  inclined,  on  reading  this  book,  to  think  that  the 
arguments  heie  used  on  the  Christian  side  are  in 
sufficient,  being  weakly  stated  and  based  too 
much  upon  the  Qur'an.  It  is  hoped  that  mission 
aries  of  experience  will  not  think  so.  The  reason 
why  at  first  sight  the  work  may  seem  open  to  these 
•ctions  is  that  the  Christian  controversialist  has 
limit  his  choice  of  proofs  to  those  which  lie 
within  the  range  of  a  Muhammadan's  knowledge, 
«nd  this  is  generally  extremely  limited.  To  appeal 
j  the  history  of  the  Jews,  of  the  world  at  large,  of 
his  own  nation,  to  criticism  of  whatever  nature,  to 
the  Bible,  to  the  opinions  of  European  writers,  or 
anything  of  the  kind,  would  for  the  most  part 
be  to  refer  to  that  of  which  a  Muslim  has  no  know 
ledge,  or  at  least  very  little  indeed.  Should  he 
have  read  the  Bible  (except  certain  extracts  torn 
from  their  proper  context  and  wrested  to  support 
the  foregone  conclusions  of  Muhammadan  con 
troversial  writers),  he  still  denies  its  authenticity, 
genuineness,  and  authority,  except  again  in  the 
case  of  the  most  enlightened  of  the  Indian  Muslims. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  no  appeal  to  the  Bible 


4       MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

can  have  any  weight  until  the  objections  which 
Muslims  bring  against  it  are  removed.  The  best, 
nay,  almost  the  only  way  to  do  this  is,  as  ex 
perience  has  proved,  to  show  that  these  objections 
are  opposed  to  the  Qur'an's  own  clear  statements 
and  to  the  views  of  eminent  Muhammadan  com 
mentators  of  the  past.  Of  course  Muslims  know 
that  the  Christian  missionary  does  not  accept  the 
Qur'an  in  the  sense  in  which  Muhamraadans  accept 
it.  In  appealing  to  the  testimony  of  the  Qur'an 
it  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  we  are 
building  upon  sand.  We  do  not  appeal  to  its 
evidence  as  of  any  real  weight  in  support  of  the 
claims  of  the  Bible  upon  men.  But  we  quote  its 
testimony  to  show  that  the  arguments  which  Muslims 
now  bring  against  the  Bible  are  confuted  in  large 
measure  by  the  statements  of  the  book  which  they 
themselves  believe  to  be  God's  best  and  final 
revelation  to  man,  and  to  be  God's  own  Word, 
inscribed  upon  the  "  Preserved  Tablet  "  in  Heaven 
ages  before  the  creation  of  the  world.  In  quoting 
it  we  acknowledge  merely  that  it  has  been  handed 
down  from  Muhammad,  and  that  he  claimed  for  it 
the  lofty  position  which  Muslims  accord  to  it. 

Our  choice  of  arguments  is  limited  by  our 
opponent's  lack  of  knowledge ;  because  arguments 
founded  upon  circumstances  with  which  he  is 
unacquainted  not  only  fail  to  hit  the  mark  but 
are  injurious,  since  Muslims  fancy  that  we  are 
endeavouring  to  shirk  the  question  at  issue,  and 


PREFACE. 


they  are  thus  confirmed  in  their  belief  as  to  the 
strength  of  their  position. 

2.  I  have   tried   to   arrange   Muhammadan  ob 
jections  as  simply  and  clearly  as  possible,  indicating 
the  line  of  argument  which  I  think  the  best  to 
adopt  in  answering  them.     I  most  gratefully  ac 
knowledge  my  indebtedness  to  those  missionaries 
and  others  who  have  kindly,  in  compliance  with 
my  request,  ^communicated  to  me  the  objections 
they  have  actually  had  to  meet,  and  have  suggested 
what  seemed  to  them  the   best  answers  to  give. 
I  have  endeavoured  to  thank  all  such  by  letter, 
but  trust  they  will  permit  me  to  do  so  here  also. 
It  has  not  been  possible,  of  course,  to  accept  the 
very  words  of  such  suggestions  in  every  case,  but 
I  think  they  will  be  found  to  have  been  carefully 
considered.     Sometimes   an  optional  answer  to  a 
difficulty  has  been  given  in  order  that  I  might  avail 
myself  of  such  valuable  hints  and  advice. 

3.  The  C.  M.  S.  Committee  have  expressed  their 
desire  that  I  should  as  far  as  possible  abstain  from 
quoting  authorities  l  at  any  length.    I  have  therefore 
merely  referred  my  readers  to  books  where  they 
will  tind  the  authority  for  my  statements,  when 
this  seemed  really  necessary.     Hence  too  I  have 
not  quoted  the  Qur'anic  passages  in  the  original 

1  The  Rev.  Canon  Sell  hopes  to  be  able  to  publish  in  a  separate 
form  at  Madras  tljc  <-lii.  f  Aral.ir  passages  to  -s\hi<-h  n-l'i-n-n,-.- 
is  made  in  this  manual.  This  might  be  found  of  use  as  a  kind 
of  supplement  to  the  book. 


6         MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

(though  the  missionary  should  look  them  up  in 
the  Arabic  in  every  case,  knowing  that  the  Muslim 
will  not  accept  any  translation  as  of  authority). 
In  translating  verses  of  the  Qur'an,  I  have  departed 
from  Rodwell's  version  only  when  absolutely 
necessary.  The  verses  are  numbered  as  in  Fluegel's 
Arabic  edition,  though  the  habit  of  numbering 
them  is  by  no  means  as  yet  universally  adopted  in 
the  East.  , 

4.  Certain  passages  are  put  in  square  brackets  to 
indicate  that  care  should  be  taken  in  using  such 
arguments,  or  that  the  matters  dealt  with  are  of 
slight  importance.     In  some  cases  these  passages  are 
mainly  intended  for  the  information  of  the  young 
missionary  himself,  in  case  he  should  not  be  able 
at   the   moment  to  obtain   fuller   information   on 
special  points. 

5.  I  have   supplied   (in  brackets)  the  technical 
Arabic  words  used  by  Muhammadans  with  reference 
to  certain   doctrines  or  opinions  of  theirs,  so  that 
the   young   missionary   may   know   exactly  what 
word  to  use  in  order  to  convey  his  meaning  to  the 
hearer,  and  may  understand   the   word   when  he 
hears  it  used.     A  knowledge  of  such  terms  is  of 
very  great  importance  indeed. 

6.  The  book  is  put  into  the  form  of  a  dialogue 
not  only  to  make  it  more  readable,  but  also  because 
the   Muhammadan   arguments   could   best    be   ar 
ranged  and  given  their  due  weight  in  that  manner. 
It  is  the  natural  arrangement  too,  because  conversa- 


PREFACE.  7 

tions  or  controversies  about  the  Faith  must  (or  at 
least  should)  assume  that  form  in  real  life.     The 
order   in  which  the  subjects  are  taken  has  been 
decided  upon,  after  considerable  thought,  as  that 
which  seems  to  me  to  be  the  one  in  which  the  con 
troversy  between  the  Muslims  and  ourselves  may 
be  the  most  profitably  conducted.     The  individual 
arguments  on  the  Muhaminadan  side  are  arranged 
in  as  orderly  a  manner  as  possible.     But  as  the 
same  argument  is  often  brought  forward  in  slightly 
different  terms,  I  have  often  given  it  in  more  forms 
than  one,  though  answering  it  at  length  only  once. 
In  consequence  of  the  introduction  of  arguments 
in  this   way   more   than  once,   and  that  of  other 
trifling  ones  in  what  seemed  the  most  convenient 
place  for  them,  the   chapters   are   not   models   of 
orderly  and  logical  controversy  ;  for  I  had  to  re 
present  Muslims  as  speaking  as  they  actually  do, 
and  not  as  would  best  suit  the  line  of  argument  to 
which  I  wished  to  adhere.     Before  we  can  discuss 
such  questions  as  the  Doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the 
Atonement,  and  others  peculiarly  Christian,  which 
rest  upon  the  Bible  for  their  proof,  it  is  necessary 
to  remove  the  difficulties  in  his  mind  which  prevent 
the    Muslim   from   accepting   as  of  authority  the 
statements  of  Scripture.     T/^  an  I /tor  it  i/  <>f  ///<-  />W<- 
is  f/tr  (/(•••(//  fin-xtinn  njitni  ii'/tii'/t  tum8  t/ie  whole  3/«- 


It  is  impossible  to  hope  that  such  a  work  as  this 
should   be   anything   but  very  imperfect   at   first. 


8         MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

I  therefore  invite  and  shall  be  grateful  for  all 
suggestions  and  criticisms,  hoping  to  profit  by  them 
in  rendering  (by  God's  blessing)  a  second  edition 
more  useful  to  my  fellow  labourers  than  the  first 
can  be. 

7.  It  has   again  and  again  been  asked,  "Why 
should  missionaries  enter  at  all  on  the  discussion 
of  such  doctrines  as  that  of  the  Trinity  when  dealing 
with  either  Muhammadans  or  heatheps  ?     Why  not 
imitate  the  Apostles  and  at  first  inculcate  belief  in 
the  Divine  Unity,  letting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
evolve  itself,  as  it  were,  in  the  minds  of  converts, 
very  much  as  it  did  in  the  early  Church  ?  "     This 
seems  very  sensible  advice  indeed  as  far  as  our 
dealings  with  polytheists  are  concerned,  and  it  is 
doubtless  just  what  workers  among  them  do.     But 
missionaries  to  Muhammadans  are  forced  to  enter 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  because  all  Muslims 
know  that  Christians  hold  it,  and  Muhammadans 
deem  it  the  weakest  point  in  the  Christian  faith 
and  therefore  invariably  select  it  for  attack.     As 
they  imagine  that  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  we 
express  our  belief  in  three  Gods  (one  of  whom  they 
often  fancy  to  be  the  Virgin  Mary),  we  have  to 
explain  what  the  true  faith  is,  and  to  prove  that  it 
is  taught  in  Holy  Scripture. 

8.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  this  book  is  not 
intended  to  be  a  manual  of  Christian  dogmatics,  but 
only  to  be  a  handbook  dealing  simply  and  briefly 
with    the    most    usual    Muhammadan    objections 


PREFACE.  9 

to  certain  Christian  doctrines  and  to  Christianity 
in  general.  Hence  we  have  not  attempted  anything 
like  &fnll  treatment  of  such  matters  as  the  Atone 
ment,  the  Nature  of  God,  the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of 
Christ,  Messianic  Prophecies,  the  Authenticity  of 
the  various  books  of  the  Bible,  the  Nature  of  Sin, 
and  so  on.  Books  dealing  with  all  these  subjects  are 
readily  accessible  to  the  Christian  student,  and  his 
knowledge  o(  them  is  of  course  taken  for  granted. 


CONTENTS. 


INTRODUCTION 

* 

CHAPTER  I. 

ON   MUHAMMADAN    DIFFICULTIES   IN    GENERAL         ...         24 

CHAPTER   II. 
OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  BIBLE  AS  IT 

NOW  EXISTS 


CHAPTER  III. 
OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  PBESEKT  AUTHORITY  OF  THE  BIBLE      89 

CHAPTER  IV. 
OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  CERTAIN  LEADING  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINES 

AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE   TAUGHT   IN   THE    BlBLE        .  .  .        TOO 

CHAPTER  V. 

OBJECTIONS   AGAINST    LEADING   CHRISTIAN   DOCTRINES  (CON- 

TINUED)  :    THE  TKIMTY M5 

CHAPTER   VI. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CUBIST'S  ATONEMENT     168 


12        MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 


CHAPTEE   VII. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  CHRISTIANITY  ON  THE  GROUND  OF  MU 
HAMMAD'S  DIVINE  MISSION 189 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
MISCELLANEOUS  OBJECTIONS 218 

APPENDICES. 

SOME    USEFUL  BOOKS    ON    ISLAM    AND    THE    MUHAMMADAN 

CONTROVERSY  (IN  VARIOUS  LANGUAGES)  .         .         .         .227 


MUHAMMADAN   OBJECTIONS 
TO   CHRISTIANITY. 


INTRODUCTION. 

A  MISSIONARY  labouring  among  Muslims  will 
almost  of  necessity  find  himself,  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  compelled  to  engage  in  (written  or  oral) 
controversy  with  them  at  some  time  or  other, 
possibly  very  frequently.  As  the  women  in  Muham- 
madan  lands  are,  for  the  most  part,  little  instructed 
even  in  their  own  creed,  lady  missionaries  are 
perhaps,  in  some  places,  not  so  frequently  called 
upon  as  men  are  to  argue  with  those  to  whom 
they  are  sent.  Yet  at  any  time  questions  involving 
a  knowledge  of  the  Muhammadan  controversy  may 
be  asked,  and  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  be  ready 
with  a  suitable  reply  to  each  and  every  one  of 
these.  A  missionary  will  never  seek  controversy 
merely  for  its  own  sake,  but  he  must  never  *liun  it, 
lest  he  convey  the  impression  that  no  answer  can 
be  given  to  Muhammadan  objections.  The  model 
of  Christian  controversy  is  given  in  Acts  xvii.  23, 
sqq.  When  controversy  arises  it  may  be  well  to 
observe  the  following  rules,  which  I  venture  to 
suggest  to  the  young  missionary  :— 

i.  Remember  that  our  aim  is  not  to  silence  our 


14        MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

opponent,  nor  to  gain  a  merely  logical  victory,  but 
to  win  souls  to  Christ.  Hence,  in  argument,  we 
should  endeavour  to  remove  misconceptions  which 
hinder  Muslims  from  giving  careful  attention  to 
the  Gospel  message.  The  object  that  we  have  in 
view  in  controversy  is  chiefly  to  remove  stumbling- 
blocks.  We  must  not  expect  it  to  convert  a  soul. 
That  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  aid 
must  at  every  step  be  prayerfully  and  believingly 
invoked.  Urge  the  inquirer  or  opponent  prayer 
fully  to  read  the  Bille,  especially  the  New  Testa 
ment,  and  not  to  content  himself  with  finding  fault 
with  it  and  discovering  difficulties  in  it T. 

2.  Endeavour  to  limit   the   discussion  on  each 
occasion  to  one  or  two  definite  points,  which  should 
be  settled  upon  with  your  opponent  beforehand. 
To  let  him  hurry  off  from  one  point  to   another 
without  waiting  for  an  answer  is  a  mere  waste  of 
time,  or  worse.     Try  also  to  bring  the  argument 
to   some   definite   conclusion.     This   can  be   done 
only  by  planning  out  the  course  of  the  discussion, 
as  far  as  possible,  in  one's  own  mind,  and  keeping 
the  goal  steadily  in  view. 

3.  It  is  impossible  to  pay  too  much  attention  to 
fairness  and  courtesy 2  in  your  arguments.     If  you 
are  polite  and  kind  in  your  words  and  manner, 

1  Rev.  F.  Laurence. 

2  "I  should  lay  at  least  equal  stress  on  fairness.    I  think  it  is 
much  less  frequently  found  in  arguments  than  is  courtesy  of 
manner,  and  I  believe  it  has  an  enormous  effect."    (The  Right  Rev. 
the  Bishop  of  Lahore.)     Vide  No.  ir  below. 


INTRODUCTION.  1 5 

your  opponent  will  generally,  even  against  his  will, 
be  forced  to  observe  the  rules  of  courtesy.  Regard 
him  as  a  brother  for  whom  Christ  died,  and  to 
whom  you  are  sent  with  the  message  of  reconcilia 
tion.  You  can  generally  repress  any  rudeness  on 
his  part,  without  offending  him,  by  showing  courtesy 
to  him  and  making  it  clear,  by  your  manner,  that 
you  expect  the  same  conduct  from  him.  Never  let 
an  argument  degenerate  into  a  quarrel. 

4.  Remember  that  your  opponent  may  be  en 
deavouring  to  make  you  angry.  If  he  can  succeed 
in  even  leading  those  present  to  imagine  that  you 
are  so,  he  will  in  their  opinion  have  gained  the 
victory.  For  example :  as  Byron  states,  a  Turk's 
very  beard  is  supposed  to  curl  with  wrath.  ("  Then 
curled  his  very  beard  with  ire.")  To  prevent  one's 
anger  from  being  thus  evidenced,  an  Oriental  will 
frequently  stroke  his  moustaches.  If  a  Christian 
should  do  this,  even  thoughtlessly,  in  argument, 
his  opponent  has  been  known  to  pause,  look  round 
on  the  audience  to  call  their  attention  to  it,  and 
then  begin  most  profusely  to  apologize,  with  the 
appearance  of  fear,  for  having  quite  unintentionally 
made  him  angry  1  He  has  gained  the  day  ;  he  has 
made  his  opponent  angry,  or  pretends  to  think  he 
has,  and  perhaps  convinces  the  rest  that  it  is  so  1 
Anger  of  course  shows  consciousness  of  defeat. 

5.  Endeavour  to  make  your  opponent  feel  the  terribly 
</,;-/f  importance  of  the  matters  he  is  inclined  to  dlxm** 
so  lightly.  Show  him  that  you  regard  them  as  matters 


l6       MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHKISTIANITY. 

of  life  or  death.  However  frivolous  he  may  at  first 
be,  he  will  generally  feel  with  you  very  readily,  if 
you  are  in  earnest.  If  you  are  not,  you  are  no  true 
missionary. 

6.  Never  be  beguiled  into  answering  (in  a  dis 
cussion)  such  a  question  as,  "  What  do  you  think 
of  Muhammad1?"  or  into  making  a  direct  attack 
upon  him.  To  do  so  would  be  to  offend  your 
hearers  and  do  immense  harm.  It,  is  needless  to 
tell  them  your  opinion  of  Muhammad,  for  they  will 
not  accept  it  on  your  authority.  By  and  by,  if 
they  read  the  Bible,  they  will  form  a  very  decided 
opinion  themselves.  It  is  better  to  reply  somewhat 
in  this  manner :  "  What  does  it  matter  what  my 
opinion  of  Muhammad  is1?  I  have  nothing  to  say 
to  you  about  him  :  I  come  to  tell  you  about  Christ!' 
The  meaning  of  this  will  be  quite  clear  to  the 
audience :  they  will  appreciate  your  courtesy,  and 
will  probably  ask  you  to  tell  them  your  message 
about  Jesus1. 

1  In  this  Manual  I  have  on  certain  occasions  pointed  out 
certain  facts  with  reference  to  Muhammad,  e.  g.  that  he  is  not 
in  the  Qur'an  regarded  as  sinless.  This  has  been  done  for  the 
information  of  the  Christian  student,  and  is  necessary  in  a  book 
of  this  description.  But  it  is  very  delicate  ground  indeed  on 
which  to  tread  in  speaking  to  a  Muslim.  It  must  be  borne  in 
mind  that  I  am  not  suggesting  the  actual  words  that  should  be 
used  when  dealing  with  the  subject.  In  conversation  it  would 
be  well  to  ask  the  meaning  of  the  passages  in  the  Qur'an  which 
imply  that  Muhammad  (and  the  Prophets)  were  not  devoid  of 
sin,  and  merely  imply  by  one's  manner  that  the  answers  given 
were  not  satisfactory.  This  will  make  the  Muhammadan 


INTRODUCTION.  17 


7.  The  missionary  should  be  careful  to  give  some 
title  of  courtesy  to  Muhammad  (or,  in  case  of  need, 
to  'All  or  Fatimah  or  other  person   honoured  by 
Muslims)  in  countries  where  to  do  otherwise  would 
be  esteemed  disrespectful.     In  India  it  is  best  to 
say  "Muhammad  Sahib"  in  Persia  "  Hazrat  -i  Mu 
hammad  1."     Higher  titles  we  as  Christians  cannot 
give  him,  and  Muslims  are  content  if  we  give  him 
these.     In  Eg^pt  and  Palestine  they  do  not  seem 
to  resent  him  being  spoken   of  simply  as  "Mu 
hammad,"  but  in  India  and  Persia  to  speak  thus 
would  be  insulting  to  your  interlocutor  2. 

8.  Be  careful  of  the  theological  terms  you  use. 
See  that  you  thoroughly  understand  them  yourself 
in  the  first  place,  not  merely  the  Enytish  terms  but 
the  words  used  in   the   native  language — Arabic, 
Persian,  Turkish,  Urdu,  or   whatever   it  may  be. 
Do   not   fancy   that   the   words,  e.g.    for   holiness, 
atonement,  sin,  kingdom  of  heaven,  peace,   &c.,   which 
are  used  in  the  vernacular  version  of  the  Bible, 

interlocutor  think  about  them  afterwards  himself.  In  open- 
air  controversy  in  public  the  subject  should  bo  avoided,  and 
the  disputant  invited  to  a  private  discussion. 

1  Of  course  in  this  book  this  is  needless,  but  it  should  bo 
borne  in  mind  in  case  a  translation  is  undertaken. 

3  Missionaries  in  Eastern  Arabia  sometimes  use  the  expression 
Nabikum  ("your  Prophet")  out  of  courtesy.  Is  not  this, 
however,  liable  to  misconstruction  ?  The  Rev.  P.  M.  Zenker 
wisely  points  out  the  necessity  of  our  always  adding  to  the  name 
of  our  Saviour  the  title  "Lord."  Muslims  themselves  always 
give  Him  some  title  of  respect,  and  they  are  offended  if  ice  omit 
to  do  so. 

B 


1 8       MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

convey  their  Christian  theological  meaning  at  the 
first  glance  to  the  interlocutor.  Guard  against  any 
misunderstanding  on  his  part.  Use  his  own  theo 
logical  terms  as  far  as  possible,  making  quite  sure 
that  you  fully  understand  them. 

Whenever  your  opponent  quotes  and  founds  an 
argument  upon  any  passage  in  the  Bible,  make 
a  point  of  turning  to  that  passage  (in  the  original, 
if  possible)  and  ascertaining  from  the  Context  exactly 
what  is  said  and  what  is  meant.  Do  not  rely  upon 
memory.  This  is  of  the  utmost  importance.  To 
read  the  verse  aloud  with  the  context  will  often 
afford  a  complete  reply  to  the  difficulty  which  has 
been  mooted.  The  same  plan  might  profitably  be 
applied  to  the  Qur'an,  which  must  be  quoted  in  the 
original. 

9.  Kemember  that  although,  generally  speaking, 
the  Bible,  being  an  Oriental  book,  is  more  readily 
understood  in  some  respects  by  Orientals  than  by 
Europeans,  yet  passages  which  to  us  present  no 
difficulty  to  an  Oriental  occasionally  require  ex 
planation.  E.  g.,  in  Persia  a  very  intelligent  Kurd 
ish  convert  asked  me  the  meaning  of  Isa.  i.  18, 
"Though  your  sins  be  ...  red  like  crimson,  they 
shall  be  as  wool."  His  difficulty  is  readily  under 
stood  when  we  remember  that  in  Persia  most  sheep 
are  black.  I  once  found  a  Persian  of  some  learning 
under  the  impression  that  John  the  Baptist  (Yahya') 
was  Yahya'  ibn  Barmak,  the  noted  minister  of 
Harunu  'r  Rashld.  In  India  the  expression  (Matt. 


INTRODUCTION.  19 


xxvii.  7)  "to  bury  strangers  in  "  seemed  to  the 
native  mind  to  denote  "  to  bury  strangers  alive  in  !" 
Other  similar  mistakes  have  occurred  and  should 
be  guarded  against. 

10.  Before   entering   into   an   argument  —  before 
going  out  as  a  missionary  at  all  —one  should  not 
only  know  the  Bible  well,  but  should  have  made 
up  one's  mind  on  matters  which  are  in  dispute. 
Of  course  we  tfmst  be  fully  convinced  of  the  truth 
of  nil  t^e  main  Christian  doctrines;  but  we  should 
also   know   exactly   what    the   Bible   teaches    and 
what  it  does  not  teach  on  such  subjects  as,  e.g., 
the    Fall,    "  Conditional    Immortality,"    "  Eternal 
Hope,"  the  Atonement,  and  many  more.     The  case 
of  F.   W.    Newman,  and   his    difficulty   when   in 
Baghdad  he  was  asked  a  question  about  the  Trinity, 
affords  an  extreme  example  of  the  danger  of  want 
of  preparation  for  our  work. 

11.  Readily  accept,  and  make  it  plain    tliaf  you 
//////////  accept,  all   the   truth  that   is   in  any  way 
common  to  Christianity  and  Islam.     Then  lead  on 
from  these  points  of  agreement  and  show  how  much 
truer  are  some  of  their  tenets  than  they  have  any 
idea  of.     You  can  show  that  the  Bible  teaches  all 
that  is  true  in  such  tenets  of  theirs,  and  that   it 
goes  very  much  further  on  such  points  than  their 
theology  docs  *.    Illustrations  of  this  will  be  afforded 


1  In  s|x--(kiii^  of  theQur'an  one  has  to  IKJ  v»-ry  much  on  one'l 
guard,  and  tins  the  Muslim  knows  well.    But  in  treating  of  the 
great   truths   which    are   common    to   the    two   religions,    the 
B  2 


2O        MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

in  the  answers  to  various  objections  ;  see  especially 
the  articles  dealing  with  the  Mubammadan  admis 
sion  that  Christ  is  Kalimatiittdh  ("the  Word  of 
God")1. 

1 1.  Try  to  convince  of  sin  and  of  mans  need  of  a 
Saviour.  Muhammadans  have  very  little  idea  of 
the  guilt  of  sin.  Endeavour  to  reach  men's  hearts 
and  not  merely  their  intellects.  Appeal  to  them  as 
men  for  whom  Christ  died,  who  neeci  the  salvation 
which  He  has  commissioned  you  to  offer  through 
the  Gospel. 

13.  Put   yourself  as  much  as  possible  in  your 
opponent's  place,  so   as  to  try  to   understand   his 
difficulties.     You  will  thus  be  the  better  able  to 
frame  your  answers  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  under 
stood   by   him.     The   Socratic   method   of  asking 
questions  and  leading  your  opponent  to  find  the 
answers,  and  thus  to  convince  himself  of  the  truth 
of  what  you  wish  to  teach  him,  is  perhaps  the  best 
in  general,  if  properly  used.     We  have  illustrated 
this  in  the  discussion  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

14.  Remember  what  your  interlocutor,  if  he  be 
an  "  orthodox "   Muhammadan,   will  be   ready   to 
admit,  and  what  he  will  not  at  first  admit.     You 
will  thus  be  on  sure  ground  in  your  arguments,  and 
will  have  a  TTOV  o-ra>  whereon  to  plant  your  lever. 

Christian  can  speak  freely  and  heartily,  and  in  so  doing   he 
can   awaken  a  glow  of   sympathy  in  the  hearer,  which  will 
at  least  dispose  him  to  listen  to  what  one  has  to  say  in  regard 
to  distinctive  Christian  doctrines.     (Rev.  P.  Z.  Easton.) 
1  Vide  §§  158  sqq. 


INTRODUCTION.  21 


(a)  He  is  bound  to  admit  the  validity  of  argu 
ments  based  on  the  assumption  (for  the   sake  of 
argument,  as  far  as  you  are  concerned)   that   the 
Qur'an  is  the  Book  of  God,  that  every  word  and 
letter  of  it  in  the  original  is  of  Divine  authorship. 

(b)  He  accepts  the  great  doctrines  of :  ( i )  God's 
Unity,  Almighty  Power,   Wisdom,  Eternity,   Un- 
changeableness,  and  that  He  is  the  union  of  all 
good  attributes;   (2)  His  creation  of  the  universe, 
and  His  Divine  government  and  Providence  ;  (3) 
the  Divine  Mission  of  all  the  Prophets  (including 
Jesus) ;    (4)   the   eternal   distinction   between   the 
Creator  and  His  creatures  ;  (5)  the  -existence  of  the 
world  and  of  human   personality,  of  the  human 
spirit,  of  life  after  death,  of  future  rewards  and 
punishments,  the  Resurrection,  the  need  of  faith, 
the  existence  of  good  and  evil  spirits ;  (6)  Christ's 
Divine  Mission,  His  birth  of  a  Virgin,  His  sinl«--s- 
ness  (all  the  Prophets  being  by    Muslims   called 
sinless),  His  Ascension,  His  life  in  Heaven  now, 
His  future  Advent,  and  that  Christ  is  "the  Word 
of  God"  (Kalimafiiildli]  and  "A  Spirit  from  Him" 
i  Iu'//i(/i  M in/tit) ;  (7)  that  the  Bible,  a*  »ri</hm(///  ////>;/, 
was  a  Divine  revelation;  and  he  believes  (8)  that 
Idolatry  is  the  one  unpardonable  sin.     (Surah  IV., 
An  Nisa'  51,  116.) 

On  the  other  hand  he  does  not  realize  the  guilt 
of  sin,  the  existence  of  an  eternal  Moral  Law  : 
ho  has  no  real  conception  of  God's  holiness, 
or  justice,  or  love.  He  prai-fii-ath/  conceives  of 


22       MUHAMMADAN    OBJECTIONS    TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

God's  omnipotence  as  eclipsing  all  His  other  attri 
butes.  He  sees  no  need  of  an  Atonement.  He 
denies  the  Trinity,  the  Sonship  of  Christ,  and  His 
death  on  the  cross.  He  believes  the  Bible  to  have 
been  corrupted,  and  at  any  rate  he  thinks  that  it 
has  been  annulled  by  the  "  descent  of  the  Qur'an 
upon  Muhammad."  A  missionary,  Dr.  Pennell, 
well  writes  :  "  Nine  out  often  of  the  Muhammadan 
objections  come  from  their  ineradicable  tendency  to 
look  upon  everything  and  interpret  everything 
carnally.  My  main  endeavour  is  to  try  and  set 
forward  the  spiritual  side  of  the  text  or  doctrine.  If 
I  can  even  get  them  to  realize  that  there  is  a  spiritual 
side  to  religious  observances,  I  think  something  is 
gained.  For  instance,  when  they  raise  the  objection 
that  we  do  not  perform  ablution  before  prayers,  the 
objector  has  probably  never  looked  on  ablution 
as  more  than  a  form,  and  the  spiritual  teaching 
that  may  be  derived  from  it  is  very  likely  quite 
a  revelation  to  him.  My  line  with  that  and  similar 
objections  would  be  to  take  the  objector  a  step 
back  to  the  nature  of  prayer,  and  of  what  prepara 
tions  are  required  when  we  approach  our  Creator. 
Similarly,  objections  about  the  cut  of  our  beard 
and  moustaches  or  the  make  of  our  clothes,  or  the 
fact  of  our  removing  or  not  removing  our  hats 
and  shoes  under  certain  conditions,  all  bring  the 
discussion  back  to  the  underlying  motives  and 
internal  nature  of  true  religion.  Help  may  be 
obtained  by  reminding  them  of  the  words  they 


INTRODUCTION.  23 


use  in  the  niyyat  before  prayers,  which  lay  stress  on 
heart  preparation  as  opposed  to  externalities." 

15.  Finally,  let  the  servant  of  Christ  remember 
and  act  on  Bengel's  advice :  "  Never  enter  upon 
controversy  without  knowledge^  without  love,  with 
out  necessity"  and,  let  us  add,  without  prayer  1. 

1  I  do  not  suggest  that  a  missionary  should  endeavour  to 
convert  a  Muslim,  learned  or  unlearned,  by  such  a  course  of 
argument  as  that  contained  in  this  Manual.  The  appeal  in  each 
case  is  to  the  man's  heart  and  conscience,  and  is  made  through  the 
Gospel  message.  The  object  of  this  Manual  is  merely  to  suggest 
to  objections  when  they  are  brought  forward. 


CHAPTER  I. 

ON  MUHAMMADAN   DIFFICULTIES   IN   GENERAL. 

IT  is  convenient  to  divide  a  Muhammadan's 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  accepting  the  Gospel  and 
salvation  through  Christ  into  two  great  divisions : 
(i)  those  arising  from  his  unregenerate  human 
nature ;  and,  (2)  those  arising  from  his  belief  in 
Islam  and  his  ignorance  of  the  true  nature  of  the 
Christian  Faith. 

The  difficulties  which  arise  under  the  first  head 
are  those  which  are  common  to  men  everywhere, 
because  "the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God" 
(Rom.  viii.  7).  It  is  due  to  this  that  we  often 
find  educated  Muhammadans  availing  themselves 
of  all  the  modern  European  arguments  against 
Christianity  with  which  they  are  acquainted. 
These  are  to  be  answered  just  as  in  England  or 
America.  To  deal  with  arguments  of  this  descrip 
tion  is  not  within  the  province  of  this  book,  for 
they  are  not  properly  described  as  Muliammadan 
objections,  and  to  deal  with  them  at  all  adequately 
would  require  whole  volumes.  It  suffices  to  say 
that  such  arguments  are  really  quite  as  much 
opposed  to  Islam  itself  as  to  Christianity,  at  least 
for  the  most  part,  for  they  are  levelled  at  all 


ON    MUHAMMADAN    DIFFICULTIES    IN    GENERAL.        25 

revealed  religion,  or  what  professes  to  bo  such. 
The  men  who  adduce  such  arguments  are  not  really 
Muhammadans  at  all,  and  a  Muhammadan  audience 
can  often  be  led  to  see  this  and  to  take  part  with 
the  missionary  against  such  men. 

Another  form  of  thought  which  largely  prevails 
among  educated  and  thoughtful  professing  Muslims, 
at  least  in  certain  countries,  is  Mysticism.  This 
may  be  said*  to  be  Protean  in  its  forms,  but  it 
generally  resolves  itself  into  Pantheism  *.  As  such 
it  may,  in  large  measure,  be  traced  back  to  Hindu 
philosophy.  The  Ma-viari  affords  a  good  example 
of  this.  That  work,  though  professing  to  be  an 
orthodox  Muhammadan  composition,  in  reality — to 
those  who  understand  it  aright — holds  Islam  up  to 
ridicule.  It  was  for  a  long  time  prohibited  in  Persia 
for  this  reason.  "  Muhammadan  "  mystics  must  not 
be  considered  as  really  Muslims  at  all ;  hence  we 
cannot  here  deal  with  their  difficulties. 

We    are    concerned    in    this    book    only    with 

1  "Not  only  the  Shaikh!  but  the  Mutasharri'  also  is  en 
tangled  in  the  Pantheistic  net.  Aggressive  Muhammadanism 
t«»-d:iy  is  largely  of  the  darvlsk  type,  and  this  is  Pantheistic.  It 
is  important  to  bring  before  the  Muslim  mind  the  fact  that  the 
great  truths  (Introd.  §§  n  and  14,  6)  of  primitive  Islum  have 
I"  •  n  and  are  being  undermined  by  an  insidious  Pantheistic 
teaching,  and  that  the  only  refuge  for  those  who  would  hold 
these  truths  is  in  the  acceptance  of  a  full-orbed  Christianity." 
(Rev.  P.  Z.  Easton.)  Mr.  Harding  says,  "  I  find  almost  all 
thoughtful  Muslims  tinged  with  mysticism  of  a  kind  which 
predisposes  them  to  Christianity."  Of  such  mysticism  as  this 
the  missionary  should  make  good  use,  while  opposing  the 
Pantheistic  element  in  it. 


26        ON    MUHAMMADAN    DIFFICULTIES    IN    GENERAL. 

genuine  Muhammadan  objections.  The  vast  mass 
of  the  objections  which  Muhammadans,  whether 
Sunnis  or  Shi'ites,  bring  against  Christianity  may 
be  arranged  under  the  following  heads : — - 

I.  Objections  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Bible 
as  it  now  exists. 

II.  Objections  against  the  present  authority  of 
the  Bible,  regarded  as  annulled  by  the  Qur'an. 

III.  Objections  against  certain  leading  Christian 
doctrines  as  alleged  to  be  taught  in  the  Bible,  on 
the  ground  that  they  are  contrary  to  Reason  and 
the  Qur'an  ;  e.  g.  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

IV.  Objections  against  the  doctrine  of  the  Atone 
ment  of  Christ. 

V.  Objections  against  Christianity  on  the  ground 
of  Muhammad's  Divine  mission,  as  asserted  to  be 
proved  by  prophecies  in  the  Bible. 

VI.  Miscellaneous  Objections. 

These  divisions  to  some  extent  overlap  one  another, 
and  some  objections  may  be  ranged  under  more  than 
one  head.  Many  arise  from  a  misunderstanding 
of  what  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  really  are, 
others  from  a  knowledge  of  the  corruptions  of  certain 
forms  of  Christianity.  Bigotry,  prejudice,  and 
boundless  ignorance,  even  ignorance  of  the  facts  of 
Muhammad's  life  and  ignorance  of  the  teachings 
of  the  Qur'an l,  are  among  the  things  that  make  it 

1  So  much  is  this  the  case  that  Dr.  'Imadu'ddin's  Urdu  Version 
of  the  Qur'an  has  already  brought  some  Muslims  to  Christ 
by  enabling  them  to  learn  the  real  nature  and  teachings  of 


ON    MUHAMMADAN    DIFFICULTIES    IN    GENERAL.        27 

difficult  to  convince  a  Muhammadan  that  Christi 
anity  is  true,  and  that  (inferentially)  his  own  creed 
as  a  whole  is  not  The  want  of  order  and  method 
in  the  arrangement  of  their  own  Qur'an  leads  them 
to  fancy  that  the  Bible  must  be  in  much  the  same 
condition,  and  that  almost  any  verse  will  bear 
equally  well  any  interpretation  they  may  choose 
to  give  it.  As  they  believe  that  every  word  and 
letter  of  theii* Qur'an  is  of  Divine  authorship,  they 
fancy  that  our  idea  of  the  Inspiration  of  the  Bible 
is  similar  to  that  which  they  entertain  regarding 
the  Qur'an.  Hence  it  is  often  difficult  for  them  to 
see  that  an  argument  directed  against  our  fancied 
opinion  on  this  point  is  entirely  devoid  of  force. 
It  is  difficult,  for  example,  for  a  Muhammadan  to 
perceive  that,  when  we  admit  the  human  element 
in,  e.g.,  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  we  are  not  conceding 
that  they  are  uninspired.  This  should  be  borne 
in  mind  in  argument.  Proofs  which  would  quite 
convince  a  European,  or  at  least  silence  him,  seem  for 

that  much  belauded  book,  and  thus  to  compare  it  with  the 
Gospel. 

Muhammadan  ignorance  and  credulity  are  well  illustrated 
by  what  Mir/a  Riza  writes  in  his  answer  to  Henry  Martyn  : 
"It  is  told  of  Plato  (1}  that,  when  he  heard  of  Jesus'  having 
restored  one  to  life  who  had  been  three  days  dead,  he  said, 
'I  can  do  the  same  thing.'  .  .  .  When  Plato  wrote  to  Christ  to 
know  if  any  OMO  could  be  saved  by  his  intervention,  the  answer 
of  Jesus  was,  '  Divine  Physician,  without  my  mediation  no 
one  can  be  saved.'"  (Sir  W.  Muir,  The  Muhammadan  Controversy, 
p.  15.)  Plato's  opinion  of  Christ  (!)  was  quoted  to  mo  by 
a  Persian  prince  a  few  years  ago. 


28       ON    MUHAMMADAN    DIFFICULTIES    IN    GENERAL. 

the  most  part  unmeaning  and  hence  extremely  feeble 
to  a  Muslim.     This  often  arises  from  his  ignorance. 

The  line  of  argument  which  a  missionary  has  to 
use,  therefore,  must  be  accommodated  to  the  limits  of 
his  opponent's  knowledge  or  comprehension.  Being 
himself  inclined  to  suppress  or  even  deny  facts 
known  to  be  true  when  necessary  for  his  argument, 
the  Muslim  does  not  credit  the  Christian  with  any 
higher  regard  for  truth  than  he  entertains  himself. 
It  is  necessary  therefore  to  argue  from  facts  which 
the  Muslim  deems  incontrovertible.  Hence  we 
frequently  have  to  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  the 
Qur'an  in  support  of  our  arguments,  occasionally 
introducing  the  evidence  of  Muhamrnadan  tradition 
and  Muslim  commentaries.  Only  when  we  have 
proved  the  genuineness  and  authority  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures  is  it  permissible  for  us  to  appeal,  with 
any  hope  of  effect,  to  the  Bible. 

One  must  not  be  surprised  at  finding  among 
Muhammadan  controversialists  a  great  want  of 
logic,  though  much  pretence  to  a  knowledge  of  it. 
They  often  mistake  illustration  for  argument,  and 
are  especially  skilled  in  the  dialectic  feat  known 
as  "  petitio  principii."  Against  this  the  missionary 
must  be  continually  on  his  guard. 

These  all  constitute  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the 
acceptance  of  the  Gospel  by  Muhammadans.  They 
are  not  "Muhammadan  Objections"  but  they  are 
very  real  Muhammadan  difficulties,  and  have  to  be 
reckoned  with  as  such. 


CHAPTER  II. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE 
BIBLE  AS  IT  NOW  EXISTS, 

1.  "How  I  do  pity  you  Christians!"  said  a  Mulla 
to  a  missionary  recently;  "you  have  no  Holy  Book 
now." 

The  meaning  of  this  is  that  the  Mulla  believed 
that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  we  now  have 
them  are  corrupted,  and  are  therefore  unworthy  of 
consideration.  At  one  time  this  opinion  was  firmly 
held  by  all  Muslims,  and  it  is  still  the  general 
conviction  of  Muhammadans  in  all  lands  except 
perhaps  in  India.  There  many  learned  Muslims 
confess  that  our  Bible  exists  just  in  the  same 
state  as  it  did  in  Muhammad's  day.  This  is  one 
result  of  Pfander's,  Sir  W.  Muir's,  'Imadu'ddin's, 
Safdar  'All's,  and  other  controversial  works. 
But  even  in  India  the  unlearned  frequently  bring 
forward  this  objection,  asserting  that  the  Jews 
and  Christians  have  corrupted  the  Bible.  In 
proof  of  this  they  assert  that  the  Qur'an  states 
that  the  Bible  has  been  rendered  tahrif1  (muharrqf). 
Others  declare  that,  on  His  Ascension,  our  Lord 

1  The  word  strictly  moans  "  corrupted  through  the  trans 
position  of  letters  in  certain  words."  But  Muslims  often  employ 
the  term  to  denote  more  serious  corruption  of  the  text. 


30        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

carried  off  the  New  Testament  with  Him  into 
heaven1!  "Hence  it  logically  follows,"  they 
argue,  "that  the  Gospel  which  Christians  now 
have  cannot  be  the  original  one  which  descended 
(from  heaven)  upon  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Mary." 

In  reply  it  may  be  said:  (i)  The  Qur'an  nowhere 
states  that  Jesus  took  the  Gospel  up  to  Heaven 
with  Him,  nor  does  any  reliable  tradition.  (a)  This 
statement  therefore  rests  upon  noting  but  your 
mere  assertion,  and  as  you  were  not  present  at  the 
time  you  cannot  give  evidence.  (3)  The  "  Gospel " 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  preached  and  taught  by  His 
whole  life  was  not  fully  written  down  then, 
just  as  the  Qur'an  was  not  "  collected "  into  a 
fixed  form  until  after  Muhammad's  death.  To 
say  that  the  Gospel  was  carried  off  to  heaven 
is  therefore  absurd,  just  as  it  would  be  to  say 
that  the  Qur'an  was.  If  we  asserted  the  same 
fact  regarding  the  Qur'an,  you  would  laugh,  and 
confute  us  by  producing  a  copy  in  the  original 
Arabic.  So  we  refute  your  statement  by  showing 
you  a  copy  in  the  original  Greek.  (I  have  often 
done  so  and  found  it  quite  sufficient  to  settle  the 
question,  for  "  seeing  is  believing,"  and,  on  the  other 

1  The  Rev.  T.  Grahame  Bailey  says  that  some  Muslims  hold 
that  the  Gospel  was  carried  away  by  Satan.  I  have  never  met 
this  argument  myself.  In  reply,  the  Muslim  should  be  asked 
to  quote  his  authority  for  the  statement.  He  might  be  shown 
that,  since  the  Gospel  which  we  have  is  the  one  acknowledged 
in  the  Qur'an  (§§  3  sqq.),  his  objection  lands  him  in  con 
siderable  difficulty. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  31 

hand,  as  Horace  says,  "  Segnius  irritant  animos 
demissa  per  aurem,  Quam  quae  sunt  oculis  subiecta 
fidelibus." J)  (4)  Just  as  Muhammad's  disciples 
(ashdb)  remembered  his  words  and  so  the  Qur'an 
was  afterwards  put  together  (majnnT)  by  Zaid  ibn 
Thabit,  so  the  Gospel  in  its  four  forms  was  written 
down  after  and  not  before  Christ's  Ascension.  (5) 
The  meaning  of  Gospel  (Ei'a>y«'Aior,  corrupted  into 
J-s>j1)  is  good\  news,  and  this  is  contained  in  an 
epitome  in  John  iii.  16.  (6)  We  are  glad  to  know 
that  Muslims  confess  that  "  the  Gospel 2  descended 
on  Jesus,"  and  the  Qur'an  states  that  it  was  given 
by  God  "for  a  light3  and  a  guidance  to  men." 
This  fact  refutes  your  assertion,  for  the  All- wise 
God  surely  knows  that  men  are  on  eart/i^  not  in 
the  heavens :  hence  He  would  not  make  such 
a  mistake  as  to  send  the  Gospel  up  to  the  sky  and 
leave  men,  for  whose  guidance  it  was  sent,  on  the 
earth.  (7)  At  any  rate,  the  Qur'an  shows  that  it 
was  still  on  the  earth  in  Mvkioiimad'*  ft  me,  else  the 
Qur'an  would  not  have  appealed  to  it  so  fre 
quently. 

2.  Turning  now  to  the  assertion  that  the  Bible 

1  Photographs  of  passages  in  the  oldest  Greek  MSS.  of  the 
New  Testament  (such  as  are  given  by  Nestle  in  his  Textual 
Criticism  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  in  Paterson  Smyth's  How  we 
got  our  Bible,  and  Merrill's  Parchments  of  the  Faith}  will  bo  found 
useful  in  this  way. 

a  Though  of  course  this  does  not  express  the  matter  from  the 
Christian  point  of  view.  (Vide  §§  37  and  79.) 

3  Cf.  Surahs  V.,  Al  MAidah,  50  ;  and  III.,  Al  'Imran,  a. 


32        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

as  we  now  have  it  has  been  corrupted  (muharraf}1, 
the  following  is  the  style  of  argument  which  has 
been  found  most  effective. 

Christian.  When  was  the  Bible  corrupted  ?  before 
Muhammad's  time,  or  after  it  ? 

3.  Muslim.  Before  it. 

C.  You  cannot  really  mean  that,  for  you  are 
a  Muslim,  and  to  assert  that  the  Bible  was  cor 
rupted  before  Muhammad's  time  is  Jo  accuse  Mu 
hammad  of  being  a  false  teacher,  and  to  state  that 
the  Qur'an  is  untrue  and  a  forgery,  which  is  just 
what  the  idolatrous  Arabs  in  Muhammad's  time  did. 

4.  M.  How  so  ? 

C.  Because  the  Qur'an,  which  Muhammad  claimed 
to  have  received  from  God  through  the  archangel 
Gabriel,  asserts  the  authority  and  genuineness  of 
the  Bible  which  was  then  in  circulation  among 
the  Jews  and  Christians,  and  declares  that  the 
Qur'an  itself  was  sent  down  as  being  "confirma 
tory  of  previous  Scripture,  and  its  safeguard 2 " 
(Surah  3  V.,  Al  Maidah,  52).  Now,  if  the  Bible  had 

1  The  Muhammadans  practically  charge  the  Bible  with  being 
"corrupted  "  in  two  respects,  (i)  by  the  suppression  of  Muham 
mad's  name  and  of  passages  relating  to  him,  and  (2)  by  the 
substitution  of  our  present  Gospels  (which  they  regard  as  made 
up  of  untrustworthy  traditions)  for  the  supposed  original 
Gospel  that  "  descended  on  Jesus."  (Rev.  W.  A.  Rice.) 

3  Muslims  now  endeavour  to  explain  these  words  as  denoting 
that  the  Qur'an  "is  a  correct  re-statement  of  the  older  Scrip 
tures."  (Rev.  J.  T.  Allnutt. )  Of  course  this  is  not  what  the  verse 
means. 

3  Of  course  the  full  transliteration  of  the  Arabic  would  be 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  33 

been  corrupted  before  his  time,  Muhammad  must 
have  been,  knowingly  or  ignorantly,  leading  people 
who  believed  in  him  astray.  If  the  Qur  an  thus 
confirms  a  corrupted  book,  how  can  you  believe 
that  your  Quran  has  come  from  the  All-knowing 
(Alim  r,U)  God? 

5.  M.  But  you  Christians  do  not  accept  the 
Qur  an,  and  therefore  have  no  right  to  quote  its 
evidence  in  defence  of  your  own  books.  If  you  do 
not  believe  in  it,  why  do  you  rely  on  it  as  a  proof 
of  the  genuineness  of  your  Bible  ? 

C.  We  do  not  rely  on  its  testimony,  but  you  do  ; 
and  as  you  will  not  accept  any  other  proof,  we 
adduce  proofs  that  you  must  accept,  if  you  are 
Muslims.  Your  statement  that  the  Bible  was  cor 
rupted  before  Muhammad's  time  is  contrary  to  the 
statements  of  the  Qur'an.  Which  are  we  to  believe  '\ 
6.  M.  The  Qur'an  does  not  state  that  the  Bible 
existed  uncorrupted  in  Muhammad's  time. 

C.  Then  will  you  kindly  explain  the  meaning  of 
the  following,  among  many  other  passages  that 
might  be  quoted  : — 

1.  Surah  X.,  Yunus,  94. 

2.  Surah  V.,AlMaidah,  70. 

3-  •>  »       72> 

4-  »  4~' 

5.  „  „         50,51,52. 

Snratu!  Maidati,  and  similarly  in  other  OMM.  Hut  it  is  more 
convenient  to  transcribe  U  ;ib  *•,  The  K-nuuii  figures  give  the 
number  of  the  Sur.ih. 


34        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

6.  Stirah  IV.,  An  Nisa ,  50. 

7-         „  „      J35- 

8.  Surah  VII.,  Al  A'raf,  168. 

9.  Surah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  78. 

10.  Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  70. 

11.  Sftrah  XXI.,  Al  Anbiya',  49. 

These  verses  teach  us  that  the  Taurdt  and  Injil 
were  then  in  the  hands  of  the  People  of  the  Book, 
that  they  had  been  sent  down  by  (^fod,  and  that 
they  were  carefully  studied.  The  Bible  is  called 
the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Law  is  also  distinguished 
by  the  title  Furqan,  which  you  deem  the  highest 
title  of  the  Qur'an  itself.  Is  this  consonant  with 
your  assertion  that  the  Bible  had  been  corrupted 
before  Muhammad's  time  ?  If  so,  why  does  the 
Qur'an  represent  Muhammad  as  commanded  to  tell 
the  People  of  the  Book  to  accept  the  Qur'an  be 
cause  it  confirmed  what  was  then  in  their  hands  ? 
Why  is  he  directed  to  bid  the  Muslims  believe  in 
the  "  previous  books  "  (the  Taurat  and  Injil)  as  well 
as  in  the  Qur'an  ?  Why  are  rewards  promised  to 
"  the  People  of  the  Book  "  if  they  continue  to  obey 
"  the  Book  "  ?  Why  are  they  warned  that  their 
hopes  are  founded  upon  nothing  unless  they  do  so  ? 
Our  third  and  fifth  quotations  show  that  they  still 
had  the  Law  and  the  Gospel.  Why  are  the  People 
of  the  Gospel  bidden  to  judge  Muhammad's  claims 
by  God's  revelation  contained  in  the  Gospel,  if  it 
had  already  been  corrupted  ?  You  must  see  that, 
by  attacking  the  Bible  as  it  existed  in  Muhammad's 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  35 

days,  you  do  it  no  harm  but  are  really  overthrowing 
your  own  faith  in  the  Qur'an  and  in  Muhammad. 

7.  M.  But  the  Qur'an  itself  tells  us  that  the  Law 
at  least  had  been  corrupted  before  Muhammad's 
time  (tahrif,  muharraf],  as  it  is  said,  for  example,  in 
the  following  passages  :— 

1.  Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  56. 

2.  Surah  VII.,  Al  A'raf,  162. 

3.  Surah  V.,  Al  Maidah,  45. 

4.  Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa,  48. 

5.  Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  70,  73. 

6.  „        „     141. 

7.  Surah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  64. 

8.  Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  39. 

C.  The  last  few  passages  prove  that  the  Jews 
then  had  the  Taurat  in  an  uncorrupted  state  in  their 
hands  :  else,  how  does  the  Qur'an  say,  "  They  tran 
scribe  the  Book  "  ?  Or  how  could  they  knoiv  and 
conceal  the  truth,  if  the  Taurat  had  already  been  cor 
rupted  ?  for  corrupted  truth  is  truth  no  longer,  but 
falsehood.  Or  how  could  they  clothe  the  truth  with 
falsehood,  or  sell  it  for  a  small  price,  or  even  transpose 
the  words (QY  letters)  in  their  places,  if  they  no  longer  had 
the  Taurat  in  an  uncorrupted  state  ?  These  passages 
therefore  fail  to  prove  your  assertion  ;  in  fact  they 
prove  the  very  opposite.  The  first  two  passages 
you  quote  inform  us  that,  in  Moses  time,  certain 
impious  Jews  mispronounced  a  word  which  God 
had  spoken,  and  thereby  changed  its  meaning,  for 
which  they  were  at  once  punished.  But  even  these 
C  2 


36        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

men  are  not  charged  with  corrupting  the  Book. 
When  it  is  twice  said  that  certain  Jews  in  Muham 
mad's  time  (not  before  his  time)  used  to  shift  the 
words  from  their  places ,  such  a  charge  is  never  brought 
against  the  Christians.  So  that,  even  if  we  admit 
that  this  expression  means  what  you  take  it  to 
mean,  it  relates  only  to  the  Law  and  not  to  the 
Gospel.  But  leading  Muhammadan  commentators1 
say  that  the  meaning  is  that  on  certain  occasions 
the  Jews  denied  that  certain  commands  were  to  be 
found  in  the  Taurat,  though  they  well  knew  they 
were  there.  As  an  example  a  tradition  is  quoted 
that  at  Khaibar  the  Jews,  when  asked  whether 
the  Taurat  did  not  command  the  stoning  of  adul 
terers,  denied  it,  though  the  command  to  that  effect 
is  still  in  the  Taurat,  as  they  knew  it  was.  But 
they  are  not  accused2  of  changing  the  text,  and  the 
occurrence  of  the  verses  in  question  in  the  Taurat 
which  they  and  we  still  have  proves  that  they  did 
not  strike  them  out.  This  explanation  agrees  with 
what  other  passages  in  the  Qur'an  say  about  the 
sin  of  the  Jews  in  concealing  the  truth  while  they 
knew  it.  Or,  as  Ar  Razi  says,  they  perverted  the 
reading  "with  their  tongues"  (Surah  III.,  Al 

1  See  the  opinions  of  some  of  these  quoted  and  commented 
on    in    the    Mandru'l    Haqq    (Arabic  :     English   translation  by 
Sir   W.    Muir ;    Persian   version — entitled   Mishqdt  i  Sidq—by 
myself;. 

2  Hence  the  opinion  of  learned  Muslims  is  that  the  Law  was 
by  these  men  perverted  orally,  and  as  to  its  meaning  (ma'navi'), 
not  in  its  text  (lafzi). 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  37 

'Iinran,  72),  not  the  actual  text.  Another  explana 
tion  which  Ar  Razi  gives  is  that  the  Jews  used  to 
ask  Muhammad  questions  and  then  falsely  report 
his  reply.  If  so,  it  was  not  the  words  of  the  Taurat 
but  Muhammad's  words  that  they  are  accused  of 
shifting  from  their  places.  Hence  we  see  that  the 
Qur'an  does  not  state  that  the  Scriptures  were 
corrupted  before  Muhammad's  time. 

8.  M.  Welithen,  if  the  Bible  was  not  corrupted 
before  Muhammad's  time,  it  was  certainly  corrupted 
in  his  time,  as  some  of  the  verses  I  have  quoted 

prove. 

C.  In  saying  this  you  contradict  your  leading 
commentators,  and  your  controversy  is  with  them, 
not  with  me.  Besides,  you  must  remember  that 
the  Qur'an  asserts  that  it  was  "sent  down"  to 
"  attest  the  Scriptures  preceding  it,  and  to  act  as 
guardian  to  them "  (Surah  II.,  Al  Eaqarah,  38  ; 
Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa,  50;  Surah  V.,  Al  Maidsih, 
50 ;  Surah  III.,  Al  'Iniran,  75).  It  is  strange  for 
a  Muslim  to  accuse  the  Qur'can  of  attesting  cor 
rupted  Scripture*,  and  still  stranger  for  him  to 
assert  that  the  guardianship  of  the  Qur'an  was  of 
no  avail  to  hinder  their  corruption  even  in  Muham 
mad's  own  time. 

9.  M.  By  "  attesting  the  Scriptures  which  pre 
ceded  it"  is  meant  that  the  Qur'an  agrees  with  tin- 
genuine  teaching  of  previous  pn.phrts,  and  shows 
the  fulfilment  of  the  pn.ph.-eies  regarding  Muham 
mad  contained  in  their  books,  that  is  to  say,  in  the 


38       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

Taurat  and  Injil.  By  preserving  such  doctrines 
the  Qur'an  acts  as  a  guardian  to  those  books. 

C.  Such  is  your  explanation.  But  if  the  Qur'an, 
as  we  have  seen,  attested  the  Scriptures  which  in 
Muhammad's  day  were  extant  in  the  hands  of 
Jews  and  Christians,  and  was  constituted  their 
guardian,  surely  you  cannot  hold  that  those  Scrip 
tures  were  at  that  very  time  corrupted  or  had 
previously  been  so.  And,  if  the  Qur'an  then  ap 
pealed  to  certain  passages  in  the  Bible  as  it  then 
existed  in  proof  of  Muhammad's  claim  to  be  a 
prophet,  does  not  that  show  that  in  Muhammad's 
time  the  Bible  was  not  corrupt? 

10.  M.  Well  then,  if  the  Scriptures  were  not 
corrupted  before  Muhammad's  time,  or  in  his  days, 
they  must  have  been  corrupted  since  that  time,  for 
they  are  corrupt,  as  everybody  knows,  because  they 
used  to  agree  with  the  Qur'an  and  no  longer  do  so. 
The  Qur'an  appeals  to  its  agreement  with  the 
Bible  as  one  of  the  proofs  of  its  inspiration  ;  that 
is  one  meaning  of  several  of  the  verses  which  you 
have  quoted.  This  it  would  not  have  done  if  the 
Bible  had  then  been  what  it  now  is,  since  it  now 
contradicts  the  Qur'an  in  many  important  points, 
and  this  is  the  reason  why  we  cannot  accept  your 
Bible  ].  Muhammad  would  not  have  been  com- 

1  Muhammad  was  ignorant  of  the  real  teaching  of  the  Bible, 
and  rashly  fancied  that  it  must  agree  with  his  doctrine.  To 
say  this,  however,  would  be  considered  by  Muslims  as  an  insult 
to  Muhammad. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  39 

raanded  to  call  a  witness  to  give  evidence  against 
him. 

C.  Let  us  inquire  in  the  first  place  whether  it  is 
possible,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Qur'an  is  a 
Divine  Revelation,  to  believe  that  the  Bible  has 
been  corrupted  since  Muhammad's  time,  remem 
bering  that,  according  to  the  Qur'an,  one  reason  for 
the  "  descent "  of  that  book  and  for  Muhammad's 
mission  was  tp  confirm  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  as 
we  have  already  proved.  The  Qur'an  itself  asserts 
that  God  preserves  the  "  Warning"  (j&)  which  He 
has  sent  down  (Surah  XV.,  Al  Hajr,  9),  and  more 
over  repeatedly  affirms  that  the  Word  of  God  can 
not  be  altered  by  any  one  (SiirahsLXIX.,  Al  Kahf, 
26  ;  VI.,  An'am,  35,  115  ;  X.,  Yunus,  65)  *. 

11.  M.  But  "the  Warning"  is  one  of  the  titles 
of  the  Qur'an  itself,  and  these  verses  all  refer  to  the 
Qur'an  and  not  to  the  Bible.  We  are  quite  ready 
to  admit  that  the  Qur'an  cannot  be  changed. 

C.  No  doubt  "the  Warning"  is  sometimes  a  title 
of  the  Qur'an,  but  the  same  title  is  also,  in  the  Quran 
toelfi  given  to  the  Bible,  as  for  instance  in  Surah 
XXL,  Al  Anbiya',  7  and  49  ;  and  it  therefore  no 
more  belongs  exclusively  to  the  Qur'an  than  the 
title  "  Al  Furqan"  does,  which  in  the  latter  verse  is 
bestowed  upon  the  Taurat,  which  we  are  there  told 
was  given  to  Moses  and  Aaron.  If  we  take  the 
promise  in  Surah  XV.,  Al  Hajr,  9  as  applying  to 

1  See  IbhdthiCl  Mujtahidin,  p.  8. 


40        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

the  Bible  as  well  as  to  the  Qur'an,  we  find  that  it 
agrees  with  Surah  V.,  Al  Maidah,  53,  where  we  are 
told  that  the  Qur'an  is  a  safeguard  to  the  Bible. 
Put  in  any  case  the  statement  that  none  can 
change  the  Word  of  God  is  general  and  not  par 
ticular^  and  it  applies  quite  as  much  therefore  to 
the  Bible  as  to  the  Qur'an,  since  in  Surah  II., 
Al  Baqarah,  70  the  Bible  is  called  God's  Word. 
This  is  the  logical  conclusion  fromrthe  verses  of 
the  Qur'an  which  I  have  quoted,  and  all  who  are 
acquainted  with  logic  must  accept  this  argument. 
Hence,  if  the  Qur'an' s  statements  are  worthy 
of  credence,  it  follows  that  the  Bible,  being  God's 
Word,  cannot  have  become  corrupted.  In  this 
matter  the  Qur'an  is  in  complete  accord  with  the 
Bible  (compare  Isa.  xl.  8 ;  i  Pet.  i.  24 ;  Matt.  v. 
1 8  ;  Luke  xvi.  17  ;  Matt.  xxiv.  35  ;  Mark  xiii.  31  ; 
Luke  xxi.  33)  ;  and  you  Muslims,  although  doubt 
ing  many  parts  of  the  Bible,,  hold  that  its  teaching 
is  to  be  accepted  when  it  is  in  accord  with  the 
Qur'an. 

12.  M.  Have  you  no  better  answer  than  this  to 
give  to  the  universal  assertion  of  all  Muslims  that 
your  Scriptures  have  been  corrupted  ? 

C.  It  is  by  no  means  correct  to  say  that  all 
Muslims  hold  that  the  Bible  has  been  corrupted. 
Among  ancient  commentators  Imam  Muhammad 
Isma'il  Bukhari,  Imam  Fakhru'ddin  Razi  (as  well 
as  Shah  Waliu'llah),  and  others,  were  of  opinion 
that  it  was  not  corrupted.  In  our  own  times  in 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  41 

India  hardly  any  learned  Muhammadan  ivho  lax 
examined  the  evidence  to  the  contrary  asserts  that  it 
is  so.  But  even  if  all  Muhammadans  did  agree  in 
asserting  the  corruption  of  the  Bible,  mere  asser 
tion  is  not  proof,  and  we  wait  in  vain  for  your  proofs. 
Even  a  well-supported  tradition  (IfaditJi)  is  not 
deemed  by  learned  Muslims  worthy  of  acceptance 
if  it  is  contrary  to  the  Qur'an,  and  this  assertion 
of  the  corruption  of  the  Bible  is  contrary  to  it. 

13.  M.  Apart  from  the  Qur'an,  which  you  do  not 
accept,  what  evidence  have  you  that  the  Bible  has 
not  been  corrupted  since  Muhammad's  time  ? 

C.  We   have   in   abundance   both   the   kinds  of 

evidence  which  you  Muslims  consider  admissible 

both  ^lic  (aoj,i,  evidence  from  Reason)  and  Jjij 
(naqtt,  evidence  based  upon  Testimony).  I  shall 
briefly  mention  a  few  proofs  of  each  kind. 

*•  L^  (<df^0'  What  possible  object  would  either 
Jews  or  Christians  have  had  in  endeavouring  to 
corrupt  their  own  Scriptures  ?  In  Rev.  xxii.  18, 19, 
a  terrible  penalty  is  denounced  upon  those  who  add 
to  or  take  away  anything  from  God's  Book.  The 
Jews  also  were  commanded  to  avoid  this  sin 
(Deut.  iv.  2  ;  xii.  32  ;  Prov.  xxx.  5,  6).  By  cor 
rupting  their  own  Scriptures  and  still  continuing 
to  believe  in  them  (if  that  were  possible),  or  at  least 
to  hand  them  down  to  their  descendants  as  God's 
Word,  the  People  of  the  Book  would  be  destroying 
both  themselves  and  their  children,  and  that  too 
without  any  hope  of  gain.  Moreover,  long  before 


42        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

Muhammad's  time  the  Jews  were  in  the  habit  of 
numbering  even  the  words  and  letters  of  their  Holy 
Books,  and  this  they  still  do.  How  then  can  they 
be  accused  of  corrupting  them  ? 

14.  M.  Their  object  in  altering  the  Old  Testa 
ment,  and  that  of  Christians  in  corrupting  the 
New,  was  doubtless  to  strike  out  all  prophecies 
relating  to  Muhammad. 

C.  Why  1  What  did  they  hope  to,  gain  by  doing 
so  l "?  If  such  prophecies  were  to  be  found  in  the 
Bible,  why  did  they  not  accept  Muhammad  ?  By 
becoming  Muhammadans  they  would  have  shared 
in  the  spoils  promised  to  the  Muslims,  and  given  to 
them  when  they  conquered  and  plundered  Persia, 
Syria,  Palestine,  Egypt,  and  many  other  countries. 
They  must  have  been  tempted  to  insert  prophecies 
of  Muhammad  rather  than  to  eliminate  them.  By 
becoming  Muslims  they  would  have  escaped  from 
persecution,  from  slaughter  at  Muhammad's  hands, 
and  from  all  the  suffering  which  has  ever  since 
been  the  lot  of  zimmfa.  Why  should  they,  by 
striking  out  such  prophecies  (if  any  existed),  have 
doomed  themselves  and  their  children  to  sufferings 
here  and  hereafter  ?  But  you  Muslims  answer 
your  own  charge  against  both  Jews  and  Christians 
by  asserting  that  both  in  the  Old  and  in  the  New 
Testament  as  they  at  present  exist  there  are  still 

1  If  they  did  not  eliminate  the  prophecies  relating  to  Christ, 
was  there  not  still  less  reason  for  their  striking  out  those 
referring  to  Muhammad  ?  (Eev.  W.  A.  Rice.) 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  43 

to  be  found  many  clear  prophecies  of  Muhammad's 
coming.  If  so  m&ny  have  been  left  in,  why  do  you 
accuse  us  of  striking  out  a  few  ? 

15.  M.  Another  reason  was  to  insert  passages  in 
support  of  the  false  doctrines  and  evil  practices 
that   you   had   adopted,  and  to   strike  out  those 
which  were  contrary  to  them. 

C.  How  can  that  be,  when  the  Taurat  and  Injil 
as  they  exist  a£  present  so  distinctly  forbid  many 
practices  and  oppose  many  doctrines  held  by  some 
Jews  and  Christians  ?  For  instance,  the  Jews  are 
noted  for  usury,  which  is  forbidden  (Exod.  xxii.  25; 
Lev.  xxv.  35-37  ;  cf.  Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa',  159). 
So  too,  idolatry  is  forbidden  to  Christians  (Rev. 
xxi.  8),  yet,  if  any  misguided  Christians  practise 
and  justify  it,  they  do  not  try  to  alter  the  Bible, 
which  so  severely  condemns  idolaters. 

16.  M.  Let  me  hear  your  other  proofs. 

C.  The  Jews  and  Christians  could  not  have 
altered  their  Scriptures  in  or  after  Muhammad's 
time,  even  had  they  all  been  seized  with  madness 
and  desired  to  do  so.  For  they  were  already  spread 
over  a  large  part  of  the  world,  and  could  not  meet 
together  to  agree  upon  corrupting  the  Bible.  Had 
they  altered  it  without  collusion,  their  alterations 
would  have  differed  from  one  another  and  been 
readily  detected.  Both  Christians  and  Jews  wcro 
then  to  be  found  in  every  part  of  Europe,  in  India, 
Persia,  Mesopotamia,  Armenia,  Asia  Minor,  Syria, 
Palestine,  Arabia,  Ethiopia,  Egypt,  and  throughout 


44       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

the  whole  of  the  north  of  Africa.  Jews  and 
Christians  were  hostile  to  one  another,  and,  if  either 
party  had  endeavoured  to  alter  the  text  of  the  Bible, 
the  other  party  would  have  detected  and  exposed 
the  crime  by  producing  the  original.  Yet  the  Jews 
have  always  accepted  the  same  Hebrew  Old  Testa 
ment  as  that  which  we  do,  and  all  Christians  accept 
the  same  Greek  New  Testament.  Moreover,  then 
as  now  Christians  were  divided  int^  many  sects,  as 
the  Qur'an  testifies  (Surah  V.,  Al  Maidah,  17),  which 
often  persecuted  one  another.  It  was  obviously 
impossible  for  them  therefore  to  conspire  together 
to  corrupt  the  Bible.  You  will  in  some  measure 
understand  this  when  you  consider  whether  or  not 
it  would  be  possible  for  the  Muslims  (Sunnis, 
Shi'ites,  Wahhabis,  Sanusis,  and  all  their  other 
sects)  to  agree  together  to  corrupt  the  text  of  the 
Qur'an,  and  to  accept  the  corrupted  form  of  the 
book. 

Again,  the  Qur'an  informs  us  (Surah  III.,  Al 
'Imran,  109,  no)  that  "Among  the  People  of  the 
Book  is  an  upright  folk  .  .  .  and  these  are  of  the 
righteous."  If  so,  they  would  not  have  permitted, 
without  a  protest,  such  a  crime  as  the  corrupting 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  Is  this  statement  of  the 
Qur'an  true  or  false  ?  If  true,  is  not  your  assertion 
impossible  1 

The  prophecies  which  are  contained  in  the  Bible, 
some  of  them  fulfilled  (e.g.  those  regarding  Baby 
lon,  Tyre,  Egypt,  Edom,  in  Isaiah  ;  and  those  about 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  45 

the  Jews  in  Deut.  xxviii.  15  fin.)  and  some  being 
fulfilled  in  our  own  days  (e.  g.  that  in  Rev.  xiv.  6, 
about  the  spread  of  the  Gospel  in  our  time,  and  the 
passages  relating  to  the  restoration  and  conversion 
of  the  Jews,  which  are  now  going  on),  show  that  the 
Bible  which  we  now  have  in  our  hands  has  come 
from  none  other  but  the  All- wise  God  l. 

In  Muhammad's  time,  and  later,  not  a  few  Jews 
and  Christians ,  in  many  different  lands  which  were 
conquered  by  the  Muslims,  embraced  Islam,  through 
fear  or  for  other  reasons.  If  the  Jews  and  Christians 
had  conspired  together  to  corrupt  the  Bible,  surely 
some  of  these  converts  would  have  been  able  to 
produce  unaltered  copies  of  the  Holy  Books  where 
with  to  convict  the  perpetrators  of  their  crime. 
Yet  neither  in  ancient  times  nor  at  present  do  we 
hear  of  a  single  such  copy  having  been  brought 
forward.  The  Kitd/ml  AgJtdni  relates  of  Waraqah 
ibn  Naufal  (who  had  once  been  for  a  time  a  Christ 
ian,  and  who  knew  both  the  Christian  and  the 
Jewish  Scriptures,  at  least  to  some  extent)  that  in 
Muhammad's  lifetime  he  used  to  copy  from  the 
(Jnspel  whatever  he  pleased.  He  at  least  would 
have  been  able  to  prove  the  corruption  of  the 
Scriptures,  had  it  occurred  in  his  time.  But  he 


1  All  Muslims  acknowledge  that  parts  of  the  Bible  are  preserved 
free  from  alteration.  But  our  argument  seeks  to  prove  that  no 
part  of  it  can  have  been  corrupted  since  Muhammad's  time.  The 
(.t>ui  'an  itself  testifies  to  its  authority  and  freedom  from  corrup 
tion  in  his  day. 


46        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

brought  no  such  charge  against  either  Jews  or 
Christians. 

Hence  from  the  ^lic.  ^aqli)  part  of  the  evidence 
on  the  subject  it  follows  that  the  Scriptures  cannot 
have  been  corrupted  after  Muhammad's  time ;  and  we 
have  previously  proved  that  they  cannot  have  been 
corrupted  in  or  before  his  time.  We  conclude 
therefore  that  they  are  still  uncorrupted. 

17.  M.  Well,  what  are  your  ^JUj  fyaqli)  proofs  ? 

C.  They  are  many,  but  it  will  be  sufficient  to 
adduce  only  a  few  of  the  chief  of  them,  any  one  of 
which  by  itself  is  a  sufficient  refutation  of  the 
charge  which  you  bring  against  us. 

II.  We  possess  a  number  of  Greek  MS.  copies  of 
the  Bible,  which  were  copied  from  still  earlier 
MSS.  long  before  Muhammad's  time.  It  is  from 
these  that  the  printed  Greek  text  of  both  the  Old 
and  the  New  Testaments  is  taken.  This  enables 
us  to  know  what  was  the  text  of  the  Bible  in  the 
hands  of  the  Christians  of  Muhammad's  day,  and 
to  prove  that  it  was  the  same  Bible  that  we  now 
have.  These  old  MSS.  may  be  seen  by  any  of  you 
who  wish  to  examine  them.  The  principal  of  these 
MSS.  are:— 

(i)  The  Sinaitic  (Codex  Sinaiticus),  written  T  in  the 
middle  of  the  fourth  century,  about  370  years 
before  the  Hijrah  of  Muhammad.  It  contains  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament  and  a  large  part  of 

1  "  Written  in  the  fourth  or  more  probably  at  the  beginning  of 
the  fifth  century."  (Nestle,  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Greek  Testament ) 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  47 

the  Old,  and  is  preserved  in  the  Imperial  Library 
at  St.  Petersburg. 

(2)  The  Alexandrian  (Codex  Ahxandrinus\  written 
early  1  in  the  fifth  century,  more  than  aoo  years 
before  the  Hijrah.     It  contains  the  whole  Bible, 
except  a  few  pages  that  have  been  lost,  and  is  in 
the  British  Museum,  London. 

(3)  The  Vatican  (Codex  T'alicanits),  written  early 
in  the  fourth  century,  nearly  300  years  before  the 
Hijrah.     It  contains  the  whole  2  Bible,  though  the 
latter  part  of  the  New  Testament  (from  Heb.  ix.  14) 
is  written  in  a  later  hand,  and  is  in  the  Vatican 
Library  at  Rome. 

(4)  Codex  Ephraemi,  written  early  in  the  fifth  cen- 
century,  or  about  2co  years  before  the  Hijrah.    It3 
is  fragmentary,  and  contains  pages  from  each  book 
of  the  New  Testament  and  fragments  of  the  Old. 
It  is  kept  in  the  National  Library  at  Paris. 

1  "Middle  or  end  of  the  fifth  century."  (Nestle,  op.  cit.)  It  "  is 
defective  at  the  beginning  of  the  N.T.,  the  first  26  leaves,  down 
to  Matt.  xxv.  6,  being  absent,  as  also  two  containing  John  vi. 
5o-viii.  52,  and  three  containing  2  Cor.  iv.  i3-xii.  6."  (ibid.) 

3  "  Like  A  "  (Cod.  Alex.}  "  it  once  contained  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Test.  The  first  31  leaves,  containing  Gen.  i.  i-xlvi.  28,  are 
now  wanting,  as  well  as  20  from  the  Psalms,  containing  Ps. 
cv.  (cvi)  27-cxxxvii.  (cxxxviii)  6.  The  N  T.  is  complete  down 
to  Heb.  ix.  14,  where  it  breaks  off  at  KaOa[pt<i].  i  and  2  Tim., 
Titus,  Philemon,  and  the  Apocalypse  are,  therefore,  also 
wanting."  (ibid.) 

s  "The  MS.  once  contained  the  entire  Bible,  but  the  whoh 
of  i  and  2  Thess.  has  been  lost,  as  also  some  37  chapters  from 
the  Gospels,  10  from  the  Acts,  42  from  the  Epistles,  and  8  from 
the  Apocalypse."  (ibid.) 


48        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

18.  M.  How  do  you  know  that  these  MSS.  are 
as  ancient  as  you  say  they  are  ?  What  proof  have 
you  that  they  were  not  written  in  quite  recent 
times  ?  How  could  paper  last  all  these  cen 
turies  1 

C.  All  these  old  MSS.  are  written  on  parchment, 
not  on  paper,  and  their  great  age  is  evident  at 
a  glance.  This  also  accounts  for  the  loss  of  some 
pages  from  some  of  them.  They  t. are  written  in 
very  old  l  Greek  characters,  as  different 2  from  later 
Greek  writing  as  is  the  modern  Arabic  character 
from  Curie,  which  we  find  on  old  coins.  Learned 
men  have  made  a  special  study  of  this ;  and  it  is 
well  known  that  the  modern  Greek  writing  itself, 
which  is  far  more  recent,  came  into  use  before  Mu 
hammad's  time3.  All  men  of  learning,  believers 
and  unbelievers  alike,  are  agreed  as  to  the  fact 
that  these  MSS.  were  written  not  later  than  the 
dates  which  I  have  mentioned  (in  the  text  or 
notes),  though  it  is  acknowledged  that  some  of 

1  I  mean  in  Uncial  (Majuscule),  not  in  the  later  Cursive 
(Minuscule)  characters.  "This  running  hand  found  its  way 
into  MSS.  of  the  Bible  in  the  course  of  the  ninth  century." 
(Nestle,  op.  cit.  p.  35.) 

3  Here  again  an  object  lesson  will  be  useful.  It  may  be 
given  by  showing  the  photograph  of  an  extract  from  an  old 
Greek  MS.  of  the  N.T.,  and  asking  the  inquirer  to  compare  its 
letters  with  those  in  a  printed  Greek  N.T. 

3  Cursive  Greek  writing  of  a  kind,  though  not  the  modern 
kind,  "  arose  even  previous  to  the  Christian  era.  . .  The  oldest 
Cursive  MS.  of  the  N.T.,  the  exact  date  of  which  is  known,  is 
481  evv-  ;  it  beari  the  date  835."  (Nestle,  op.  cit.  p.  35.) 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  49 

them  may  be  still  more  ancient l  than  I  have  said. 
We  have  plenty  2  of  other  MSS.  dating  from  about 
Muhammad's  time  and  onward,  the  writing  of 
which  is  quite  different 3. 

19.  M.  You  have  said  nothing  about  the  Hebrew 
Old  Testament, 

C.  We  have  no  MS.  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  it  which 
is  as  ancient  as  the  Greek  ones  mentioned  above, 
but  we  know  from  Josephus  and  other  historians 
that  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament 
(the  Septuagint)  was  made  from  the  Hebrew  between 
250  and  200  years  before  Christ,  that  is  between 
872  and  822  years  before  the  Hijrah,  and  every  one 
knows  that  a  translation  must  be  more  recent  than 
the  original  from  which  it  is  made.  We  have 
also  other  translations  of  the  Old  Testament  made 

1  Table  showing  the  centuries  to  which  the  loading  MSS.  of 
the  N.T.  belong,  according  to  different  opinions. 

Vollert.  Scrivener.       von  Oebhardt. 

IVth  cent.  5  a 

V         „  4  I0  J5 

VI  „  18  22  24 

VII         ,,6  9  17 

(Nestle,  op.  cit.  p.  35.) 

3  3,829  MSS.   of  the  N.T.  have  been  catalogued  up   to  the 
Mt.      There   may   bo   thouMinds   more.      See  Nestle,  pp. 

33»  34- 

»  On  this  paragraph  the  Bishop  of  Lahore  writes:  "In  my 
experience  thil  kin.l  ••»'  ar.mim.-nt  Oftrrie*  .-..nviction  to  very  few 
of  those  with  whom  we  mostly  have  to  do.  It  really  appeals 
to  t  lii!  critical  and  scholarly  instinct  im>n-  «  \.  n  than  we  realize, 
and  in  these  the  average  Muhammadan  is  NV holly  lacking.  Still, 
a*  this  is  the  true  answer,  it  must  be  best  to  give  it.  In 
will  sink  in." 

D 


50        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

centuries  before  Muhammad's  time,  and  of  these 
I  shall  soon  speak.  Besides  this,  we  have  the 
Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  Hebrew,  but  in  very 
ancient  characters.  This  was  preserved  by  the 
Samaritans,  enemies  of  the  Jews,  from  tho  time  of 
the  Babylonian  Captivity  under  Nebuchadnezzar. 
The  modern  Samaritans  still  keep  it  safe,  and  have 
even  an  ancient  translation  1  of  it  into  a  later  form 
of  their  own  spoken  language,  that  is  to  say,  into 
the  language  the}7  used  to  speak  hundreds  of  years 
ago,  before  they  learned  to  speak  Arabic. 

20.  M.  Have  you  any  other  proof  that  the 
Bible  has  not  been  corrupted  since  Muhammad's 
time  ? 

C.  Our  second  proof  is  afforded  by  the  existence 
of  versions  of  the  Bible  which  were  made  ages 
before  Muhammad's  birth.  These  languages  have 
long  ceased  to  be  spoken,  but  we  have  the  transla 
tions  of  the  Bible  into  them,  and  our  learned  men 
can  read  them  all.  The  principal  of  these  ancient 
versions  are  : — 

(i)  The  Septuagint  (Greek),  which  I  have  already 
mentioned. 

(3)  Three  versions  of  the  New  Testament  and 
one  of  the  Old  into  Syriac.  Of  these,  two  are  of 
especial  value.  The  first  of  these  is  called  the 
Curefontan,  from  the  name  of  the  discoverer  of  the 
ancient  MS.  which  contains  it.  This  version  was 
made  at  latest  in  the  second  century  after  Christ : 

1  The  Samaritan  Targum. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  5! 

the  MS. l  was  written  in  the  fifth  century.  The 
second  is  the  Peshittd,  made  at  latest  in  the  third 
century :  the  oldest  MS.  of  it  which  we  have  was 
written  in  the  fifth  century.  Even  the  third,  or 
Phdoxenian  version,  was  made  long  before  Muham 
mad's  time,  in  508  A.D. 

(3)  Three  Coptic  versions :  the  Buhairic 2,  made  in 
the  second  or  third  century  ;  the  Sahidic 3,  and  the 
Bashmuric  or 'Middle  Egyptian,  both  probably  of 
the  same  date.    The  oldest  Coptic  MSS.  belong  to  the 
fourth  or  fifth  century.     These  three  Coptic  versions 
are  in  the  three  chief  dialects  of  ancient  Egypt. 

(4)  Two  Latin   versions  ;    one    the    Old    Latin, 
made  in  the  second  century.     We  have  MSS.  of 
its  remains  which  date  from  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries.     The  other  is  the  Vulgate,  a  more  correct 
translation  made  by  Jerome  A.D.  383-5.     He  trans 
lated  the  Old  Testament  from  the  Hebrew,  whereas 
the  Old  Latin  was  translated  from  the  Greek  version. 
The  oldest  MS.  of  the  Vulgate  was  written  before 
A.D.  546  4. 

(5)  The  Ancient  Armenian,  made  by  Mesrob  and 

1  At  least  10  Syriac  MSS.  of  the  N.T.  date  from  the  fifth  and 
30  from  the  sixth  century  (Nestle,  p.  96).     The  Sinai-Syria 
(or  Lewis-Syriac)  MS.  is  closely  related  to  the  Curetonian. 

2  Nestle,  p.  100.    A  revision  of  the  Philoxenian,  the  Harklean 
or  Heraclean,  was  made  in  616-17.    (ibid.,  p.  101.)     "  M«»i.-  than 
50  Bohniric  MSS.  are  preserved  in  the  libraries  of  Europe." 
(ibid.,  p.  134.) 

3  More  properly  Sa'idi,  from  Sa'id  or  Upper  Kcrypt. 

This  is  the  Codex  Fuldensis,   written    between   5^0  and  546 
A.  D.  (Nestle,  p.  132.) 


D 


52        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

published  in  A.D.  436,  just    186  years  before  the 
Hijrah1. 

(6)  The    Gothic,   made  by  Ulphilas,   who   died 
A.D.  381.     The  MSS.2  of  it  date  from  the  end  of 
the  fifth  to  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century. 

(7)  The  ^Ethiopic,  made  by  Frumentius  in  the 
fourth  century  3. 

(8)  Several  Aramaic  versions  of  the  Old  Testament 
made  by  Jews  in  the  second  and  t&iird  centuries. 
The  Targum  of  Onkelos,  the  most  famous  of  these, 
dates  from  the  end  of  the  third  century. 

21.  M.  How  do  you  know  all  these  dates  ? 

C.  From  history  in  many  cases,  and  in  others 
from  finding  quotations  from  these  versions  in 
writers  who  lived  at  the  periods  we  have  men 
tioned.  No  one  can  quote  a  book  before  it  is 
written  4. 

22.  M.  Have  you  any  further  proofs  ? 

C.  Only  two  more  that  need  be  mentioned. 
One,  the  third  proof,  is,  that  we  have  a  vast  number 
of  verses  quoted  from  the  Bible  in  the  works  of 
early  Greek,  Latin5,  Syrian,  and  even  Armenian 

1  See  my  Conversion  of  Armenia,  Chapter  xiii. 

a  The  Codex  Argenteus,  in  the  library  at  Upsala,  "  written  in 
the  fifth  or  sixth  century."  (Nestle,  p.  138.) 

3  Previous  to  the  fifth  century  according  to  tradition,  which 
Dillmann  accepts  (Nestle  gives  other  opinions,  p.  140). 

*  Though  the  Qur'an  (Surah  XXI,  Al  Anbiya')  quotes  Ps. 
xxxvii.  29,  and  yet  the  Muslim  belief  is  that  the  Qur'an  was 
composed  in  heaven  before  the  creation  of  the  world ! 

5  Nestle  (pp.  336,  sqq.)  gives  lists  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
writers  referred  to. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  53 

writers,  all  of  whom  lived  before  Muhammad's 
time,  and  whose  dates  are  perfectly  well  known. 
These  quotations  are  so  numerous  that  we  could 
reconstruct  nearly  the  whole  New  Testament  and 
much  of  the  Old  from  them,  if  we  had  loat  all  our 
ancient  MSS.  and  versions.  The  fourth  proof  is 
afforded  by  ancient  catalogues  of  the  books  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Six  of  these,  all 
drawn  up  before  Muhammad's  time  and  some  many 
centuries  before  him,  contain  the  names  of  all  the 
books  of  the  Bible  that  we  now  have.  The  most 
ancient  of  all,  the  Muratorian  Fragment  on  the 
Canon,  is  torn  at  both  ends,  but  it  contains  just 
the  same  list  of  books  that  our  present  Bibles  do, 
as  far  as  it  goes.  It  dates  from  the  second  century l. 

23.  M.  You  Christians  seem  to  have  taken  a  lot 
of  trouble  in  order  to  refute  our  objections. 

C.  No  amount  of  trouble  would  be  too  much  to 
take  in  order  to  remove  the  prejudices  which  prevent 
men,  for  whom  Christ  died,  from  coming  to  Him 
for  salvation.  But  it  was  not  to  refute  Muslim 
objections  that  we  made  all  these  investigations 
and  many  more.  We  made  them,  in  the  first  place, 
to  satisfy  ourselves,  lest  we  should  have  been  led 
astray  in  religion.  We  did  not  wish  to  be  in  any 
uncertainty  about  the  Bible,  upon  which  our  re 
ligion  is  founded  ;  and  we  are  told  in  the  Bible  to 
"  Prove  all  things  ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good  " 
(T  Thess.  v.  21). 

1  See  Westcott's  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 


54       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

24.  M.  But  your  ancient  MSS.  and  versions  differ 
from  one  another  so  much  that  you  have  thousands 
of  different  readings  in  your  Bibles.     How  can  you 
be  sure  which  is  correct  ? 

C.  That  shows  how  carefully  we  have  collated 
MS.  with  MS.  and  version  with  version,  noting 
even  the  varied  spelling1  of  the  same  word  in 
different  MSS.  But  the  result  of  all  our  investiga 
tions  is  that  all  the  varied  reading^  put  together 
do  not  alter  or  render  doubtful  one  single  article  in 
our  creed. 

25.  M.  How  do  you   account  for  these  various 
readings'?    Do  they  not  prove  that  attempts  were 
made  to  corrupt  the  text  of  the  Bible  ? 

C.  Not  at  all ;  for,  as  I  have  said,  they  Jtave  not, 
altered  one  single  doctrine  taught  or  one  single 
precept  given  in  the  Bible.  The  variety  of  readings 
arose  in  different  ways.  The  most  usual  cause  was 
a  mistake  of  the  copyist,  who  often  wrote  from 
dictation.  Another  reason  was  that  certain  words 
were  sometimes  written  and  spelled  in  one  way, 
sometimes  in  another.  Occasionally  also,  when 
a  note  was  written  in  the  margin  of  a  MS.,  a  later 
scribe  in  one  or  two  instances  mistook  it  for  a 
passage  that  had  been  omitted  by  mistake,  and 
hence  inserted  it  in  the  text  of  the  copy  he  made. 
But  we  have  so  many  copies  that  we  are  easily 

1  The  nature  of  the  various  readings  can  be  easily  shown 
from  Nestle's,  Dr.  Weymouth's,  or  any  other  good  edition  of 
the  Greek  N.T. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  55 

able  to  detect  such  mistakes  now,  and  distinguish 
the  few  verses  which  are  at  all  doubtful. 

[26.  M.  Can  you  mention  any  which  have  thus 
been  pointed  out  in  the  New  Testament1? 

C.  There  are  only  four  passages  of  any  importance 
which  we  know  to  be  doubtful.  These  are,  in  our 
Greek  Texts  and  in  our  Revised  English  Version, 
and  in  some  others,  either  omitted  or  printed 
separately  foi;  this  very  reason.  The  doubtful 
passages  are  : — (i)  Mark  xvi.  9-20.  In  some 
ancient  MSS.  and  versions  these  verses  are  not 
found :  hence  it  is  not  quite  certain  that  they  were 
written  by  St.  Mark.  They  may  have  been  written 
by  some  very  early  l  scribe  as  a  note  at  the  end 
of  his  copy  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel,  and  afterwards 
mistaken  for  part  of  it.  Or  they  may  have  formed 
part  of  the  Gospel,  but  the  piece  of  parchment  upon 
which  they  were  written  may  have  been  torn  off 
before  the  oldest  MSS.  were  copied.  At  any  rate 
we  are  not  so  certain  of  them  as  \ve  are  of  all 
the  rest  of  the  Gospel2.  (2)  John  v.  3.  The  words 
"  waiting  for  the  troubling  of  the  water,"  and 
the  whole  of  verse  4  are  considered  to  be  an  ancient 
marginal  note  incorporated  into  the  text  by  mistake, 
since  they  are  not  found  in  the  oldest  MSS.  and 
versions.  (3)  John  vii.  53-viii.  u.  These  verses 
also  are  not  found  in  the  oldest  MSS.  and  versions. 
Hence  many  scholars  suppose  that  they  were 
originally  a  marginal  note-only,  though  the  incident 

1  Vide  Nestle,  p.  142.  »  Vide    §  62. 


56        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

they  relate  is  true.  (4)  i  John  v.  7.  This  verse  is 
universally  acknowledged  to  be  only  a  marginal 
note,  and  it  is  not  therefore  now  printed  in  the 
Greek  text  or  in  the  Revised  English  Version.] 

27.  M.  If  the  Bible  is  really  inspired,  why 
should  it  contain  all  these  variations,  discrepancies, 
and  doubtful  passages  ?  Surely  God  would  ensure 
that  in  an  inspired  book  there  should  be  nothing 
to  present  difficulties  to  an  inquiring  mind. 

C.  Very  often  what  appear  to  us  to  be  discrepan 
cies  are  not  really  such.  If  we  knew  all  the  facts  of 
the  case,  we  should  see  that  there  is  no  discrepancy 
at  all  in  the  matter.  The  doubtful  passages  also 
are  few,  and  all  taken  together  do  not  affect  one 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith.  Any  argument 
against  the  Bible  on  the  ground  of  certain  alleged 
moral  difficulties  may  be  alleged  also  against  the 
existence  and  government  of  God  in  general,  for 
the  present  state  of  the  world  and  of  man  affords 
many  difficulties  which  it  is  not  easy  to  reconcile 
with  belief  in  God's  moral  government.  But  as 
these  do  not  suffice  to  shake  our  belief  in  the  latter, 
the  occurrence  of  similar  difficulties  in  another  of 
God's  works,  the  Bible,  does  not  suffice  to  justify 
us  in  rejecting  it.  (See  Butler,  Analogy,  Pt.  I,  Intro 
duction,  §  6,  and  Origen  quoted  there,  also  Pt.  II, 
cap.  viii,  §§  5,  7.)  The  fact  of  the  existence  of 
so  many  earnest  Christians  in  all  ages  since  the 
ascension  of  Christ  shows  that  these  difficulties 
have  not  prevented  true  and  earnest  inquirers  from 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  57 

becoming  Christians.  These  very  difficulties  are 
doubtless  useful  as  a  test  to  our  earnestness  (Analogy, 
Pt.  II,  cap.  vi,  §  13). 

28.  M.  You  do  not  really  believe  that  the  Bible 
which  you  now  have  is  the  Word  of  God,  for, 
holding  it  in  your  hands,  you  stand  here  preaching 
with  your  shoes  on.  Yet  in  Exod.  iii.  5,  Moses  was 
told  to  put  off  his  shoes  at  the  sight  of  the  Burning 
Bush. 

C.  Your  own  traditions1  tell  us  that  Muhammad 
entered  the  very  presence  of  God  in  heaven  without 
removing  his  sandals.  How  then  can  you  blame 
us  for  wearing  sandals  in  this  muddy  road  2  ?  • 

[29.  M.  What  a  blessing  it  is  that  in  our  Qur'an 
there  are  no  such  doubtful  verses  as  are  found  in 
the  Bible ! 

C.  If  you  will  not  be  offended  I  shall  show  you 
that,  whereas  there  is  practically  no  doubt  about 
the  text  of  our  Bible,  it  is  certain  from  tradition 
that  the  text  of  your  Qur'an  is  very  far  from 
reliable. 

30.  M.  Prove  it,  if  you  can:  I  shall  not  be 
offended. 

1  Vide  Qisasu  '1  Anbiya,  Haidari  Press  Ed.,  p.  33 7. 

2  This  question  and  answer  were  given   in   Bombay  at   a 
street-preaching  at  which  I  wa.s  present.     The  Muhammadan 
was  laughed  at  by  the  crowd,   and  went  away,  crying  out, 

he  highest  heaven  was  honoured  by  the  touch  of  his  holy 
sandals."     The  reasonable  answer,  that  customs  change  and  that 
Europeans  do  not  show  reverence  by  removing  their  shoes 
would  have   had  no  effect,   for  the  retort  would  have  been 
made,  "  Why  don't  you,  if  you  believe  the  Biblo  ?  " 


58       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

C.  Muslim  the  Traditionalist1  in  the  Kitdbu* z  zakdt 
tells  us  that,  since  'Uthman's  revision  of  the  Qur'an, 
some  verses  which  once  formed  part  of  the  book 
are  no  longer  found  in  it.  He  says,  for  example, 
that  at  Basrah,  Abu  Musa'  'Ashari  said  to  500 
reciters  of  the  Qur'an,  "Verily  we  used  to  recite 
a  Surah  which,  in  length  and  sharpness,  we  used 
to  compare  with  an  arrow.  I  have  forgotten  it, 
except  that  I  have  preserved  from  i£  the  words  .  .  . 
And  we  used  to  recite  a  Surah  which  we  used  to 
compare  with  one  of  the  Subuhdt,  and  I  have 
forgotten  it  except  that  I  have  preserved  from  it 
the  words  '  O  ye  who,'  &c."  In  the  Kitdbn'r  Rizd, 
Muslim  quotes  from  'Ayishah  a  tradition  that  the 
verse  on  Giving  Suck  was  known  at  the  time  of 
Muhammad's  death  ;  but  it  is  no  longer  found  in 
the  Qur'an.  In  the  Kiidbul  Hudud,  Muslim  proves 
that  the  verse  on  Stoning  once  occurred  in  the 
Qur'an,  and  'Uinar  was  so  firmly  convinced  of  this 
that,  according  to  Abft  Daud,  he  swore  by  God 
that  he  would  have  caused  it  to  be  entered  in  that 
volume,  had  he  not  feared  lest  men  should  accuse 
him  of  adding  something  to  it.  According  to 
Ibn  Majah  (Abivdbu'n  NiMh),  'Ayishah  affirmed 
that  two  verses,  one  of  which  was  this  very  verse 
on  Stoning,  met  with  a  strange  fate.  She  says 
that  they  were  duly  revealed  and  written  out,  and 
that  the  manuscript  was  placed  under  her  bed  ;  but 

1  From  the  Epiphany  of  June  6,  1901,  and  from  the  Misdnul 
Haqq, 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  59 

that  when  Muhammad  died  and  all  his  wives  and 
friends  were  busy  in  consequence,  some  tame  animal 
(probably  a  goat)  came  in  and  ate  it,  and  so  these 
verses  perished!  Again,  the  Shi'ite  accuse  'Uthman 
of  intentionally  eliminating  from  the  Qur'an  all 
passages  relating  to  'Ali l.  The  'Ainu  I  Ifayaf- 
affirms  that  Surah  XXXIII. ,  Al  Ah/ab,  was 
originally  longer  than  Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  but 
was  afterwards  corrupted  by  the  omission  of  many 
verses.  It  is  not  we  Christians  who  say  these  things, 
but  some  of  you  Muslims. 

81.  J7.  Such  statements  are  unworthy  of  credit, 
for  they  rest  upon  unreliable  traditions. 

C.  It  is  too  difficult  a  task  for  me  to  decide 
between  your  traditions  (^jj'oJ),  which  are  reliable, 
which  doubtful,  and  which  false  2.  But  fortunately 
the  text  of  the  Bille  does  not  rest  upon  tradition 
but  upon  MS.  authority.] 

32.  M.  Produce  the  original  MSS.  of  your  Taurat 
and  Injil,  written  by  the  hands  of  Moses  and 
Jesus  upon  whom  they  descended,  and  we  shall 

1  In  the  Dabistdn  i  Ma$ahib  &  whole  additional  Surah  of  the 
QurYin  is  given  in  the  original  Arabic.     It  is  called  the  Surah 
An  Nurain.     Many  Shi'ites  assent  that  it  formed  part  of  the 
Qur'an  as  recited  by  Gabriel  to  Muhammad,  and  that  it  was 
omitted  by  'All's  opponents.     Most  Muslims,  of  whatever  sect, 
however,  deny  the  authenticity  of  this  Surah,  and  it  is  never 
published  as  part  of  the  Qur'an.     Sec  the  whole  matter  dis 
cussed  in  the  Rev.  Canon  Sell's  article  on  the  "  Recension  of 
the  Qur'an"  in  his  "  Kssay  on  Islam." 

2  Those  contained  in  the  collections  of  Muslim  and  Bukhari 
are  never  discredited  by  the  Sunnis. 


60        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

at  once  admit  that  your  Bible  has  not  been  cor 
rupted. 

C.  Before  asking  us  to  do  that,  you  should  pro 
duce  the  original  MS.  of  the  Qur'an,  written  by  Mu 
hammad,  upon  whom  you  assert  that  it  descended l. 

33.  M.  At  least  we  have  no  various  readings 
in  our  glorious  Qur'an,  as  you  have  in  the  Bible. 

C.  You  have  not  so  many,  though  it  would  be 
easy  to  point  out  a  few  2.  But  as  the  text  of  your 
Qur'an  is  so  much  more  recent  than  that  of  the 
Bible,  as  it  forms  a  book  so  much  smaller,  and  as 
it  rests  entirely  upon  the  authority  of  a  single  MS., 
it  is  not  strange  that  you  have  so  few  various 
readings  3.  [In  the  Mishkdtu'l  Masabtt,  chapter  iii, 
we  are  informed  that,  by  the  command  of  the 
Khalifah  Abu  Bakr,  the  Qur'an  was  "collected"  by 
Zaid  ibn  Thabit  "from  palm  leaves4  and  stones  and 

1  Vide  §  37. 

2  Among  various  readings  may  be  mentioned :  (i)  in  Surah 
XXVIII.,  Al  Qisas,  48,  some  read  sdhirdni  for  sihrdni :    (2)  in 
Surah  XXXII.,  Al  Ahzab,  6,  after  ummahdtuhum  one  reading 
adds  the  words  wa  hua  abun   lahum  :    (3)  in  Surah  XXXIV., 
Saba,    1 8,   for  rabband  bd'id  some  read  rabbund  bd'ada :    (4)  in 
Surah  XXXVIII.,  Sad,  22,  for  tis'un  another  reading  is  tisatun  : 
(5)  in  Surah  XIX.,  Maryam,  35,  for  tamtaruna  some  read  yam- 
taruna.     See  also  the  Mizdnu^l  JHaqq  on  this  subject. 

3  As  soon   as   the   Qur'an  was  " revealed"  to   Muhammad, 
however,  its  preservation  depended  upon  fallible  men  (Hdfizes 
and  others).    Hence  there  is  a  fallible  element  in  its  text.     All 
objections  against  the  text  of  the  Bible  will  disappear  as  soon 
as  Muslims  come  to  know  a  little  about  the  Text  of  the  Qur'an. 
(Rev.  J.  T.  Allnutt.) 

*  All  these  are  but  fallible  means  for  the  preservation  of  the 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  6l 

from  the  breasts  of  those  who  had  learned  off  by 
heart "  portions  of  the  supposed  revelation.     This 
took  place  in  A.H.  14'.     Abu  Bakr  kept  the  MS. 
until  he  died,  and  then  'Umar  took  possession  of 
it.     This   is   what  Al    Bukhari  says.     Afterwards 
it   came   into    the   possession   of   Hafsah,   one    of 
Muhammad's  widows.     But  so  many  copies  with 
different  readings  and  so  many  discordant  forms  of 
certain  Surahs  were  repeated  by  men  who  had  learnt 
them  off  by  heart  (the  Hafizun),  that  'Uthman  some 
years  later  caused  Zaid  with  the  assistance  of  three 
others  to  make  fresh  copies  of  Hafsah's  MS.,  and, 
sending  these  to  be  kept  in  different  places,  com 
pelled  those  who  possessed  other  copies  to  give 
them  up  to  be  burnt.     Some  resisted,  but  in  vain. 
That  the  new  edition  of  the  Quran  thus  published 
differed  from  the  first  edition  seems  probable  from 
the  fact   that,   as   Qustalani  says,   after   Hafsah's 
death  her   copy  was   torn   in   pieces  by  Mirwan, 
governor  of  Medina  under  Mu'awiyyah.     The  burn 
ing  of  all  other  copies  shows  that  serious  variations 
had  already  found  an  entrance  into  the  text,  and 
this   drastic  remedy   prevents  us   from  comparing 
ancient  copies  with   one   another.     What  Muslim 
(Kitdb  Fazdilul  Quran)  and  others  tell  us  about  the 

text.  Hence  the  very  original  MS.  was  fuUible.  How  can  absolute 
certainty  about  the  text  be  attained,  if  leaves,  stones  and 
human  memory  were  the  sources  whence  the  present  text 
of  the  QurViii  was  derived?  (Rev.  J.  T.  Allnutt.) 

1  See   Sir  W.  Muir's  The   Caliphate,   p.    163.     Vide  also    my 
lidigion  of  the  Crescent,  pp.  180,  sqq. 


62       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

(<  Seven  Readings  "  (^-J/»l  Lx^*)  prevalent  even  in 
Muhammad's  time  points  in  the  same  direction. 
Muhamrnadans  assure  us  that  these  were  merely 
differences  in  pronunciation,  but  this  may  well  bo 
doubted,  for  in  the  same  book  Muslim  tells  us  that 
'Umar  bin  al  Khattab  was  so  much  offended  at  the 
way  in  which  Hisham  bin  Hakim  recited  Surah 
XXV ,  Al  Furqan,  that  he  took  him  by  the  cloak 
and  brought  him  to  Muhammad  toocomplain  of  it. 
After  hearing  both  men  repeat  the  Surah,  Mu 
hammad  declared  that  both  were  right,  and  asserted 
that  the  "  Seven  Readings "  were  all  alike  ad 
missible  !  But  according  to  Nisai,  certain  words 
(letters,  ^-J^*-)  occurred  in  Hishdms  version  which 
were  not  in  what  o'hers  professed  to  have  learned  from 

it/  €/ 

Muhammad.  Ubai  is  represented  by  Nisai  as 
saying  that  the  fact  that  others  repeated  verses  in 
a  form  different  from  that  in  which  he  had  learnt 
them  gave  him  quite  a  shock.]  If  our  leading  men 
had  burnt  all  the  ancient  MSS.  of  the  Bible  and 
compelled  all  copies  to  be  made  from  one  which  they 
had  caused  to  be  written,  we  too  should  have  but 
few  varied  readings  in  our  Bible,  but  all  men  of 
learning  would  feel  that  no  reliance  whatever  was 
to  be  placed  upon  the  text  thus  produced *. 

1  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  writes :  "I  used  to  find  the  following 
illustration  effective  : — Suppose  a  master  dictates  a  piece  of  prose 
to  ten  scholars.  Probably  in  each  copy  there  will  be  one  or 
more  mistakes.  But  these  are  easily  corrected  by  comparison 
with  the  other  copies,  since  the  same  mistake  will  not  be  made 
by  many.  If,  however,  all  copies  are  destroyed  but  one,  there 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  63 

34.  [J/.  Doubtless  it  is  because  of  these  various 
readings  and  passages  of  uncertain  authenticity 
that  many  learned  men  in  Germany  and  England 
at  the  present  day  assert  that  the  Pentateuch  was 
not  written  by  Moses,  and  that  much  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  even  of  the  New  is  untrue.  You 
must  convince  them  to  the  contrary  before  you  can 
convince  us. 

\C.  Not  so."  The  Higher  Critics,  as  they  are 
called,  do  not  base  their  arguments  upon  the 
various  readings,  for  they  know  that  no  single 
doctrine  of  the  Bible  is  at  all  affected  by  them. 
You  will  find  on  inquiry  that  the  extreme  conclu 
sions  you  refer  to  are  largely  based  upon  a  principle 
which  denies  both  miracle  and  prophecy  l.  They 
thus  attack  the  very  foundation  of  belief  in  all 
revealed  religion.  You  Muslims  cannot  really  ad 
duce  these  men's  objections  without  accepting  their 


will  be  no  admitted  various  readings,  for  no  standard  of  com 
parison  exists :  at  the  same  time  all  proof  of  accuracy  is  gone. 
So  we  see  that,  the  larger  is  tin-  numU-r  of  copies  preserved, 
the  larger  will  be  the  number  <-f  various  readings,  yet  the 
greater  the  certainty  as  to  the  text,  though  this  seems  .1 
paradox  !  " 

1  So  Delitzsch  (Commentary  (>n  Isaiah,  vol.  I,  pp.  60  and  61  : 
Edinburgh,  1881),  and  Dr.  Payne  Smith  (Bampton  Lectures, 
Preface,  pp.  xiii,  sqq.)  Of  course  I  do  not  ai-'-u-c  all  who  have 
in  any  nicasun-  a<'«'»-ptr<l  (h,.  conclusions  of  t  he  IIL-li'  r  <  'rit  irisrn 
of  consciously  denying  l-.th  miracle  and  pr.-pluTV.  But  thin 
denial  is  certainly  implii-d  in  tin-  writings  of  Wi-llhau-«-n  and 
('h'-ym',  to  mention  only  two  of  the  leading  rxp..n«'nt-  «.f  this 
em. 


64       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

principles,  and  if  you  accept  these  you  are  no  longer 
Muslims.  The  Bible  has  in  all  ages  been  attacked 
by  its  enemies,  but  it  has  always  prevailed  over 
them  in  the  past,  and  we  feel  sure  that  it  will  pre 
vail  in  the  present  also1.  All  the  great  modern 
discoveries  in  Babylonia,  Assyria,  and  Egypt  sup 
port  2  the  statements  of  the  Bible  in  opposition  to 
these  assertions  and  theories,  as  you  will  perceive 
if  you  study  the  subject.] 

35.  M.  Why  do  the  different  translations  of  the 
Bible  which  you  now  make  into  so  many  languages 
differ  so  much  from  one  another  1  Why  are  you 
continually  correcting  and  re-correcting  these  ver 
sions,  if  your  original  text  is  not  corrupt  ? 

C.  They  do  not  differ  from  one  another  to  any 
extent,  as  you  may  see  from  comparing  them  with 
one  another.  We  find  that  in  some  instances  the 
earliest  translators  either  used  words  not  generally 
understood,  or,  from  not  knowing  the  vernacular 
languages  as  well  as  they  are  now  known,  did  not 
make  quite  perfect  translations.  Hence  we  en 
deavour  to  perfect  them,  especially  when  a  new 
edition  is  required.  This  shows  how  much  care 

1  An  admirable  little  book  on  the  subject  is  Dr.  House's  Old 
Testament  Criticism  in  New  Testament  Light  (Baptist  Mission  Press, 
Calcutta).     See  also  Criticism  Criticised,  ed.  by  Rev.  Dr.  Wace, 
Dean    of   Canterbury    (Bible    League,    London) :    also    Religi 
Critici  (S.P.C.K.). 

8  This  is  the  conclusion  I  have  reached  after  very  considerah 
study  of  Assyrian  and  Egyptian.     Vide  Sayce,  The  Higher  Ori 
and  the  Monuments. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  65 

\ve  take  to  make  the  Bible  understood  by  the 
people  who  speak  each  language.  A  change  of 
translation  does  not  imply  a  change  or  corruption 
of  the  original  text,  as  you  must  know.  Your 
interlinear  translations  of  the  Quran  in  Persian, 
Urdu,  and  other  tongues,  may  vary,  and  new 
translations  have  from  time  to  time  appeared,  but 
the  original  Arabic  does  not  alter. 

36.  M.  The  JJrdu,  Arabic,  Persian,  English,  Turk 
ish,  and  other  copies  of  the  New  Testament  are  only 
translations.  How  can  we  be  sure  that  they  agree 
with  the  original  ?  Even  if  they  do,  they  cannot 
be  quite  as  good  as  the  original. 

C.  We  have  the  original  and  constantly  consult 
it,  to  be  quite  sure  that  our  translations  and  explan 
ations  are  correct.  As  you  know,  these  transla 
tions  are  made  by  a  number  of  learned  men,  not 
only  Europeans  but  natives  of  the  various  countries 
being  employed  and  consulting  together  as  to  the 
correct  interpretation  of  every  word.  Moreover, 
we  publish  the  original  Greek  text,  and  are  willing 
to  teach  all  who  desire  to  learn  Greek,  so  that  they 
may  read  it  for  themselves.  If  you  do  not  choose 
uO  take  this  trouble,  as  we  do,  is  it  our  fault  or 
yours  ? 

37.  M.  Not  one  of  the  Gospels  was  written  by 

•  •MIS  Christ  Himself,  and  St.  Luke's  not  even  by 

\  eye-witness.     Even  if  they  have  been  preserved 

tj    from   corruption,    they   are    only    traditions, 

<  >ponding  to  our  cu^LJ  (atddltk). 


66        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

C.  The  Qur'an  itself  was  not  written  down  by 
Muhammad,  whom  you  call  the  unlearned  (^.*1) 
prophet,  but  by  his  companions,  and  the  whole  book 
was  not  "collected"  till  after  Muhammad's  death. 
Three  evangelists'  accounts  (if  we  remember  that 
St.  Mark  was  St.  Peter's  scribe)  were  written  down 
by  eye-witnesses,  and  that  by  St.  Luke  was  (as  he 
tells  us)  compiled  by  him  from  the  statements  not 
of  one  eye-witness  but  of  many  (Lu^e  i.  1-4).  The 
evangelists  were  guided  by  Divine  inspiration, 
according  to  Christ's  promise  (John  xiv.  26).  More 
over,  do  not  forget  that  your  own  Qur'an,  as  we 
have  seen,  bears  witness  to  the  Gospel,  and  teaches 
that  it  must  be  received  as  having  "  descended  on 
Jesus  V  We  have  proved  that  it  has  not  been  lost 
or  corrupted. 

38.  M.  There  are  Apocryphal  Gospels  ;  how  do 
you  know  that  only  the  present  Four  Gospels 
are  genuine,  and  not  some  of  the  Apocryphal 
ones  ? 

C.  We  know  it  just  in  the  same  way  that  we 
know  that  the  Qur'an  is  genuine,  and  not  some 
other  book  instead.  The  Four  Gospels  have  been 

1  This  expression  should  not  be  adopted  by  Christians,  for 
it  is  not  correct.  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  says  :  "  I  always 
pointed  out  that  our  Lord  was  Himself  the  Word  of  God 
(Kalimatu'lldh),  or,  in  other  words,  the  Gospel.  The  reduction 
of  this  to  writing— so  far  as  that  is  possible— was  naturally  not 
for  Him  to  do  (being,  in  a  sense,  beneath  His  dignity),  but  for 
His  disciples,  who  received  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
this  work." 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  67 

handed  down  among  all  Christians  everywhere, 
and  not  a  single  one  of  the  Apocryphal  Gospels 
has  ever  been  received  by  the  Christian  Church  as 
a  whole.  We  have  studied  them  and  know  that 
they  are  of  later  date  than  the  genuine  ones. 
Moreover,  they  do  not  in  general  contradict  the 
genuine  ones,  but  were  intended  to  supplement 
them.  Tbe  latest  of  them,  and  the  only  one  that 
does  in  one  matt/or  contradict  the  genuine  Gospels, 
is  the  so-called  Gospel  of  Barnabas,  which  is  known 
to  have  been  forged  considerably  after  Muhammad's 
time.  In  it  the  writer  was  ignorant  enough  to 
apply  the  title  "  Messiah  "  to  Muhammad  !  (See 
Sale's  remarks  in  the  Preface  to  his  translation  of 
the  Quran1.) 

39.  M.  Your  Bible  as  it  now  exists  cannot  be 
from  God  (that  is,  it  must  have  been  corrupted), 
because  it  uses  language  about  God  which  is  un 
fitting:  e.g.  it  speaks  of  God's  hand,  God's  eye, 
and  again  and  again  says  that  He  "  repented." 
How  can  we  believe  that  ? 

C.  Such  an  argument  is  unmeaning  when  brought 
forward  by  a  Muslim  :  for  we  find  exactly  the  same 
style  of  language  used  in  the  Qur'an,  with  this 

1  The  Clarendon  Press  is  j.ulilNliing  the  Italian  version  of 
the  Gosj.d  df  UK-  p-ciido-Barnabas,  and  an  English  translation 
is  also  being  prepand.  1  ha«l  li«.],.-.|  t<>  U-  able  to  give  a  short 
account  of  tin-  \>«»\i  ln-iv,  but,  as  it  is  not  yet  publishni,  this  has 
not  been  possible.  In  view  of  the  expected  ajijx  aran<  (  ,,f  tin- 
work  it  is  better  not  to  attempt  a  (necessarily  inij.. -rf-  «:t; 
account  of  it. 

E  2 


68       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

addition,  that  the  Qur'an1  represents  God  as  "  annul 
ling  "  certain  verses,  which  the  Bible  never  does. 
As  to  His  "  repenting,"  you  tell  us  that  one  of  His 
ninety-nine  "most  excellent  names"  is  L->VJ^JI,  i.e. 
"He  that  is  continually  repenting,"  or  "relenting/3 
from  the  root  of  M>J,  repentance.  But  it  is  no 
real  objection  either  against  the  Bible  or  the 
Qur'an  that  such  language  is  used  in  both  books  ; 
for  it  is  clear  that  all  human  language  must  pri 
marily  have  reference  to  appearances  ((f)aLv6jj.€va)  and 
to  earthly  life,  and  is  only  by  analogy  used  to 
describe  spiritual  realities  or  even  mental  concepts. 
It  is  therefore  inaccurate  with  regard  to  God,  but 
is  used  because  we  have  no  better  way  of  expressing 
our  thoughts.  "To  repent"  in  Arabic  is  "  to  turn 
back,"  and  in  reference  to  God  denotes  that  He 
"  turned  back "  from  punishing,  &c.  It  has  no 
moral  meaning  as  in  the  case  of  the  repentance  of 
sinners,  where  it  denotes  turning  back  from  sin. 
40  2.  M.  In  Jer.  xxii.  30  we  read  that  King  Coniah 

1  Surahs  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  100  ;  XVI.,  An  Nahl,  103:  vide 
§§67  and  68.  The  Muhammadan  doctrine  of  the  Ndi>ikh  and 
Mansukh  ("annulling"  and  "annulled")  verses  of  the  Qur'an 
renders  it  quite  impossible  for  Muslims  to  know  for  a  certainty 
which  parts  of  the  Qur'an  are  now  in  force,  since  they  are  not 
agreed  in  every  case  as  to  the  question  which  are  the  abrogated 
and  which  the  abrogating  verses. 

3  The  objections  given  in  §§  40-8  are  not  imaginary  but  have 
all  been  adduced  by  Muslims  in  controversy.  The  answers  in 
the  text  are  only  suggestions.  They  express  the  opinion  of  the 
compiler  of  this  Manual  :  but  he  has  no  wish  to  dogmatize  on 
such  matters.  Others  may  be  able  to  furnish  better  answers. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  69 

(Jeconiah,  Jehoiachin)  was  to  be  childless ;  yet  in 
i  Chron.  iii.  17-19,  we  find  that  he  had  several 
sons,  one  of  whom  (Matt.  i.  12)  was  ancestor  of 
Joseph,  the  husband  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Is  not 
this  a  contradiction  ? 

C.  The  expression  "Write  ye  this  man  childless" 
is  explained  in  Jer.  xxii.  30  as  meaning  that,  though 
he  had  children,  yet  he  should  be  as  if  devoid  of 
them,  inasmuch  as  none  of  them  should  ever  suc 
ceed  him  on  the  throne.  The  Bible  shows  that 
none  of  them  ever  did  1. 

41.  J/.  If  Christ  be  descended  from  him  then, 
He  cannot  be  "  the  king  of  the  Jews." 

C.  As  Joseph  was  not  Christ's  father,  Jesus  was 
not  descended  from  Jeconiah  -.  Moreover,  Christ 

It  is  well  known  that  Christians  differ  in  their  explanations  of 
some  of  these  points,  so  that  it  would  be  well  to  refer  to  standard 
commentators.  The  difficulty  in  giving  absolutely  conclusive 
answers  arises  from  our  ignorance  of  so  many  of  ihe  circumstances. 
This  is  excusable,  because  we  have  no  information  on  thes-e 
points  except  what  the  Bible  itself  affords.  (V'n\u  §§  47,  48.) 

1  It  is,  of  course,  possible  that  Jeconiah  was  literally  childless, 
for  he  was  carried  capthe  at  the  age  of  eighteen  (2  Kings  xxiv. 
8,  15)  and  was  freed  from  confinement  only  when  fifty-five  years 
old  (a  Kings  xxv.  27).  If  so,  then  t  Chron.  iii.  17,  19,  gives  not 
his  .hildren  but  his  heirs.  Solomon's  line  probably  en<l<-d  in 
Jeconiah  (because  of  the  massacres  in  2  Kings  x.  13,  14  ;  xi.  i). 
On  Jeconiah's  death  Nathan's  lino  became  the  heirs  in  tli< 
throne.  Salathiel  was  the  first  of  that  line  who  thus  inherited. 
Zerubbabel  (his  nephew,  i  Chron.  iii.  18,  19)  succeeded  him. 
Thus  Matthew  giv<->  th.-  list  of  the  heirs  of  tin-  throne  of  David, 
and  Luke  the  natural  genealogy.  (Rev.  A.  E.  Johnston.)  Vide 
Farrar's  view,  Excursus  ii  to  St.  Luk< . 

3  If  Jeconiah   wa-    lit. -rally  childle>s,   having  only  adopted 


70        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

Himself  said,  "  My  Kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  " 
(John  xviii.  36). 

42.  M.  But  from  comparing  Matt.    i.    12   with 
Luke  iii.  27,  we  see  that  Salathiel  and  Zorobabel 
occur  in  both  genealogies,  and  from  I  Chron.  iii.  17, 
19,  it  is  clear  that  both  Salathiel  (Shealtiel)  and 
Zorobabel  (Zerubbabel)  were  descended  from  Jeco- 
niah.     If  Jeconiah  was  unworthy  to   hand  down 
the    temporal   sovereignty   to   his   .sons,  still   less 
could  he  be  the  ancestor  of  the  Messiah.     As  Christ 
was  a  prophet,  there  must  here  be  some  corruption 
in  your  Bible. 

C.  From  Luke  iii.  27  it  is  doubtful  whether  the 
Salathiel  and  Zorobabel  mentioned  there  are  the 
persons  of  the  same  name  who  are  mentioned  in 
Matt.  i.  12  and  i  Chron.  iii.  17,  19.  Moreover, 
what  possible  object  could  Christians  have  in  cor 
rupting  the  text  of  the  Gospel  so  as  to  introduce 
this  difficulty 1 1 

43.  M.  In  Deut.  xxiii.  3  and  Neh.  xiii.  i  we  read 
that  a  Moabite  was  not  to  come  into  the  congre 
gation  of  the  Lord  "for  ever."    Yet  both  genealogies 
represent  Christ  as  descended  from  David,  whose 
ancestress    was    Ruth    the    Moabitess.     Here    is 
another  contradiction. 

C.  Ruth  iv.  21,  22  shows  that  the  Jews  (who 

children,  then  of  course  Christ  was  not  actually  descended  from 
him.     Thus  th-5  difficulty  vanishes.     (Rev.  W.  A.  Rice.) 

1  Others  prefer  the  idea  that  the  Salathiels,  &c.  are  the  same. 
I  state  my  own  opinion  here. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  71 

must  best  have  understood  their  own  Scriptures) 
did  not  understand  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy 
(repeated  in  Nehemiah)  as  you  do,  otherwise  the 
prophets  would  not  have  recognized  any  of  the 
Kings  of  Judah  (who  were  descended  from  Ruth 
through  David)  as  being  members  of  the  Chosen 
People  at  all,  nor  would  they  have  prophesied  the 
Messiah's  descent  from  David.     The  Jews  them 
selves  paraphrase  the  passage  thus :    "  Neither  an 
Ammonite  nor  a  Moabite  man  is  fit  to  take  a  wife 
from  the  congregation  of  the  Lord's  people;    nor 
unto  the  tenth  generation  shall  they  take  a  wife 
from    the    congregation    of    the    Lord's    people" 
(Palestinian  Targum).     Thus  no  male  Moabite  was 
to  be  admitted  into  the  Israelite  nation,  unless,  of 
course,  he  became  a  true  convert.     The  same  rule 
may  have  applied  to  women ;  but  Ruth  was  a  convert 
(Ruth  i.  1 6).     From  Neh.  xiii.  3,  33-8,  we  see  that 
Nehemiah  understood  Deut.  xxiii.  3  as  forbidding 
Moabite  idolaters  to  be  reckoned  among  the  Israelites. 
This  is  therefore  the  proper  meaning  of  the  passage. 
Moreover,  a  time  is  defined,"  even  to  their  tenth  gener 
ation"  (Deut.  xxiii.  3).    Christ  was  not  a  Moabite  but 
a  Jew  by  birth,  even  though  many  generations  pre 
viously  a  Moabitess  had  been  among  his  ancestresses. 

44.  J/.  What  proves  the  corruption  of  the  Bible 
beyond  all  doubt  is  that  it  contains  so  many  con 
tradictions  and  discrepancies.  Two  contradictory 
accounts  of  the  same  thing  cannot  both  be  true. 

C.  The  Bible  does  not  contain  contradictions,  and 


72        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

the  apparent  discrepancies  can  be  easily  accounted 
for.  Please  mention  a  few. 

45.  M.  Matthew's  Gospel  contains  one  genealogy 
of  Christ,  Luke's  quite  a  different  one.  How  can 
both  be  right  1 

C.  \_Every  man1  has  two  genealogies,  one  on  his 
father's  side,  the  other  on  his  mother's.  Hence  we 
may  infer  that  one  of  the  two  genealogies  of  Christ 
is  probably  that  of  Joseph,  His  putative  father,  the 
other  that  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  His  mother2.  St. 
Matthew  gives  the  former,  St.  Luke  the  latter.  In 
Luke  iii.  23  we  find  Joseph  called  "  (the  son)  of 
Heli,"  doubtless  because  he  was  his  son-in-law. 
He  may  have  been  adopted  into  the  family  lest  it 
should  die  out — a  common  practice  among  the 
Hebrews  and  Romans,  and  one  which  still  prevails 
among  most  nations.  An  old  tradition  represents 
Mary  as  daughter  of  Heli.]  You  must  see  yourself 
that  it  is  a  great  proof,  not  of  the  corruption  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  of  their  remaining  free  from  inten 
tional  alteration,  that  both  genealogies  occur  in 
them.  Had  the  Christians  wished  to  make  any 

1  Commentators  are  by  no  means  unanimous  on  this  subject. 
I  give  my  own  opinion  for  what  it  may  be  worth,  though  this 
is  not  the  place  to  enter  fully  into  arguments  in  support  of  it. 
Headers  of  this  Manual  should  notice  that  the  passage  is  in 
brackets,  and  should  consult  commentators. 

3  The  Right  Rev.  Bp.  Stuart  prefers  Dean  Hansel's  view 
(Speaker's  Comm.  on  Matthew)  that  both  genealogies  are  those 
of  Joseph,  Matthew  giving  the  table  of  the  royal  line  and  Luke 
that  of  actual  descent.  Dean  Mansel  (on  Matt.  i.  16)  conjectures 
that  Jacob  was  Mary's  father,  and  Joseph  his  adopted  son. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  73 

change,  how  easy  it  would  have  been  to  remove  all 
difficulties  by  placing  Mary's  name  instead  of 
Joseph's  in  Luke  iii.  23.  That  they  did  not  do  so 
is  a  sign  that  (i)  the  early  Christians,  who  knew 
all  the  facts  of  the  case,  found  no  difficulty  in  the 
matter,  while  any  difficulty  that  now  exists  arises  from 
our  not  knowing  all  the  circumstances ;  and  that  (2) 
Christians  in  later  times  have  had  too  much  venera 
tion  for  the  Bible  to  venture  to  make  any  change 
in  its  text  in  order  to  remove  opponents'  grounds 
for  objections. 

46.  J7.  But  if,  as  both  the  Bible  and  the  Quran 
(Surahs  XXL,  Al  Anbiya,  v.  91,  and  LXVL,  At 
Tahrim,  v.  12)  assert,  Jesus  had  no  human  father, 
what  was  the  object  of  giving  Joseph's  genealogy 
in  Matt.  i.  ? 

C.  It  was  doubtless  given  for  the  sake  of  the 
Jews a,  in  order  that,  whether  they  believed  in  His 
miraculous  birth  or  not,  they  might  see  that  He 
was  descended  from  David,  according  to  prophecy 
(Amos  ix.  u,  &c.,  &c.).  According  to  Mary's 
genealogy  in  Luke  iii.  the  same  result  follows. 

47.  J/.    There  are  many  contradictions  in  the 
Bible  which  cannot  be   thus   explained.     One   is 
that  of  the  blind  men  whose  eyes  Jesus  is  said  to 
have  opened  at  Jericho.     The  Gospels  give  three 
contradictory  accounts  of  this  miracle.     St.  Mat- 

1  For  in  tho  «  yo  of  the  law  t  v.  ry  man  must  have  a  father, 
rf.il,  putative,  or  adoptive.  Thus  Christ  was  tho  heir  of  tho 
promises  made  to  David.  (Rev.  W.  A.  Rice.) 


74       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

thew  (xx.  30)  says  that  Jesus  healed  two  blind  men 
when  He  was  coming  out  of  Jericho  ;  St.  Mark  (x. 
46)  says  He  healed  only  one ;  and  St.  Luke  (xviii. 
35)  saJs  that  only  one  was  healed,  and  that  too, 
not  when  Jesus  was  going  out  of  the  city,  but  before 
He  entered  it. 

C.  There  is  no  contradiction  here,  though  the 
three  accounts  differ  somewhat  from  one  another. 
If  you  look  again  at  St.  Mark's  ac6ount  you  will 
perceive  that  he  does  not  say  that  only  one  was 
healed,  though  he  mentions  Bartimaeus  by  name. 
Putting  St.  Mark's  account  and  that  of  St.  Luke 
together,  we  arrive  at  an  agreement  with  St. 
Matthew's  account  in  the  number  of  those  healed 
at  Jericho  on  that  occasion.  Beyond  this  we  can 
not  at  this  distance  of  time  go.  St.  Matthew  may 
have  spoken  of  the  two  together  for  the  sake  of 
brevity,  or  (as  St.  Mark  does  not  say  that  Barti 
maeus  was  alone)  Christ  may  have  healed  one  as 
He  entered  and  two  as  He  came  out  of  the  city. 
But  the  very  fact  of  there  being  a  difference,  though  not 
an  irreconcilable  one,  between  the  three  accounts,  shows 
the  absence  of  'collusion,  and  that  we  have  three  independent 
testimonies  to  the  fact  of  the  occurrence  of  the  miracle  at 
Jericho.  If  a  judge  Jim] s  that  three  witnesses  agree  with 
one  another  exactly,  he  suspects  collusion :  but  if  he  finds 
that  they  agree  on  the  main  point,  though  differing  in 
reference  to  details,  he  gives  far  more  weight  to  their 
evidence.  You  have  here  adduced  a  very  strong  proof 
that  the  Bible  has  not  been  corrupted.  For  many 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  75 

hundreds  of  years  assailants  of  the  Bible  have 
dwelt  upon  this  and  other  similar  differences 
between  different  Gospels,  and  yet  we  have  never 
changed  a  single  word  to  endeavour  to  bring  the 
accounts  into  complete  accordance  with  one  another. 

48.  M.  Again,  it  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  one 
another  the  varying  accounts  of  Christ's  appear 
ances  after  His  .Resurrection.      Moreover,  we  have 
two  contradictory  accounts   of  the  death  of  the 
traitor  Judas,  and  differences  as  to  the  number  of 
the  angels  seen  at  the  sepulchre. 

C.  The  difficulty  in  each  case  arises  from  our 
want  of  full  knowledge  of  all  the  circumstances. 
It  is  easy  to  show  theoretically  that  the  varying 
accounts  are  not  really  contradictory.  But  the 
important  point  is  that  the  very  divergencies  in 
the  different  narratives  prevent  the  suspicion  of 
collusion1,  and  that  our  retaining  them  in  the  text 
of  the  Gospels  proves  that  we  have  not  ventured 
to  change  the  text  in  order  to  get  rid  of  difficulties2. 

49.  M.  Again,  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  tells 
us  that  Herod  died  when  Jesus  was  still  an  infant 
in  Egypt  (ii.  19),  while  St.  Luke  (xxiii.  8)  assures  us 
that  Herod  was  alive  more  than  thirty  years  later, 

1  This  was  pointed  out  by  St.  Chrysostom,  as  the  opponents 
of  the  Gospel  had  brought  forward  the  apparent  di.M-rupancies 
even  in  his  time. 

2  If  the  text  had  really  been  corrupted  and  mutilated  as 
freely    as    Aluhummadans    often    assort,    sun  ly    these    obvious 
difficulties  would  have  been  removed  long  ago.     (The  Bishop  ci' 
Lahore.) 


76        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

and  that  Jesus  was  brought  before  him  to  be  tried. 
How  can  you  deny  the  contradiction  here  ? 

C.  There  is  no  contradiction  whatever,  as  you 
will  see  by  referring  to  Luke  iii.  I.  The  Herod 
who  died  in  Jesus'  infancy  was  Herod  the  Great. 
He  ruled  over  the  whole  of  Palestine,  though  sub 
ject  to  the  Romans,  who  supported  him  on  the 
throne.  On  his  death  the  country  was  divided 
into  four  parts  ;  hence  Herod  Antipan,  his  son,  who 
ruled  over  Galilee  (Luke  iii.  i),  is  generally  called 
"  Herod  the  Tetrarch "  (Matt.  xiv.  i).  It  was 
Herod  the  Tetrarch  before  whom  Christ  was  tried, 
as  is  clear  from  the  very  chapter  of  St.  Luke  which 
you  quote  (Luke  xxiii.  6,  7  :  "  Galilee  .  .  .  Herod's 
jurisdiction,'*  cf.  Luke  iii.  i).  This  same  Herod  is 
spoken  of  in  Acts  iv.  27.  Another  Herod,  known 
as  Herod  Agrippa,  is  mentioned  in  Acts  xii.  i,  23. 
All  this  is  confirmed  by  the  Jewish  historian  Jose- 
phus  ;  and  the  Roman  historian  Tacitus  (Hist.  Lib. 
v.  9)  tells  us  that  after  Herod  the  Great's  death  his 
dominions  were  divided  among  his  sons.  It  should 
not  seem  strange  to  a  Muslim  that  several  people 
should  bear  the  same  name,  especially  when  a 
father's  name  is  transmitted  to  a  son  or  a  grand 
son.  What  would  you  think  of  a  man  who  con 
founded  together  the  various  Turkish  sultans  who 
bore  the  name  Murad  ?  This  objection  of  yours  is 
easily  answered,  because  we  happen  to  have  exact  know 
ledge  of  the  circumstances.  It  is  fair  to  infer  therefore 
that  other  objections  would  vanish  as  completely  if  we 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  77 


had  as  full  acquaintance  milt  f/tc  tir/atl*  in  each  case. 
The  difficulty  rises  from  our  limited  knowledge. 

50.  M.  How  can  you  assert  that  your  Bible  is 
free  from  interpolation  when  in  the  last  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy  we  find  an  account  of  the  death  and 
burial  of  Moses,  which  certainly  cannot  have  been 
written  by  him  1 

C.  The  Jews  hold  that  it  was  written  by  Joshua, 
Moses'  successor.  Whether  this  chapter  is  con 
sidered  part  of  Deuteronomy  or  of  Joshua  does  not 
make  any  real  difference,  as  the  chapter  does  not 
claim  to  be  from  the  hand  of  Moses  \ 

51.  M.  Your   Bible  is   defective,    since   certain 
books  mentioned  in  it,  e.  g.  the  book  of  Jashar  and 
many  of  the  works  written  by  Solomon,  are  no 
longer  extant. 

C.  These  were  never  included  in  the  Bible,  hence 
their  loss  in  no  way  affects  the  question. 

52.  M.  The  Gospel   acknowledges   its   own  de- 
fectiveness  (John  xx.  30  ;  xxi.  25). 

C.  Not  at  all.  These  verses  show  that  certain 
things  were  not  written  in  the  Gospel.  They  cannot 
therefore  have  ever  formed  part  of  the  written 
Gospel  to  which  your  Quran  bears  testimony,  and 
hence  cannot  be  said  to  have  been  taken  away 
from  it.  Moreover,  John  xx.  31  shows  that  what 

1  Joshua  was  Moses'  •'  minister  "  and  scribe  (Exod.  xxiv.  1  3  a> 
well  as  his  successor  (Joshua  i.  i  ,  a).  Hence  a  chapter  appended 
by  him,  giving  an  account  of  Moses'  death,  cannot  be  regarded 
as  an  interpolation.  (Rev.  Dr.  Wherry.) 


78        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

is  written  is  sufficient  for  us  to  know  so  as  to  obtain 
salvation  by  faith  in  Christ. 

53.  M.  There  is  a  discrepancy  between  Mai.  iii.  i 
and  the  same  verse  as  quoted  in  Matt.  xi.  10,  where 
my  has  been  changed   to   thy.      This   proves   that 
the   text    of    the    Scriptures    has    been   tampered 
with. 

C.  The  difference  lies  between  ^^?  (lefdndy}  and 
T3?P  (lifneykhd),  that  is  to  say  there  j.s  a  difference 
of  one  letter  in  the  Hebrew,  the  letter  k,  which  may 
easily  have  been  dropped  out  of  the  Hebrew  text. 
It  is  a  mere  matter  of  a  various  reading,  and 
does  not  really  affect  the  sense  or  the  argument. 
This  is  an  additional  proof  that  no  one  has  willingly 
tampered  with  the  text,  otherwise  an  attempt  would 
have  been  made  to  insert  the  missing  letter. 

54.  M.  In  Acts  i.  15  we  are  told  that  after  the 
Ascension  there  were  only  120  disciples  of  Christ, 
whereas  in  i  Cor.  xv.  6  it  is  stated  that  He  appeared 
to  "  above  500  brethren  "  after  His  Resurrection. 
How  can  you  reconcile  the  discrepancy  ? 

C.  There  is  none  to  reconcile.  In  the  Acts  we 
are  not  told  that  there  were  only  120  believers  in 
existence,  but  merely  that  about  120  were  present 
one  day  at  a  meeting  in  Jerusalem.  The  500  met 
in  Galilee  (Matt,  xxviii.  7),  where  much  of  Christ's 
work  had  been  done,  and  where  He  had  many 
disciples.  The  statement  that  there  are  20,000 
Muhammadans  in  Lahore  is  not  a  contradiction 
to  the  assertion  that  there  are  160,000  in  Bombay. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS. 


79 


o5.  JA  In  Matt,  xxvii.  44  it  is  said  that  both 
thieves  railed  at  Christ  on  the  Cross,  while  in 
Luke  xxiii.  39  we  are  told  that  only  one  did  so.  Is 
not  this  a  contradiction  ? 

C.  You  must  not  interpolate  the  word  only  into 
the  Gospel.     If  I  tell  some  one  that  you  came  to 
see  me  to-day,  does  that  imply  that  you  were  my 
only  visitor?     Careful  reading  of  the  two  passages 
shows    no    contradiction    between    them,   though 
St.  Luke  mentions  a  circumstance  in  addition  to 
the  one  recorded  by  St.  Matthew.     Two  accounts 
state  that  the  thieves  railed  at  Christ,  and  St.  Luke 
adds  the  fact  that  one  of  them  afterwards  repented. 
It  was  probably  the  patient  meekness  with  which 
our  Lord  bore  the  railing  of  both  thieves,  as  well 
as  His  other   sufferings,  that  ultimately  softened 
the  heart  of  one  of  them. 

56.  H.  Christ  tells  us  (John  v.  22,  27)  that  He  is 
to  judge  the  world,  whereas  St.  Paul  says  that  the 
saints  are  to  do  so  (i  Cor.  vi.  2,  3).     Is  this  not 
contradictory  ? 

C.  Is  it  contradictory  in  our  courts  to  speak  of 
Judge  So-and-So,  although  the  case  is  heard  before 
a  jury  or  assessors  as  well? 

57.  M.  In  i  Cor.  vi.  10  we  are  told  that  drunkards 
shall  not  inherit  the  Kingdom  of  God.     Yet  in 
i  Tim.  v.  23  Paul  directs  Timothy  to  drink  wine. 
Is  this  not  a  contradiction?     Islam  is  superior  to 
Christianity,   since    it    prohibits    all    drinking   of 
intoxicants. 


80        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

C.  Is  there  no  difference  between  taking  a  little 
wine  for  medicine,  as  St.  Paul  advises  Timothy  to 
do,  and  being  a  drunkard?  We  Christians,  even 
though  many  of  us  are  total  abstainers,  are  nowhere 
forbidden  ever  to  taste  wine,  as  you  Muhammadans 
are.  Yet  i  Cor.  vi.  10  shows  how  great  a  crime 
we  are  bound  to  consider  drunkenness  to  be,  while 
the  maximum  punishment  prescribed  by  Muslim 
law  for  that  offence  is  scourging,.  Hence  you 
evidently  consider  it  a  less  crime  than  we  do,  while 
you  condemn  as  wrong  what  is  not  in  itself  a  sin1. 

58.  M.  In  2  Cor.  xi.  17  Paul  expressly  disclaims 
inspiration  for  himself,  and  yet  you  include  his 
epistles  in  the  New  Testament  as  part  of  the  Word 
of  God. 

C.  In  and  for  that  special  passage  he  disclaims 
the  highest  kind  of  inspiration,  but  that  does  not 
amount  to  a  denial  of  his  writing  even  that  passage 
under  Divine  guidance,  to  which  his  being  called 
to  the  Apostolate  (i  Cor.  i.  I ;  ix.  i  ;  2  Cor.  i.  i,  &c.) 
gave  him  a  claim.  The  difficulty  in  your  mind  arises 
from  your  confounding  your  idea  of  inspiration  with 
ours.  (Vide  Chapter  IV,  initio.) 

59.  M.  In  Matt.  v.  17  Christ  declares  that  He 
did  not  come  to  destroy  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
but  to  fulfil  them.   In  contrast  to  this,  in  Heb.  vii.  1 8, 
it  is  written,  "There  is  a  disannulling  of  a  fore 
going  commandment  because  of  its  weakness  and 
unprofitableness." 

1  Rev.  W.  A.  Rice. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  8 1 

C.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  from  which  you 
quote,  gives  example  after  example  to  show  that 
Christ  fulfilled  and  did  not  destroy  the  Law  and 
the  Prophets,  both  of  which  we  Christians  still 
read  and  reverence1.  The  other  passage  shows 
that  only  certain  outward  and  temporary  enact 
ments  had  been  done  away  with,  because  they  had 
fulfilled  their  purpose  and  were  being  perverted  by 
the  Jews  so  as«»to  be  a  hindrance  instead  of  a  help 
to  men.  For  example,  sacrifices  were  enjoined 
under  the  Law  of  Moses ;  but  as  these  were  useful 
only  as  bearing  witness  to  the  need  of  the  death 
of  Christ  as  the  One  true  Sacrifice,  they  were  no 
longer  of  any  avail  after  His  death.  Just  in  the 
same  way  a  cheque  is  of  value  until  it  is  honoured ; 
after  that  it  may  be  useful  as  a  proof  that  it  has 
been  paid,  but  it  has  no  monetary  value.  Yet 
we  do  not  say  that  the  bank  annuls  it,  but  honours 
it,  that  is,  pays  it.  We  may  also  say  that  the 
bank  in  one  sense  annuls  it,  though  not  in  another 2. 
60.  M.  Another  contradiction  is  found  in  what 

1  We  show  our  reverence  for  Law,  Prophets,  and  Psalms  by 
reading  passages  from  them  in  our  services.  The  Muslims  talk 
a  great  deal  about  their  reverence  for  the  Former  Books,  but 
how  totally  do  they  fail  to  show  it  in  any  way  of  this  sort ! 
(The  Bishop  of  Lahore.) 

3  Vide  §§  71,  72.  Moreover  "the  Law  of  Moses  was  not  of 
universal  application.  It  was  of  the  nature  of  a  covenant  between 
certain  parties  (God  and  the  Hebrew  nation),  a  sort  of  sub 
contract  within  the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Again,  principks  are 
eternal,  while  details  of  the  application  of  these  principles  may 
differ  under  different  circumstances."  (Mr.  Harding.) 

P 


82       OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

is  told  us  regarding  the  way  of  obtaining  salvation. 
In  Jas.  ii.  14-26  we  are  told  that  a  man  is  saved 
by  works,  not  by  faith,  and  this  agrees  with 
Ezek.  xviii.  20  and  John  v.  29.  But  elsewhere 
we  are  told  that  a  man  is  saved  by  faith  and  not 
by  works  (cf.  Heb.  xi.  17;  Bom.  iv.  3  ;  Gal.  iii.  6). 
How  can  a  book  which  thus  contradicts  itself  be 
from  God,  or  how  can  you  deny  that  your  Bible  is 
corrupted  ?  <• 

C.  The  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews  itself  gives 
you  an  answer.  All  those  who  are  there  mentioned 
were  saved  by  faith,  but  that  faith  was  a  living 
faith  and,  as  that  chapter  tells  us,  produced  works. 
St.  James  says  that  faith  devoid  of  works  is  dead 
(Jas.  ii.  26),  and  he  points  out  that  a  dead  faith 
cannot  save.  If  a  man  really  believes  in  Christ, 
his  life  will  be  changed  thereby  and  he  will  do 
good * :  but  if  we  find  a  man  who  professes  to 
believe  and  yet  does  evil  instead  of  good,  he  has 
not  living  faith  ;  and  dead  faith — that  of  the  lips  or 
even  of  the  reason,  and  not  of  the  heart— cannot 
save  him.  This  is  plain  if  we  remember  that 
salvation  denotes  deliverance  from  loving  and  com 
mitting  sin  (Matt.  i.  21). 

61.  M.  Christ  Himself  says,  "If  thou  wouldest 

1  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  truly  says  that  the  question  of  the 
relation  between  Faith  and  Works  is  one  of  vital  importance  in 
dealing  with  Muhammadanism,  and  that  the  matter  should  be 
dealt  with  much  more  fully  than  is  possible  here.  The  mis 
sionary  should  illustrate  it  by,  e.g.,  the  fruit  of  a  growing 
tree,  &c. 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  83 

enter  into  life,  keep  the  commandments"  (Matt. 
xix.  17).  Does  not  this  prove  that  salvation  is 
obtained  by  good  works,  and  not  by  faith  in 
Christ  ? 

C.  If  you  read    further  on   you  will   see  that, 
though  the  young  man  to  whom  this  was  said 
claimed  to  have  kept  the  commandments,  yet  he 
did  not   thereby   obtain   salvation.      Christ  said 
concerning  him,  "It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go 
through  a  needle's  eye  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God "  (v.  24).     He  showed 
the  young  man  that  he  had  not  kept  even  the  first 
commandment,  since  he  preferred  his  riches  to  God, 
and  thereby  became  an  idolater.    But  Christ  proved 
the  necessity  of  faith  in  Himself  by  bidding  the 
young   man  follow  Him.      Only  through  faith  in 
Christ   is   it  possible   to   keep   God's    command 
ments. 

62.  M.  If  your  Bible  in  its  present  condition  is 
the  Word  of  God,  why  are  not  the  promises  in 
Mark  xvi.  17,  18  fulfilled  in  our  time? 

C.  [You  remember  that  I  pointed  out  that  we 
are  not  quite  so  certain  that  Mark  xvi.  9-20  forms 
part  of  the  original  Gospel  as  we  are  of  the  rest J.] 
If  you  read  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  you  will 

'  An  Armenian  MS.  of  the  year  986  A.D.  (at  Echmiadzin) 
ittnbutes  these  verses  to  "Ariston  the  Presbyter,"  and  in 
»ome  ancient  MSS.  of  that  version  they  are  omitted  (vide 
Dr.  Nestle's  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Greek  New  Testament,  p.  142). 
But  further  investigation  may  prove  their  authenticity  and 
genuineness  (vide  §  26). 


F  2 


84        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

see  that  these  promises  were  almost  all,  perhaps 
all,  fulfilled  in  the  time  of  the  apostles.  The 
verses  you  have  quoted  do  not  assert  that  these 
signs  will  always  be  granted  to  the  end  of  time. 
On  the  contrary,  in  i  Cor.  xiii.  8-10  we  are  told 
that  these  signs  will  ultimately  cease  when 
Christianity  is  perfectly  established.  A  celebrated 
Christian  writer,  St.  Chrysostom,  explains  the 
reason  by  saying  that,  when  a  tree*  planted  by  the 
roadside  is  young,  it  requires*  to  be  protected  by 
a  fence,  lest  it  should  be  trodden  down  and  destroyed: 
but,  when  it  has  taken  root  and  grown  large,  the 
fence  must  be  removed  lest  it  should  hinder  the 
further  growth  of  the  tree.  So  when  the  tree  of 
the  Christian  faith  was  yet  tender,  it  required  to 
be  fenced  in  with  miracles,  but  after  a  time  these 
were  withdrawn  lest  they  should  hinder  its  growth. 
If  all  true  Christians  could  now  work  miracles, 
people  would  say  that  there  was  nothing  wonderful 
in  the  miracles  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  and 
miracles  would  cease  to  be  miracles.  Moreover, 
in  place  of  physical  miracles  we  have  now  moral 
miracles,  in  the  changed  lives  of  men  who  become 
true  Christians :  and  we  have  the  fulfilment  of 
prophecy  as  a  better  sign  and  proof  of  the  truth 
of  the  Bible  than  any  other  that  can  be  imagined  *. 

1  There  is  probably  much  truth  in  the  Eev.  P.  M.  Zenker's 
suggestion  that  our  inability  to  work  miracles  is  largely  due  to 
our  oXiyoTTiGTia  (Matt.  xvii.  20).  He  refers  to  Paludan  Miil- 
ler's  The  Visible  and  the  Invisible.  But  the  best  answer  is  that 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW    EXISTS.  85 

[Another  form  in  which  this  objection  is  often 
put  is : — 

63.  M.  Have  you  faith l  ? 

C.  I  trust  that  I  have. 

M.  Then  (Mark  xvi.  17)  prove  your  faith  by 
drinking  poison  or  taking  up  a  deadly  serpent. 

C.  What  do  you  mean  by  faith  ?  We  Christians 
mean  by  it  such  faith  as  Abraham  had,  that  is  to 
say,  faith  in  God.  If  therefore  Gud  commanded 
us  to  take  up  a  deadly  serpent  or  to  drink  poison, 
we  should  obey,  as  Abraham  did  in  reference  to 
Isaac.  But  I  have  no  faith  in  you,  that  I  should 
do  that  at  your  suggestion,  for  that  would  be  to 
tempt  the  Lord  our  God,  which  is  forbidden 
(Deut.  vi.  16;  Matt.  iv.  7).  You  are  playing  the 
part  which  Satan  tried  to  play  (Matt.  iv.  5,  6),  and 

miracles  were  granted  only  (i)  on  the  occasion  of  a  new  reve 
lation  (as  that  of  Moses  and  Christ),  and  (2)  at  certain  great 
crises  in  history,  as  in  the  time  of  Elijah.  Hence  we  cannot 
expect  them  now,  more  than  Abraham  did.  The  Bishop  of 
Lahore  says  :  "  I  believe  I  am  right  in  saying  that  Muhamma- 
dans  themselves  teach  that  one  of  the  chief  functions  of  miracles 
is  to  authenticate  a  new  Revelation,  to  accompany  lUidm.  Throughout 
the  Bible  miracles  are  not  scattered  broadcast  at  all  times,  but 
group  themselves  at  special  epochs  of  progress  in  Revelation. 
It  is  in  accordance  with  this  law  that,  while  granted  for  a  time 
for  the  reason  indicated,  they  then  ceased,  as  was  necessary  for 
them  to  do  in  order  to  accord  with  their  own  function." 

J  Mr.  R.  Maconochie,  C.S.I.,  says,  "  Another  form  of  this 
objection  came  before  me  as  a  magistrate.  A  Muslim  asked 
a  Cntechist  if  he  had  faith.  *  Yes.1  «  Then '  (taking  off  a  pair 
of  shoes  and  placing  them  before  him),  *  if  you  move  those 
shoes  an  inch  by  faith,  without  touching  them,  I  will  become 
a  Christian.1" 


86        OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    GENUINENESS    OF 

deserve  the  answer  which  Christ  gave  him  (Luke 
iv.  8)i.] 

64.  M.  No  matter  what  arguments  you  adduce 
to  prove  that  the  Bible  is  not  corrupt2,  there  is 
a  final  one  that  you  cannot  answer.  We  kno^v  that 
it  is  corrupt,  because  in  many  places  it  contradicts 
the  Qur'an.  Our  principle  is  to  use  the  Qur'an  as 
the  touchstone,  and  to  accept  only  what  is  in 
accordance  with  it.  This  is  justified  by  reason, 
because  the  Qur'an  is  God's  latest  and  most  perfect 
revelation  (Jy^j),  written  on  the  Preserved  Tablet 
before  the  creation  of  the  world.  It  is  justified  by 
the  Qur'tfn,  since  the  latter  is  styled  the  "Furqan" 

1  The  Kev.  A.  E.  Johnston  says  :  "The  answer  I  found  it 
best  to  give  was  to  point  out  that  it  is  not  said  that  every 
believer  would  be  able  to  show  all  these  signs,  and  then  to  read 
i  Cor.  xii.  4-11,  and  point  out  the  distribution  of  the  gifts  of 
the  Spirit  amongst  the  faithful,  all  for  the  common  edification, 
and  to  assert  that  such  of  these  gifts  as  are  still  necessary  to 
that  end  are  in  fact  exercised,  and  that,  in  a  sense,  the  others 
do  still  follow  ov  accompany  us,  for  we  have  in  the  N.  T.  the 
evidence  of  their  having  been  displayed  by  Christians  in  attes 
tation  of  the  faith."  Be  very  careful  in  using  the  bracketted 
sentence  at  the  beginning  of  §  62. 

a  Muslims  often  say,  "  If  you  Christians  believed  the  Bible  to 
be  the  Word  of  God,  you  would  treat  it  with  greater  reverence. 
You  put  it  into  your  coat-tail  pockets  and  sit  upon  it.  We  should 
never  think  of  doing  that  with  our  Qur'an."  To  us  this  may 
seem  a  trivial  matter,  but  it  is  not  so  to  Muslims.  The  Rev.  T. 
R.  Wade  writes  :  "This  was  always  a  favourite  argument  with 
the  Pathans  in  Peshawar,  and  was  used  by  the  Amir  of  Kabul 
when  he  was  staying  there  in  the  Gurkhatri.  Bishop  French 
was  always  most  careful  to  carry  his  large  Urdu  Bible  in  a  nice 
bag  when  he  went  to  preach  in  the  Bazar." 


THE    BIBLE    AS    IT    NOW  EXISTS.  87 

(Surah  XXV.,  i)  because  it  distinguishes  the  true 
from  the  false. 

C.  There  are  several  weak  points  in  your  argu 
ment.  Before  you  can  rely  on  it,  you  have  to 
prove,  to  yourselves  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
Qur'an  is  a  revelation  from  God.  This  you  cannot 
prove.  Again,  the  title  "  Furqan "  (whatever  be 
the  meaning  of  the  word,  which  is  really  Syriac 
and  Chaldee  adopted  into  Arabic)  is  not  given 
exclusively  to  the  Qur'an,  for  in  Surah  XXI.,  Al 
Anbiya',  49,  and  Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  50 J,  the 
same  title  is  given  to  the  Taurat.  Moreover,  instead 
of  using  the  Qur'an  to  test  the  Bible,  as  you  say, 
you  are  bidden  in  the  Qur'an  itself  to  test  the 
Quran  by  the  Bible :  for  in  Surah  V.,  Al  Maidah,  47- 
52  we  read  : — "  But  how  shall  they  make  thee  their 
judge,  since  they  already  possess  the  Law,  in  which 
are  the  behests  of  God  ?  .  .  .  Verily,  We  have  sent 
down  the  Law,  wherein  are  guidance  and  light.  .  .  . 
And  whoso  will  not  judge  by  what  God  hath  sent 
down — such  therefore  are  unbelievers.  .  .  .  And  in 
the  footsteps  of  the  prophets  caused  We  Jesus  the 
Son  of  Mary  to  follow,  confirming  the  Law  which 
was  before  Him ;  and  We  gave  Him  the  Evangel 
with  its  guidance  and  light,  confirmatory  of  the 
preceding  Law,  a  guidance  and  warning  to  those 
who  fear  God  ;  and  that  the  people  of  the  Evangel 
may  [or,  let  the  people  of  the  Evangel]  judge 

1  The  Qamus,  however,  in  this  latter  passage  explains  Furqan 
as  meaning  the  division  of  the  sea  before  the  Israelites! 


88     OBJECTIONS  AGAINST    GENUINENESS    OF   THE    BIBLE. 

according  to  what  God  hath  sent  down  therein. 
And  whoso  will  not  judge  by  what  God  hath  sent 
down — such  then  are  the  perverse.  And  to  thee 
We  have  sent  down  the  Book  with  truth,  con 
firmatory  of  previous  Scripture  and  its  safeguard." 
And  in  Surah  X.,  Yunus,  94  the  command  is  given 
to  Muhammad  himself  to  make  the  Bible  the 
touchstone  by  which  to  judge  the  Qur'an,  for 
there  we  read:  "And  if  thou  art  in  doubt  as  to 
what  We  have  sent  down  to  thee,  inquire  of  those 
who  are  reading  the  Scriptures  before  thee."  There 
fore  your  principle  is  contrary  to  the  Qur'an  itself. 
We  have  also  seen  that  the  Qur'an  never  asserts 
that  the  Bible  has  been  corrupted,  but  acknow 
ledges  it  to  be  the  Word  of  God  and  says  that 
God's  Word  cannot  be  corrupted  or  changed.  And 
if  you  appeal  to  reason,  your  reason  must  prove 
to  you  from  what  has  been  already  said  that  the 
Bible  was  not  corrupted  before  Muhammad's  time, 
nor  during  his  life,  nor  has  it  been  corrupted  since. 
Finally,  whether  or  not  there  are  differences  in 
teaching  between  the  Bible  and  the  Qur'an,  it  is 
certain  that  in  many  points  in  which  you  object  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  the  Qur'an  confirms 
them,  as  indeed  reason  also  does 1. 

1  Vide  Chapter  IV. 


CHAPTER    III. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  PRESENT  AUTHORITY 
OF  THE  BIBLE. 

65.  M.  You  Christians  are  always  quoting  the 
Bible  to  us  and  endeavouring  to  persuade  us  to 
read  it.     This  is  all  in  vain.     Even  if,  as  you  say, 
the  Bible  has  not  been  corrupted,  nevertheless  it 
has  been  annulled  by  the  descent  of  the  Qur'an, 
God's  latest  and  most  perfect  Revelation.     There 
fore  we  are  not  bound  to  read  or  to  obey  it.     We 
Muslims  have  no  need  of  the  Bible:  we  have  the 
Qur'an.    All  that  is  good  in  the  other  books  (Taurat 
and  Injil)  is  contained  in  the  Qur'an,  according  as 

it  is  said  i^-3  *^ja  1+**1. 

C.  Is  what  you  state  in  accordance  with  the 
Qur'an  itself? 

66.  M.  Undoubtedly  it  is. 

C.  Will  you  then  kindly  quote  one  single  verse  in 
the  Qur'an  which  declares  that  the  Bible  has  been 
annulled  (rendered  -jj-~ju)  by  the  descent  of  the 
Qur'an  ? 

1  "  In  them  are  upright  books  "  (Surah  XCVIII,  2).  Muslims 
quote  the  words  as  if  they  meant  that  the  essential  parts  of  the 
previous  Scriptures  were  contained  in  the  Qur'an.  But  they 
mean  nothing  of  the  kind.  Vide  Baizawi  in  loco. 


90        OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  PRESENT 

67.  M.  Unfortunately  I  do  not  recollect  one  at 
the  present  moment. 

C.  And  no  wonder,  for  none  such  exists.  The 
verb  "to  annul"  (LIo)  is  used  only  twice  in  the 
Qur'an,  and  on  each  occasion  it  refers  not  to  the 
Bible  but  to  certain  verses  of  the  Quran  itself,  which 1 
are  declared  to  be  "annulled."  Your  learned 
men  declare  that  there  are  225  verses  thus  annulled 
in  the  Qur'an,  though  they  are  not  agreed  which 
they  are.  Do  you  still  read  these  annulled 
verses  ? 

68.  M.  We  do,  for  we  read  the  whole  Qur'an. 

C.  If  then  you  read  verses  which  the  Qur'an 
states  to  be  annulled,  and  think  yourselves  bound 
to  do  so,  why  should  you  deem  yourselves  free 
from  the  obligation  to  read  the  Taurat  and  Injil, 
which  the  Qur'an  does  not  declare  to  be  annulled, 
but  which  you  find  the  Qur'an  commanding  you 
to  profess  belief  in?  (Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  130: 
"  Say  ye  :  We  believe  in  God,  and  that  which  hath 
been  sent  down  to  us,  and  that  which  hath  been 
sent  down  to  Abraham  and  Ishmael  and  Isaac  and 
Jacob  and  the  tribes,  and  that  which  hath  been 
given  to  Moses  and  to  Jesus,  and  that  which  was 
given  to  the  prophets  from  their  Lord.  No  differ 
ence  do  we  make  between  any  of  them :  and  to 
God  are  we  resigned.")  You  see  that  the  idea  that 
the  Gospel  is  annulled  is  not  supported  by  the 

1  Vide  Surahs  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  100 ;  and  XXIL,  Al  Haji,  51 : 
see  also  XVI.,  An  Nahl,  103. 


AUTHORITY    OF    THE    BIBLE.  9! 

Qur'an.  Nor  do  I  know  any  one  of  your  authwita- 
tive  traditions l  by  which  it  is  confirmed. 

69.  M.  It  stands  to  reason  that  such  is  the  case* 
As  the  Taurat  was  annulled  by  the  descent  of  the 
Zabur  (Psalms)  upon  David,  and  as  the  Zabur  were 
annulled  by  the  descent  of  the  Injii  upon  Jesus,  so 
the  Injil  was  annulled  by  the  descent  of  the  Qur'an 
upon  Muhammad. 

[In  reply,  qu»te  the  Ten  Commandments  and  ask 
after  each,  Has  this  been  abrogated  1  If  not,  how 
can  you  say  that  the  Taurat  was  annulled  ? 

With  regard  to  the  Sabbath,  show  how  and 
why  the  Sunday  is  observed — the  first  day  of  every 
week — instead  of  Saturday.]  Then  add : — 

C.  Can  you  quote  any  verse  of  the  Qur'an  to 
prove  that  the  various  books  you  mention  did 
successively  annul  one  another? 

70.  M.  No ;  but  all  Muslims  know  that  it  is  so. 
C.  The  verses  in  which  the  Qur'an  speaks  of  the 

Bible2  are  very  numerous,  and  the  whole  of  the 
teaching  which  they  give  is  contrary  to  this  view, 
for  the  Qur'an  speaks  of  the  Taurat,  the  Zabur  and 
the  Injil  as  all  still  of  authority  in  Muhammad's 

1  I  have  never  met  with  any  such  authoritative  tradition  in 
my  own  reading,  nor  has  any  Muhammadan  to  whom  I  have 
appealed  been  able  to  produce  one.     "Not  a  single  tradition 
of  this  nature  is  found  in  Sihdh  Sitta,  which  contains  six  books 
by  six  great  Imams  and  Traditionalists.     No  Sunni  Muhamma 
dan  can  dare  to  doubt  these  books.     The  Mishkdtu'l  Masdbih  and 
the  Talkhizu's  Sihdh  are  abridged  from  these  six  books."    (Rev. 
Ahmed  Shall.) 

2  All  collected  in  Sir  W.  Muir's  Testimony  of  the  Goran, 


92  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    PRESENT 

time.  The  verse  we  have  just  quoted  (Surah  II., 
Al  Baqarah,  130)  alone  suffices  to  prove  this. 
This  is  another  matter  in  which  modern  Islam  has 
entirely  departed  from  the  teaching  of  the  Qur'an. 

71.  M.  Each  successive  apostle1  (J^)  was 
sent  by  God  to  teach  the  right  way  to  the  people 
of  his  own  time.  As  Moses  was  succeeded  by 
David  and  David  by  Solomon,  so  Solomon  was 
succeeded  by  John  the  Baptist  (^Jy*  ^  <&**>),  and 
the  latter  by  Jesus,  and  He  in  turn  by  Muhammad, 
the  Seal  of  the  Prophets.  Each  successive  prophet 
was  commissioned  to  give  God's  commands  to  his 
own  people.  Hence  of  course  the  later  abrogated 
the  earlier.  Just  in  the  same  way  the  laws  of  the 
present  king  of  Persia  or  of  England  abrogate 
those  of  the  preceding  sovereign. 

C.  Even  granting  this,  remember  that  you  con 
fess  that  Christ  is  still  alive.  Until  He  dies  (as 
He  never  will,  Rev.  i.  1 8),  there  can  be  no  question 
of  a  successor2.  But  the  laws  of  the  new  king 
do  not  abrogate  those  of  the  preceding  unless  it  is 
precisely  stated  in  the  new  laws  that  they  do  so, 
wholly  or  partially.  Christ  distinctly  declared 
that  He  had  not  come  "  to  destroy  the  Law,  or  the 
Prophets  "  (Matt.  v.  17)  "  but  to  fulfil "  them.  This 
is  easily  understood  from  the  use  of  progressive 

1  Easul  must  be  distinguished  from  Hawdn  ((jj^\  the  latter 
denoting  an  Apostle  of  Christ.     Hawdri  is  an  JEthiopic  word, 
and  is  the  word  used  for  t(  Apostle  "  in  the  ^Ethiopic  N.  T. 

2  Mr.  Harding. 


AUTHORITY    OF    THE    BIBLE.  93 

textbooks  in  a  school.  The  Second  Reading  Book 
does  not  annul  the  first,  but  assumes  the  facts 
taught  in  it,  while  giving  more  advanced  teach 
ing1.  The  Qur'an  does  not  state  that  it  came  to 
annul  the  Taurat  and  the  Injil,  but  to  confirm  and 
protect  them. 

72.  M.  Why  then  do  you  Christians  not  observe 
the  ceremonial  parts  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  with 
regard  to  washings,  festivals,  and  circumcision  ? 

C.  For  two  reasons,  (i)  Because  these  com 
mands  were  given  to  the  Jews  only  and  not  to  all 
nations.  (2)  Because  they  were  not  abrogated  but 
fulfilled  in  Christ.  Circumcision  was  intended  to 
keep  the  children  of  Abraham  apart  until  Christ 
came ;  the  purifications  and  sacrifices  received  their 
fulfilment  in  Christ.  The  ordinances,  given  not  to 
all  nations  and  for  all  time  (like  the  Moral  Law 
generally),  but  only  temporally  and  to  the  Jews 
alone  (for  example  those  regarding  sacrifices,  cir 
cumcision,  going  up  three  times  a  year  to  the 
Temple,  abstinence  from  certain  kinds  of  food,  &c.), 
were  therefore  abrogated  by  Christ  as  far  as  tie 
letter  is  concerned,  but  they  were  not  abrogated 
but  filed  up  and  made  eternally  binding  on  all 
men  so  far  as  their  spiritual  meaning  is  concerned 2. 
For  example,  in  Exod.  xii.  the  Israelites  were 
commanded  to  observe  the  Passover;  and  in  i  Cor. 
v.  7,  the  spiritual  meaning  and  necessity  of  the 

1  Bishop  of  Lahore. 

3  Vide  Rev.  Dr.  Rouse's  Is  the  Gospel  Abrogated? 


94  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    PRESENT 

observance  of  the  true  Passover  is  explained  and 
enforced  upon  Christians 1.  Circumcision  again 
was  enjoined  upon  Abraham  and  his  descendants 
(Gen.  xvii.  9-14)  as  a  sign  of  God's  covenant  with 
them,  until  the  fulfilment  of  the  covenant  in 
the  coming  of  Christ  (Gen.  xii.  3  ;  xviii,  18  ;  xxii. 
1 8 ;  xx vi.  4)  through  whom  all  nations  were  to  be 
blessed,  and  who  was  to  be  descended  from  Isaac 
(Gen.  xvii.  19).  This  covenant  was  tb  be  everlasting 
and  therefore  not  subject  to  abrogation,  as  that 
verse  proves.  Hence  Christ  cannot  be  succeeded 
by  any  one  else  to  all  eternity.  Circumcision  be 
comes  spiritual  at  His  Advent  ( Jer.  xxxi.  3 1  -34 ; 
xxxii.  40;  Deut.  xxx.  6;  Rom.  ii.  28,  29;  Phil, 
iii.  3),  after  which  circumcision  in  the  flesh  (as 
with  Jews  and  Muslims)  practically  becomes  a  sign 
of  unbelief  in  Him  as  the  Saviour.  This  is  some 
thing  like  the  case  of  the  Brazen  Serpent  in  the 
Wilderness,  made  by  Moses  at  God's  command 
(Num.  xxi.  8,  9),  but  afterwards  broken  by  the 
pious  king  Hezekiah  (2  Kings  xviii.  4)  because  the 
Israelites  had  made  it  into  an  idol.  These  rites 
and  ceremonies  were  like  a  cheque,  which  is  of 
value  until  it  is  cashed,  but  after  that  is  of  no 

1  As  truth  underlies  all  error,  so  the  truth  which  underlies 
the  erroneous  doctrine  of  naskh  (abrogation)  is  that  the  perfect 
must  ultimately  take  the  place  of  the  imperfect,  the  permanent 
and  eternal  that  of  the  temporary.  This  is  what  Christ  teaches 
when  He  claims  to  have  come  to  fulfil  the  law.  The  Rev. 
Dr.  Hooper  shows  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  argues  on 
these  lines  (cf.  Heb.  vii.  11-19). 


AUTHORITY    OF    THE    BIBLE.  95 

monetary  value,  and  is  worth  preserving  only  as 
a  sign  that  the  money  was  promised  and  has  been 
paid,  as  we  have  already  seen.  But  here  you  are 
arguing  against  yourself,  for  Muslims  still  keep 
up  the  practice  of  circumcision,  because  (as  they 
rightly  say)  God  once  enjoined  it  upon  Abraham 
and  his  descendants,  and  they  think  it  still  neces 
sary.  Hence  it  is  evident  that  the  Law,  the  Psalms, 
and  the  Qur'an  «did  not  abrogate  that  command,  at 
least  in  (Jieir  opinion.  This  completely  overthrows 
your  argument.  Again,  the  Qur'an  represents 
Muhammad  as  stating  that  Abraham  was  a  Muslim 
(Surah  III,  Al  'Imran,  60).  If  so,  in  what  respect 
has  his  religion  been  abrogated  ? 

73.  M.  Since  Christ  and  Timothy  were  circum 
cised,  how  can  you  say  the  rite  is  not  binding  on 
Christians  ? 

C.  Christ  was  born  of  a  Jewish  mother,  and 
therefore  He  received  circumcision  according  to  the 
Law  of  Moses.  Timothy's  mother  (Acts  xvi.  1-3) 
was  also  a  Jewess,  hence  Paul  circumcised  him, 
else  he  would  not  have  been  able  to  work  among 
Jews.  But  this  was  not  necessary  from  a  Christian 
point  of  view,  for  St.  Paul  himself  says,  "  Circum 
cision  is  nothing  and  uncircumcision  is  nothing" 
(i  Cor.  vii.  1 8,  19  ;  Rom.  ii.  25-29;  Phil.  iii.  3). 

74.  M.   A    king    can    change    his    laws   as    he 
pleases :  why  should  not  God  do  so  ?    Jesus  came 
to  preach  the  Gospel  peaceably,  and  forbade  His 
disciples  to  draw  the  sword  to  spread  their  faith. 


96  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    PRESENT 

Muhammad  was  "the  Prophet  with  the  sword," 
and  was  commanded  to  "  fight  in  the  way  of  God." 
Each  did  what  was  right,  because  the  latter  com 
mand  abrogated  the  former. 

C.  The  question  is  not  what  God  can  do  but 
what  God  has  done.  You  cannot  bring  a  single 
proof  that  the  Bible  was  abrogated  by  the  Qur'an. 
Muhammad's  assertion  that  he  was  commissioned 
to  spread  his  religion  with  the  sword  is  rather  a 
proof  against  his  claim  than  in  favour  of  it. 

75.  M.  Why1?     Did  not  Moses  do  the  same  by 
God's  command? 

C.  No.  Joshua  was  commanded  to  overthrow 
and  punish  the  Canaanites,  but  he  was  not  com 
manded  to  convert  them  by  the  sword.  Moreover, 
you  who  appeal  so  much  to  Eeason  should  be  able 
to  explain  how  the  command  which  you  say  was 
given  to  Muhammad  was  consonant  with  reason 
and  justice.  You  assert  that  God  hates  hypocrites 
so  much  that  the  lowest  pit  of  hell  has  been  assigned 
to  them ;  and  yet  you  tell  us  that  God  sent  Muham 
mad  with  the  sword  to  make  men  hypocrites.  For 
a  man  who  embraces  Islam  without  proof,  and 
merely  to  save  his  life,  must  evidently  be  a  hypo 
crite.  In  this  respect  the  Qur'an  is  contrary  to 
the  Gospel,  and  also  to  the  reason  and  conscience 
which  God  has  given  us. 

76.  M.   The    Qur'an   preserves    and  re-imposes 
upon  men  the  essential  parts  of  the  Law  and  the 
Gospel,  and  abrogates  the  rest. 


AUTHORITIY    OF    THE    BIBLE.  97 

If  I  am  to  accept  this,  I  must  do  so  on 
your  authority  alone,  since  you  cannot  prove  it 
from  the  Quran.  But  I  notice  that  now  you 
admit  that  part  at  least  of  earlier  revelations  have 
not  been  abrogated  by  the  Qur'an.  Reason  teaches 
us  that  what  the  Bible  says  of  (i)  the  Nature  and 
Attributes  of  God,  (2)  Historical  facts,  (3)  the  Moral 
Law,  (4)  Prophecies,  and  (5)  the  Plan  of  Salvation, 
cannot  possibly  be  abrogated. 

77.  M.  Some  of  these  may  be.  Why  should 
not  the  way  of  salvation  be  altered  from  time  to 
time?  In  Moses'  time  it  was  necessary  to  believe 
in  him,  in  Jesus'  time  in  Him,  in  Muhammad's  time 
m  him.  So  it  is  necessary  to  obey  successive  kings, 
each  in  his  own  time. 

C.  This   is   contrary    to    Reason,    for   it   repre 
sents  God  as  fickle  and  changeable.     He  is  the  one 
King  in   religious  mattery  so  the  analogy  does  not 
exist.     Moses  did  not  claim  to  be  the  Saviour,  nor 
did  any  other  prophet.     They  all  bore  witness  to 
Christ,   in   whom    alone   can   salvation   be   found 
(John   xvii.  2,  3;    Acts  iv.  12).      The   Messianic 
prophecies  are  the  essence  of  the   Old  Testament, 
and  that  of  the  New  is  contained  in  John  iii.  16. 
Moreover,  Christ  declares  «  Heaven  and  earth  shall 
pass  away,  but  My  words  shall  not  pass  away  " 
(Matt.  xxiv.  35).     He  states  that  at   His  second 
coming  He  is  to  be  the  judge  of  living  and  dead 
( -Matt.  xxv.  31-46  ;  cf.  Acts  iv.  J2).     Reason  show, 
us  that  these  things  can  never  be  annulled.     Your 

a 


98  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    PRESENT 

argument  in  proof  of  the  abrogation  of  the  Injil 
by  the  Qur'an  is  therefore  contrary  to  the  Qur'an 
itself,  to  the  Gospel,  and  to  Reason. 

78.  M.  Christ  and  Moses  gave  different  and 
contrary  commands  regarding  divorce.  Thus  we  see 
that  the  Gospel  did  annul  the  Law,  even  in  certain 
matters  of  morality. 

C.  Not  so :  for  Christ  tells  us  that  the  permission 
for  divorce  which  Moses  gave  (Mett.  xix.  3-10; 
cf.  Matt.  v.  31,  32),  because  of  the  "hardness  of 
heart"  of  the  Israelites,  was  but  temporary,  and 
it  was  given  only  in  order  doubtless  to  prevent 
worse  evils.  But  Christ  does  not  annul  this  by 
making  a  new  law  on  the  subject.  He  points  to 
the  fact  that,  in  Gen.  ii.  24,  God  had  once  for  all 
stated  the  eternal  Moral  Law  in  this  matter,  and 
that  that  Law  is  still  and  must  ever  be  in  force. 
Neither  Moses  nor  any  one  else  could  abrogate  that 
Law,  recorded  as  it  is  in  the  Taurat  itself.  It  is 
God's  law,  and  is  in  force  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  It  can  never  be  annulled, 
because  it  is  founded  on  the  eternal  principles  of 
morality. 

Somewhat  similarly  in  certain  countries  the 
people  are  so  prone  to  commit  murder,  and  think 
it  so  slight  a  crime,  that  the  legislature  of  those 
countries  has  attached  to  murder  something  less 
than  the  death  penalty:  otherwise  no  one  would 
ever  be  there  convicted  of  murder.  But  the  law 
of  God  on  the  subject  (Gen.  ix.  6)  cannot  be  altered 


AUTHORITY    OF    THE    BIBLE.  99 

or  annulled,  though  even  Christian  rulers  may 
reasonably  relax  the  punishment  in  such  cases,  in 
consequence  of  the  "  hardness  of  men's  hearts." 

There  is  therefore  no  ground  whatever  for  saying 
that  the  Gospel  or  any  other  part  of  the  Bible  has 
been  annulled  by  the  Qur'an,  even  if  we  accept  the 
latter  as  from  God.  The  opinion  of  Muslims  that 
the  Qur'an  has  annulled  the  Bible  is  contrary  (j )  to 
the  Qur'an  itself  (see  the  passages  referred  to  in 
§  6),  and  also  (2)  opposed  to  Reason  and  to  the 
distinct  statements  of  Christ  Himself  (Matt. 
xxiv.  35). 


a  2 


CHAPTER  IV. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  CERTAIN  LEADING  CHRISTIAN 
DOCTRINES  AS  ALLEGED  TO  BE  TAUGHT  IN  THE 
BIBLE. 

c 

79.  M.  You  claim  that  the  Bible  as  it  now 
exists  is  the  Word  of  God.  Yet  when  we  examine 
it  we  find  that  it  is  made  up  of  books  which  bear 
certain  men's  names,  as  the  Gospels  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  the  Letters  of  St.  Paul,  and 
so  on.  Again,  it  contains  the  history  of  the  Israel 
ites,  tales  about  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  and 
even  a  letter  from  Judas  the  traitor.  How  can  we 
accept  such  a  book  as  having  come  down  from 
heaven  ?  Which  of  the  four  Gospels  is  the  one 
which  descended  on  Jesus,  the  Son  of  Mary  ?  Is 
not  your  doctrine  that  this  Bible  of  yours  is  a 
Divine  Revelation  (J^  tanzU1)  contrary  both  to 
Reason  and  to  the  Qur'an  ? 

C.  This  whole  objection,  like  very  many  others, 
arises  from  a  misunderstanding.  The  Epistle  of 
Jude  was  not  written  by  the  traitor  Judas,  who 
was  dead  long  before  it  was  written.  If  you  read 
the  very  first  verse  of  the  Epistle,  you  will  see 
that  it  is  from  the  hand  of  Judas  the  "  brother 

1  The  word  properly  means  something  "sent  down." 


OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES.        IOI 

of  James,"  and  this  apostle  is  thus  described  in 
Luke  vi.  16,  and  Acts  i.  13  \     Again,  how  can  it  be 
contrary  to  the  Qur'an  to  speak  of  the  Bible  as  the 
Word  of  God,  when  the  Qur'an  itself  (Surah  II.,  Al 
Baqarah,  70)  gives  it  that  very  title  ?  We  have  proved 
that  the  Bible  which  we  now  have  is  the  same  as 
that  which  the  Jews  and  Christians  had  in  Muham 
mad's  day,  and  surely  you  do  not  accuse  him  of 
giving  you  as  from  God  teaching  contrary  to  reason. 
The  Gospels  are  not  strictly  called  those  of  St. 
Matthew,  St.  Mark,  St.  Luke,  and  St.  John,  but  in 
Greek  the  title  is  "the  Gospel  according  to  (Kara) 
Matthew,"  &c.      The    word    Gospel  means    "good 
news,"  in  Arabic  »,LLJ1  \TujU  J~»j1  being  a  mere 
corruption  of  EvoyyeAioi;],  that  is  to  say,  the  good 
news  of  God's  love  towards  mankind  as  shown 
by  His  offering  us  salvation  through  Jesus  Christ. 
Four  men  were  directed  and  inspired  by  God  to 
relate  to  us,  each  in  his  own  words,  under  Divine 
inspiration  and  guidance,  the  sayings  and  doings 
of   Christ,    so   that   we    might   not   depend  upon 
merely  one  single  man's  evidence  regarding  such 
an  important  matter.     There  is  only  one  "  Gospel," 
as  there  is  only  one   Christ,  but  the  one  Gospel 
is  transmitted  to  us  in  four  separate  ways,  so  to 
speak,  though  delivered  to  us  by  Christ 2  Himself, 
who   claimed   that   His    teaching   was   from    God 

1  The  other  view,  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  Judr 
ll  the  one  mentioned  in  Matt.  xiii.  55,  is  more  commonly  held. 
But  the  result  is  the  same,  t.  <?.,  he  was  not  Iscariot. 

3  Vide  note  to  §  37. 


102        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

(John  vii.  16  ;  viii.  28  ;  xii.  49,  50  ;  xiv.  10,  24). 
We  Christians  do  not  believe  that  the  Law  and 
the  Gospel  were  written  down  in  heaven  ages 
before  the  creation  of  the  world  and  then  brought 
down  piecemeal  to  the  prophets  and  dictated  to 
them  word  for  word.  Such  a  doctrine  might 
perhaps  be  described  as  contrary  to  Reason,  but 
you  Muslims  at  any  rate  could  not  bring  such 
an  argument  against  us  without  condemning  your 
selves.  It  is  true  that  the  Bible  does  contain  a 
great  deal  of  history,  because  our  faith  rests  upon 
historical  facts,  not  upon  fancies  and  assertions. 
But  the  history  of  the  Israelites  and  the  narratives 
given  us  of  the  lives  of  prophets  and  apostles  are 
capable  of  being  proved  true,  and  have  been  so 
proved  wherever  means  exist  of  testing  them.  We 
do  not  find  in  the  Bible  statements  like  some  in 
the  Qur'an,  e.  g.  that  Haman  was  Pharaoh's  wazir 
(cf.  Surahs  XXVIIL,  Al  Qisas,  5;  XXIX.,  Al 
'Ankabut,  38  ;  XL.,  Al  Mu'min,  25,  38),  and  that 
the  Virgin  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  was  sister  of 
Aaron  (Surah  XIX.,  Maryam,  29)  and  daughter 
of  'Imran  (Amram)  (Surah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  31,  &c.), 
and  hence  identical  with  Miriam  the  sister  of  Moses 
and  Aaron 1.  God  teaches  by  the  history  contained 
in  the  Bible  the  reason  for  the  coming  of  Christ 

1  In  a  note  Sale  refers  to  the  Muhammadan  attempt  to 
answer  this  charge  brought  against  the  Qur'an.  All  they  can 
say  is  that  the  Virgin  Mary  had  a  brother  called  Aaron,  &c.  &c. 
But  this  is  only  assertion,  without  a  particle  of  proof. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        103 

and  the  manner  in  which  His  way  was  prepared. 
There  is  good  reason,  therefore,  why  so  large  a 
portion  of  the  Bible  should  consist  of  history, 
telling  us  of  God's  dealings  with  mankind,  and 
revealing  to  us  God's  view  of  human  history.  In 
this  way  we  learn  to  judge  our  own  conduct,  and 
perceive  that  «  Righteousness  exalteth  a  nation, 
but  sin  is  a  reproach  to  any  people"  (Prov.  xiv. 
34).  The  Epistles  that  bear  the  names  of  certain 
apostles  were  written  by  them  under  Divine  guid 
ance  (John  xiv.  26),  and  hence,  as  "  all  l  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God"  (2  Tim.  iii.  16),  the 
Qur'an  is  justified  in  giving  the  Bible  the  title 
of  the  "  Word  of  God,"  and  so  are  we.  In  our 
view  of  Inspiration,  God  did  not  use  merely  the 
apostles'  or  prophets'  mouths  or  hands,  but  made 
use  of  their  whole  being,  the  wisdom  which  He 
had  bestowed  on  them,  their  minds  and  hearts  and 
souls  and  spirits  as  well  as  their  bodies,  to  convey 
His  message  to  men.  When  we  find,  therefore, 
a  human  element  in  Scripture,  this  by  no  means 
disproves  its  inspiration,  since  we  do  not  hold 
an  illogical  view  of  inspiration  like  that  held  by 
some,  as  for  example  the  Hindus  and  the  Sikhs. 
Nor  do  we  hold  the  Muhammadan  view  of  Inspira 
tion,  which  seems  to  us  to  bo  illogical  too.  If  you 
consider  all  these  facts  I  think  you  will  perceive 
that  in  accepting  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God  we 


UVMTK  *oi  (ty^os  irp^  MaaxaXiav.     As   ,\ 
w.-Il  known,  this  v.-rse  is  differently  rendered  by  sum,-. 


104        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

are  not  upholding  a   doctrine  which  is  in  itself 
opposed  to  Reason  or  even  to  the  Qur'an. 

80.  If.  But  many  of  your  doctrines,  which  you 
say  are  taught  in  the  Bible,  are  contrary  to  both. 
For  example,  your  Bible  represents  all  men  except 
Christ  as  sinners — even  the  prophets.  Consider 
what  shameful  tales  it  tells  of  the  sins  of  Lot, 
David,  and  Solomon.  Even  Moses  is  said  to  have 
sinned.  Peter  is  said  to  have  thrice*  denied  Christ, 
and  Paul  speaks  of  himself  as  the  chief  of  sinners. 
Is  it  not  contrary  to  reason  to  represent  God  as 
using  wicked  men  as  His  messengers  ?  We  deem 
all  the  prophets  sinless  (.,7-0**),  at  least  after1  their 
call  to  the  prophetic  office. 

C.  And  thereby  you  contradict  your  own  Qur'an, 
which  mentions  sins  as  committed  by  all  the 
prophets  except  Jesus,  regarding  whom  alone  it 
is  never  said  that  He  sinned  or  asked  pardon 
for  having  sinned.  Your  traditions  (v^ojU.1)  agree 
with  this :  for  Imam  Muslim  tells  us  that  Muham 
mad  said  to  'Ayishah  that  every  child  who  is  born 
of  Adam's  seed  is  at  his  birth  pricked  by  Satan, 
except  Jesus  and  His  mother 2.  Imam  Ghazzali  says 
that  Satan  declared  that  he  had  been  present  at 
the  birth  of  every  child  except  at  that  of  Jesus. 
This  agrees  with  Surah  III.,  Al  'Irnran,  31:  i(  I  have 

1  This  is  said  to  be  the  correct  form  of  the  dogma,  but  Muslims 
generally  seem  to  forget  this  clause,  at  least  at  the  outset  of  an 
argument  on  the  subject  :  vide  §  82. 

2  Or,  'touched  under  the  rib.'    Vide  Mishkat,  Bab  XXV.,  fasl. 
i.,  i,  and  Bab  I.,  fasl.  iii.,  i. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.         105 

named   her   Mary,  and   I  commend  her   and   her 
offspring  to  Thy  protection  from  Satan  the  stoned." 

81.  M.    Where    does    the    Qur'an    accuse    the 
prophets  of  sin  ? 

1 C.  In  very  many  places,  as  for  example : — 
(«)  Adaw  is  accused  of  sin  in  Surahs  XX.,  Ta  Ha,  119, 
and  in  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  33.  34.  He  sinned  in  dis 
believing  God's  word  and  in  disobeying  His  com 
mand,  and  als£  in  believing  what  Satan  said  and 
in  obeying  him.  From  the  words  *Zj  ^  ^^  j  (wa 
*a*a  Aflamu  ralbahu,  "  and  Adam  rebelled  against  his 
Lord  ")  in  the  first  of  these  passages  it  is  clear  that 
Adam's  sin  deserved  the  punishment  of  hell  fire,  in 
accordance  with  Surah  LXXIL,  Al  Jinn,  24,  and 
it  was  one  of  the  greater  (  J&S  kabdh')  sins. 

82.  M.    But   Ar  Razi  says  that   Adam  sinned 
before  he   became   a   prophet,   hence   this   cannot 
be    counted    as    a   sin    committed    by    a   />r»/i/n-f. 
Moreover,  Ar  Razi  states  that  Adam  repented  and 
was  forgiven,  and  that  his  sin  was  not  imputed 
to  him. 

C.  How  does  Ar  Razi  know  that  Adam  sinned 
before  becoming  a  prophet  ?  Besides,  you  accused 
us  Christians  of  holding  irrational  views  and  ideas 
contrary  to  the  Qur'an  in  thinking  that  **  God 
chose  sinful  men  as  prophets."  Baizawi  agrees 
with  Ar  Razi  in  acknowledging  that  Adam  sinned. 
The  very  fact  of  his  repentance  proves  his  sin, 

1  Vi«l«-   llfititlm'l  Mujtahidin,  pp.  29  sqq.,  and  also  Mr.  ,7am.  I 
Monn/.-  tr;i'-t»  mentioned  in  tin- 


IO6       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

as  does  his  being  pardoned,  for  even  Almighty 
God  cannot  forgive  a  sin  that  has  not  been  com 
mitted  in  thought,  word  or  deed. 

83.  M.  What  other  prophets  are  said  in  the 
Qur'an  to  have  sinned  ? 

C.  (b)  Noah  is  represented  in  Surah  LXXL,  Nfth, 
29,  as  asking  forgiveness  for  himself.  This  im 
plies  that  he  had  sinned,  otherwise  the  words 
are  meaningless.  «• 

(c)  Abraham  was  guilty  of  idolatry  (e)^),  as  is 
stated  in  Surah  VI.,  Al  An'am,  76,  77,  78.     This 
is  the  one  sin  for  which,  according  to  Surah  IV., 
An  Nisa/,  51,  116,  there  is  no  forgiveness.    In  Surah 
II.,  Al  Baqarah,  262,  we  are  told  that  Abraham 
doubted  God's  power  to  raise  the  dead  (and  this  is 
confirmed    by   the    expression  ^  dLUb    ^\    ^.so 
p^Ajjl).     This   is    another   of  the  u greater"    sins. 
Imam   Muslim   and  Bukhari    on   Surah  XXI.,  Al 
Anbiya',  64,  quote  from  Abu  Hurairah  a  saying  of 
Muhammad  that  Abraham  told  "  only  "  three  lies, 
all  of  which  are  mentioned  in  the  Qur'an 1.   Abraham 
confessed  that  he  had  sinned,  and  prayed  for  pardon 
(Surah  XIV.,  Ibrahim,  42),  so  there  can  be  no  doubt 
about  his  guilt. 

(d)  Moses,  we  are  told  in  Surah  XXVIII., Al  Qisas, 
14,  15,  committed  murder,  and  confessed  that  this 
was  the  work  of  Satan ;  he  asked  for  forgiveness 
and  was  pardoned.    In  Surah  XXVI.,  Ash  Shu'ara', 
19,  Moses  confessed  that   he   had  done   the  deed 

1  Cf.  Mishkat,  Bab  XXIII.,  fasl.  xii. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        107 


when  he  was  one  of  the  "  transgressors  "  . 

In  Sarah  VII,  Al  A'rAf,  150,  Moses  begged  forgive 
ness  for  himself  and  his  brother  Aaron,  thus  con 
fessing  that  they  had  loth  sinned.  He  also  sinned 
in  throwing  down  the  two  tablets  of  the  Law,  and 
in  insulting  Aaron,  as  there  recorded.  Some  of 
these  sins  were  of  the  "  greater  "  order. 

(e)  Aaron,  as  is  confessed  by  Moses  in  the  last 
quoted  passage,  sinned  in  permitting  the  idolatry 
of  the  Israelites  when  they  worshipped  the  Golden 


(/)  Joseph  is  accused  of  sinning  in  thought  by 
Wahidi  (KitdMl  Bavit)  in  his  comment  on  the 
word  ^  in  Surah  XIL,  Yusuf,  24,  though  this  is  not 
in  accordance  with  the  Biblical  account  of  the  inci 
dent  there  referred  to,  and  the  Arabic  may  be 
otherwise  understood. 

(ff)  David,  in  Surah  XXXVIIL,  Sad,  23,  24,  asked 
forgiveness,  repented,  and  was  forgiven.  Uns  bin 
Malik,  Ibn  'Abbas  and  Wahab  agree  in  thus  ex 
plaining  the  text. 

(k)  Solomon  also,  in  Surah  XXXVIIL,  Sad,  34,  we 
are  told,  asked  forgiveness.  He  must  therefore 
have  been  conscious  of  guilt. 

(/)  Jonah  too  is  said  in  Surah  XXXVIL,  As  Safat, 
1  39-i  44,  to  have  fled  from  God's  command  and 
to  have  therefore  been  "  blameworthy  "  (^Ju).  The 
passage  clearly  states  that  this  sin  was'  committed 
at  the  time  when  ]„•  was  one  of  God's  messengers 
or  "apostles  "  (ov^L,JJ  ^  min  al  m 


T08        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

Do  not  therefore  accuse  us  of  altering  the  Bible 
by  inserting  accusations  against  the  prophets. 
Your  own  Qur'an  does  this ;  and  if  we  agree  with 
the  Qur'an  in  holding  that  the  prophets  were 
sinners  who  repented,  what  is  there  against  reason 
in  the  belief l  ?  At  any  rate,  any  fault  you  find  with 
the  Bible  in  this  respect  recoils  upon  the  Qur'an. 

84.  M.  The   prophets  are  by  us   called   sinless 
because  they  repented  and  their  sias  were  there 
fore  not  reckoned  to  them. 

C.  If  that  is  what  you  mean,  your  argument 
against  the  Bible,  on  the  ground  that  it  mentions 
that  the  prophets  did  commit  sins,  falls  to  the 
ground,  for  you  say  the  same  thing  yourselves. 
We  are  not  called  upon  to  discuss  the  entirely 
different  question  whether  or  not  God  forgave  them 
their  sins.  Before  He  could  forgive  them,  they  must 
have  committed  sins  which  required  forgiveness. 

85.  M.   At  least  Muhammad   is   never  said  to 
have  committed  sin. 

C.  If  you  read  what  Muhammadan  writers  have 
related  concerning  his  life,  his  treatment  of  the 
Jews,  his  conduct  towards  those  who  had  lam 
pooned  him,  his  matrimonial  relations,  and  other 

1  A  well  known  Tradition  states  that  on  the  Judgment  Day 
every  prophet  except  Jesus,  when  asked  to  act  as  Mediator  or 
Intercessor,  will  decline,  alleging  his  sins  as  a  reason  for  not 
being  able  to  do  so.  Unfortunately,  however,  this  Tradition 
represents  Muhammad  as  undertaking  the  task,  which  our 
Lord  also  is  said  to  decline,  though  He  gives  no  reason  for  so 
doing.  (Mishkat,  Bab  XXIII.,  fasl.  xi.). 


AS    ALLEGED    TO     BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        109 

such  matters,  you  will  be  able  to  form  an  opinion 
of  your  own  upon  that  matter. 

86.  M.  Some  of  these  things  would  have  been 
wrong  in  any  one  else,  but  in  the  Apostle  of  God 
they  were  not,  because  God  commanded  him  to  act 
as  he  did.  Certain  privileges  also  were  granted 
him  in  matrimonial  matters  because  he  was  God's 
chosen  one.  This  we  learn  from  Surah  XXXIII  Al 
Ahzab,  38.  • 

C.  The  affair  of  Zainab,  to  which  that  verse  refers, 
and  which  is  dealt  with  in  the  preceding  (v.  37)  verse 
of  that  Surah,  is  one  upon  which  it  would  be  well 
to  reflect  before  pronouncing  Muhammad  sinless. 

87.  M.  The  Quran  never  attributes  sin  to 
Muhammad. 

a  In  Surah  XLVIH.,  Al  Fath,  3,  God  is  repre 
sented  as  saying  to  Muhammad,  "  Verily,  we  have 
won  for  thee  an  undoubted  victory,  in  order  that 
God  might  forgive  thee  what  went  before  of  thy 
fault  and  what  followed  after1."  'Abbasi  says  that 
this  means  the  faults  he  committed  before  he 

1  Zamakshari  is  commenting  on  this  verse  says :  «  <  What  went 
I"  f<-re  of  thy  fault,'  i.e.  the  matt, •r.-f/aiuab,  <  and  what  f.,11, ,w,-,l 
after,'  i.e.  the  matter  of  Mai-yam  (Mary  the  Copt)."  In  both 
the*  cases,  as  Muslims  must  thus  confess,  Mulmmnia,|\ 
•<•  n.ual  passions  were  the  cause  of  his  sin.  (Kov.  Dr  Zwemer 
Tradition  represent*  Muhammad  u  acknowledging  Ins  0WB 
MMiuln,^.  Cf.  Hayutu'l  Qulub,  vol.  II,  pp.  75,  30I  .  UtohkU, 
I-  ii'.,  i;  and  fad.  vii.,  i;  J{al,  XXII.,  I.,,],  rfl  - 
Ijal,  IV.,  la.rl.  xii.,  i  ;  fasl.  xix.,  I  ;  la  I.  xx.v.,  ,.  Vl,|,  Mr.  James 
«onry.  Ticking  of  the  Moulds  as  to  the  Sinfulness  of  Maho,, 
-•i,.l  \- A.  I'art>  I  an.l  II  . 


110        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

received  inspiration,  and  those  that  he  should 
commit  even  until  his  death.  Again,  in  Surah 
XLVIL,  Muhammad,  21,  he  is  bidden  "Ask  pardon 
for  thy  sin,  and  for  believers,  both  men  and 
women."  In  Surah  XL.,  Al  Mu'inin,  57,  and  Surah 
IV.,  An  Nisa',  106,  the  command  to  Muhammad  to 
ask  for  pardon  is  repeated :  cf.  also  Surah  XCIV., 
Al  Inshirah,  1-3.  If  you  accept  the  Qur'an  as 
a  revelation  from  God,  you  must  penueive  that  God 
is  here  represented  as  commanding  Muhammad  to 
ask  forgiveness,  and  as  promising  to  grant  it. 
Does  not  this  amount  to  a  Divine  assertion  of 
Muhammad's  sinfulness? 

88.  M.  By  no  means,  for  our  commentators  for 
the  most  part,  as  Ar  Razi  and  Zamakshari,  explain 
this  by   saying  that   by  "thy  offence"  is   meant 
"  thy  people's  offence." 

C.  You  must  see  that  the  passage  above  quoted 
from  Surah  XLVIL,  Muhammad,  ai,  refutes  this 
argument,  for  there  he  is  bidden  to  pray  for 
forgiveness  for  his  own  sin  first,  and  then  for  those 
of  "  believing  men  and  believing  women." 

89.  M.  The  word  used  (vloi)  does  not  mean  sin 
but  only  fault :    it  is  explained   by  Baizawi   (on 
Surah  XL.,  Al  Mu'min,  57)   as   denoting   in  that 
passage  some  remissness  on  Muhammad's  part  in 
spreading  the  true   religion.     In  reference  to  the 
prophets  it  means  only  the  natural  weakness  of 
man,  to  overcome  which  he  requires  the  strength 
and  support  of  God. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.         Ill 

C.  With  reference  to  Adam,  Abraham,  Moses, 
Jonah,  Solomon  and  others,  we  have  seen  that  it 
means  much  more  than  that.  In  Surah  LY.,  Ar 
Rahman,  39,  the  word  tank  (v-^)  in  the  plural  is 
applied  to  the  sins  of  \>Q\\\jinns  and  men.  In  Surah 
XXVIIL,  Al  Qisas,  78,  it  is  thus  said  of  idolaters, 
"But  such  sinners  [^^-^s^  mnjrim^na\  need  not  be 
asked  about  their  crimes  [vjoJ  zunui~\"  The  To/sir 
i  lluxaihi  distinctly  and  rightly  says  that  this  is  said 
of  idol-worshippers  ;  and  their  sin  is  the  unpardon 
able  one.  This  text  shows  that  a  junn.  [*/*•]  *s 
rightly  called  a  qanb  [v-Ji],  so  that  the  latter  word 
does  not  denote  a  slight  and  unavoidable  weakness 
but  a  sin  actually  committed.  In  Surah  LXVIL, 
Al  Mulk,  1  1,  the  souls  of  the  wicked  "  shall  confess 
their  sin  "  (^J3)  in  hell-fire.  In  Surah  XII.,  Yilsuf, 
39,  the  crime  of  Potiphar's  wife  (lying,  slander, 
lust)  is  called  ^3.  In  Surah  XCL,  Ash  Shams,  14, 
the  people  of  Thamud  are  said  to  have  been  de 
stroyed  for  their  ^i,  which  consisted  in  accusing 
their  Prophet  Salih  of  imposture,  disobeying  God's 
command,  and  slaying  the  Prophet's  camel.  Hence 
the  Qur'an  itself  proves  that  u>Ji  does  not  mean 
mere  human  weakness,  or  at  worst  some  trivial 
otfence,  for  the  word  is  used  of  "greater"  sins 


90.  JA  Muhammad,  like  all  others  who  are  of 
the  number  of  the  cj^V*-*  (***JflfraW*4f,  those  nearest 
to  God),  felt  remorse  for  even  slight  faults,  and  to 
him  they  seemed  serious. 


112        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

C.  But,  if  the  Qur'an  is  not  Muhammad's  com 
position  but  God's,  it  is  not  Mv-kammad  but  God 
who  speaks  of  Muhammad's  acts  as  crimes  (vj^)- 
[Moreover,  tradition  shows  that  Muhammad  con 
fessed  his  own  sinfulness,  for  Muslim  and  Bukhari 
relate  that  when  he  said  to  his  followers,  "  Not  even 
one  of  you  shall  enter  Paradise  except  through  the 
mercy  of  God  Most  High,"  and  was  asked,  "Not 
even  thou,  0  Apostle  of  God  ?"  he  said,  "Not  even 
I,  except  that  God  through  His  mercy  cover  me." 
Abu  Hurairah  relates  that  he  heard  Muhammad 
saying,  "Verily  I  ask  God  for  pardon,  and  I  turn 
to  Him  in  penitence  seventy  times  in  the  day.'' 
In  the  Mishkdtul  Masdbth  (Babul  Masdjid,  sect.  ii. 
p.  62)  we  are  told  by  Tirmadhi  and  Ahmar  and  Ibn 
Majah,  on  the  authority  of  Fatimah,  Muhammad's 
granddaughter,  that  whenever  Muhammad  entered 
the  Mosque  he  used  to  say,  "  0  my  Lord,  forgive 
me  my  sins  (Vj-^)  and  open  to  me  the  gates  of  Thy 
mercy,"  and  on  going  out  again  he  used  to  say, 
"  0  my  Lord,  forgive  me  my  sins  and  open  to  me 
the  gates  of  Thy  grace."] — My  object  is  merely  to 
show  you  that  in  speaking  of  the  sins  of  the 
Prophets  the  Qur'an  does  not  contradict  the  Bible, 
and  that  your  argument  against  the  Bible  on  this 
point  falls  to  the  ground,  if  you  accept  the  teaching 
of  your  own  Qur'an.  Remember  too  that  the 
Quran  agrees  with  the  Bible  in  never  accusing  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  of  sin. 

91.  M.  When  Jesus   said,  "There  is  none  good 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        113 

but  one,  that  is  God,"  did  He  not  imply  l  that  He 
was  not  sinless?  (Luke  xviii.  19  ;  see  bent  reading)2. 
C.  The  idea  that  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  verso 
is  refuted  by  the  whole  tenor  of  the  Gospels,  and 
by  His  own  words,  John  viii.  46.  (See  also  T  Pet. 
ii.  22  ;  J  John  iii.  5  ;  Heb.  iv.  15.)  It  means,  "If 
you  call  Me  good,  remember  that  means  more  than 
an  empty  compliment.  Only  God  is  good  :  hence, 
if  you  acknowledge  Me  to  be  good,  you  recognize 
My  oneness  with  the  Father3." 

92.  M.  Baptism   was   given    only   to   repentant 
sinners,  yet  Jesus  was  baptized  (Matt.  iii.  1 3  sqq. ; 
Luke  iii.  21).     Does  not  this  prove  that  He  was 
not  sinless,  if  we  accept  your  Gospels  ? 

C.  If  you  read  what  John  the  Baptist  said  in 
Matt.  iii.  14,  you  will  obtain  an  answer  to  this 
question. 

93.  M.  Why  then  does  the  Gospel  say  that  Christ 
was  crucified,  which  the  Qur'an  denies?     If  He 
was  crucified  (which  we  deny),  He  must  have  been 

1  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  says,  «•  I  used  to  lay  stress  on  the 
form  of  the  question,  *  Wlnj  ralN-st  th«.u  me?'  &c.,  i.e.,  'On 
what  grounds  do  you  think  what  is  implied  in  the  word  good?' 
See  Dean  Chuivh's  famous  M  rmon  on  the  t«-xt." 

a  Muslims   also   sometimes   argue   that   Ps.    li.   5  applies   i<> 
Christ  as  well  as  to  other  men.     (Rev.  J.  I.  Hasler.)     But     I 
vii.  14  :  Matt.  i.  18-25  :  Luke  i.  35)  Christ'*  Immaculate  Conception 
i>  a.lmitt.-d  l.y  tin-  IJurYin  ^Vido  §§  80.  116,  117,  Il8). 

Dr.    H.    Martin    Clark    says,  "  In    my  ttp0ri*nM    tl..-    in-st 
h.-lpful  UMIWer  i-  »••  point  out  that  Christ  did  n>.t  n-pudiat.-  His 
p.-t-'iial  goodlMM,   '"•'•an>o  to  one  who  professed  t<> 
all    tin-   Law  of  God   He  said,  '  On<^  thin.ir  th-.u 
Mo'  (Mark  x.  21  :  Luke  xviii.  22)." 
11 


114       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHKISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

a  sinner  and  a  false  prophet,  according  to  the 
Taurat :  for  in  Deut.  xviii.  20  [cf.  xiii.  5,  and  Jer. 
xiv.  14,  1 5,  and  Zech.  xiii.  3]  it  is  prophesied  that 
a  false  prophet  "  shall  die,"  that  is,  shall  be  put  to 
death. 

C.  This  is  not  a  prophecy  but  a  command.  It 
is  one  thing  to  say  that  a  false  prophet  shall  be  put 
to  death,  and  quite  a  different  thing  to  declare  that 
every  prophet  who  was  put  to  death  was  a  false 
prophet.  For  example,  John  (Yahya')  the  Baptist 
was  put  to  death,  but  the  Qur'an  speaks  of  him  as 
a  true  prophet  in  Surah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  34  (and  in 
Surah  XIX.,  Maryam,  13,  he  is  mentioned  as  given 
"the  Book"  by  God:  cf.  verses  1-15*  also  Surah 
XXI.,  Al  Anbiya',  89,  90).  Abel  [Habil]  was  slain 
by  his  brother  (Surah  V.,  Al  Maidah,  33),  but  that 
did  not  prove  him  to  be  a  false  teacher.  So  also 
in  Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  81,  and  Surah  V.,  Al 
Maidah,  74,  it  is  said  that  the  Israelites  slew  some 
true  apostles  sent  to  them  by  God. 

94.  M.  But  the  Qur'an  distinctly  denies  that 
Jesus  was  crucified  and  slain  by  the  Jews  (Surah 
IV.,  An  Nisa',  156),  which  the  Gospels  assert. 

C.  Possibly  the  reason  why  the  Qur'an  denies 
that  He  was  crucified  by  the  Jews  is  because,  as  the 
Gospels  assert,  He  was  really  crucified,  not  by  the 
Jews,  but  by  the  Roman  soldiers  (Matt,  xxvii.  26- 
35)  at  the  command  of  Pontius  Pilate,  the  Roman 
governor  of  Judaea  (Matt,  xxvii.  2,  26) 1.  The  guilt, 

1  This  is  suggested  only  as  a  way  for  Muslims  to  escape  from 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        115 

nevertheless,  rested  on  the  Jews  (Matt,  xxvii.  24, 
25  ;  Acts  ii.  23).  The  Qur'an,  however,  elsewhere 
(SCtrah  III.,  Arirnran,48,  and  Surah  XIX.,  Mary  am, 
34,  and  perhaps  in  Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa',  157) 
speaks  of  Jesus'  death,  though  your  commentators 
endeavour  to  explain  that  this  is  yet  future1.  We 
are  quite  willing  to  grant  that  in  this  matter 
the  Qur'an  contradicts  the  whole  teaching  of  the 
apostles  and  of1  many  of  the  prophets  (cf.  Ps.  xxii. ; 
Isa.  Hii.)  on  the  subject,  but  that  shakes  the  argu 
ment  in  favour  of  the  Quran,  not  that  in  favour  of 
the  Bible. 

95.  M.  Why  do  you  think  that  He  was  cru 
cified  ? 

C.  Because  (i)  the  prophets  foretold  it;  (2)  the 
Gospel  relates  it;  (3)  the  apostles  testify  to  it; 
(4)  the  Jews  confess  it ;  and  (5)  so  do  the  Romans, 
as  their  historians  testify.  When  the  guilty  parties 
themselves  confess  the  crime,  how  can  we  doubt 
their  guilt?  Certain  heretics  in  early  times,  like 
Mani  in  Persia,  said  that  the  Jews  had  crucified 
some  one  else2  in  mistake  for  Jesus,  but  this  is 

a  difficulty.  Christians  consider  that  the  Qur'an  is  wrong  here, 
as  it  implies  that  Christ  did  not  die  on  the  cross. 

1  Yet  Baizawi  admits  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  cross,  but 
says  He  remained  without  life  for  only  a  few  hours.  Vi«l-  his 
commentary,  Cairo  edition.  roL  i.  p.  209.  (Rev.  Dr.  /women) 

a  See  Mo^heim's  History,  Bead's  edition,  Cent.  III.,  Pt.  II., 
Cap.  v.,  §  6.  Mani  (Ep.  Fund.  ;ip.  Evodium)  taught  "  Prinr.-ps 
it;,,,u.  t,.|i«.|.ranun  .Tii.-i  ed  ailixu-."  '1  IM-  i;n>ili'l  1X11  h.-iiii  that 
Sim«.n  of  Cyrene  had  been  crucified  in  mistak.  f,,r  Christ;  the 
"  Gospel  of  Barnabas"  says  Juda-  \va^.  i'hotius  mentions  that 
II  2 


Il6       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

contrary  to  the  testimony  of  the  Word  of  God,  and 
therefore  should  not  be  believed.  Those  who  were 
present,  like  the  apostle  John,  testify  to  Christ's 
crucifixion,  while  those  who  deny  it  were  born 
hundreds  of  years  afterwards  and  cannot  therefore 
be  accepted  as  witnesses.  The  punishment  of  the 
Jews  for  their  terrible  crime  is  evident  to  every 
one,  and  this  is  an  additional  proof  that  they  are 
right  in  saying  that  they  were  guilty  of  crucifying 
Jesus 1. 

[The  following  arguments  on  the  Muhammadan 
side  may  be  entered  here,  as  they  are  in  some  measure 
answered  in  the  reply  to  the  preceding-  question. 
We  therefore  reply  to  them  very  briefly  :— ] 

96.  M.  If  what  your  New  Testament  says  about 
the  deity  of  Christ  be  correct,  then  why  was 
Muhammad  sent  to  reclaim  men  from  error  by 
bidding  them  not  call  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  1 

C.  You  here  acknowledge  that  the  New  Testa 
ment  does  teach  the  Divine  Sonship  of  Christ.  As 
the  Qur'an  was  sent  to  "  confirm  "  the  Gospel,  and 

the  book  called  the  TlepioSoi  JAiroaTo\ojv  taught  that  Christ  was 
not  crucified,  but  some  one  else  in  His  stead.  Muhammad's 
denial  of  our  Lord's  crucifixion  was  based  on  Docetic  error. 

1  The  Kev.  M.  G.  Goldsmith  mentions  as  standing  proofs  from 
Church  history  those  afforded  by  : — (i)  The  use  of  the  sign  of  the 
cross  ;  (2)  The  Lord's  Supper  ;  (3)  The  ancient  creeds  (Nicene, 
A.D.  325,  &c.).  Perhaps,  however,  Muslims  can  hardly  grasp  the 
value  of  these  proofs.  But  the  Bishop  of  Lahore  thinks  that 
the  immensely  strong  evidential  value  of  these  things  can  be 
put  clearly  and  briefly  so  as  to  be  understood  by  Muhammadans. 
(See  The  Death  of  Christ,  published  by  the  C.  M.  S.  in  1885.) 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        117 

as  the  Gospel  has  not  been  corrupted  since  Mu 
hammad's  time,  you  have  logically  no  escape  from 
admitting  the  doctrine  to  be  true,  if  you  believe  in 
the  Quran.  You  have  not  proved  that  Muhammad 
was  sent  by  God,  and  you  can  hardly  expect  us  to 
admit  it  without  proof.  The  question  you  put  is 
an  argument  against  your  own  religion  and  Mu 
hammad's  claim,  if  he  really  did  come  to  deny 
a  doctrine  taught  in  the  Gospel,  for  that  would  be 
to  lead  men  astray.  But  the  Qur  an  does  not  tell 
us  that  he  came  to  bid  men  not  call  Jesus  the  Son 
of  God,  but  rather  to  recall  them  to  the  faith  of 
Abraham.  Hence  he  was  born  not  among  Christians 
(believers  in  Christ,  of  whose  coming  Abraham 
received  the  promise)  but  among  the  heathen  Arabs. 
The  Qur'an  denounces  carnal  ideas  like  those  which 
led  the  Arabs  to  attribute  daughters  to  God,  but 
these  are  not  what  the  Gospel  inculcates  when  it 
calls  Christ  God's  Son.  (Vide  §  114.) 

97.  M.  At  one  time  Christians  did  not  believe  in 
the  deity  of  Christ. 

C.  That  is  not  correct.  In  early  times  the  Arians 
and  other  heretics  arose  and  denied  His  perfect 
deity,  but  they  were  confuted  by  arguments  drawn 
from  the  Bible,  and  also  the  old  creeds  of  the 
various  Christian  Churches  were  adduced  in  proof 
tlmt  the  Arian  heresy  was  a  new  and  false 
doctrine  \ 

1  See  Ottley,    The    Doctrine  of   the    Incarnation ;     Athanasius 
Orations  against  the  Arians.  &c. 


Il8       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

98.  M.  If  God  had  a   son,  He  must  have  had 
a  wife :  but  to  assert  that  is  blasphemy l. 

C.  Certainly  it  is,  and  therefore  such  a  thought 
has  never  entered  into  a  Christian's  mind.  Your 
argument  shows  that  you  do  not  understand  in 
what  sense  we  believe  in  Christ's  Divine  Sonship 

(§  XI4)2. 

99.  M.  Where  is  it  written  in  the  Bible   that 

Jesus  Christ  is  God  ?  • 

C.  In  many  places,  e.  g.  Isa.  ix.  6 ;  John  i.  I  ; 
xx.  28,  &c. 

100.  M.  If  Christ  was  God,  how  was  it  possible 
for  Him  to  be  hungry,  to  be  tempted,  to  be  killed, 
as  your  Gospels  say  He  was.     Can  God  die  ? 

C.  The  Gospels  tell  us  that  there  are  three 
kypostases  (*--oU»l)  3  in  the  Divine  Unity  4,  as  we  shall 

1  A  more  learned  form  of  somewhat  the  same  objection  is  thus 
given  by  the  Kev.  T.  E.  Wade  from  a  written  controversy  : — 

M.  Between  the  begetter  and  the  begotten  there  must 
necessarily  be  either  the  likeness  of  species  or  that  of  genus.  But 
everything  that  implies,  as  this  does,  lack  or  change  in  the  Self- 
Existent  Eternal  One  is  impossible. 

C.  The  Christian  doctrine  of  the  eternal  generation  of  the  Son 
does  not  imply  lack  or  change  in  the  Godhead.  (Vide  also  §§  114, 
135-7,  147-166.)  The  question  ultimately  turns  not  upon 
metaphysics  but  on  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Biblical  teaching 
on  the  subject,  upon  which  rests  our  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

2  See    Rev.    Dr.    Rouse's    tract,    God    our    Father   (Christian 
Literature  Society  for  India). 

3  The  Arabic  word  (sing,  aqnum,  pi.  aqdmm)  comes  from  the 
Syriac  qnum,  which  is  used  in  the  technical  Christian  sense  of 
ovffia  or  viroaraffis.    Its  derivation  is  doubtful,  but  I  suggest  that 
it  is  the  Assyrian  qinum,  from  the  Sumerian  gin.    It  would  thus 
mean  "  that  which  is  firm,  enduring."       *  Cf.  Matt,  xxviii.  19. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        1 19 

see  in  discussing  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  One 
of  these,  the  Son  or  Word,  assumed  the  perfect 
nature  of  a  man  (John  i.  14),  and  in  His  human  nature 
was  hungry,  tempted,  slain.  God  cannot,  but  man 
can,  be  tempted  (Jas.  i.  13),  or  be  hungry,  or  die : 
hence,  in  order  to  suffer  thus  for  and  with  us,  Christ 
assumed  human  nature. 

101.  M.  How  could  Jesus  be  the  Son  of  God 
or  one  with  God,  since  on  the  cross  He  cried, 
"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me"? 

C.  This  is  a  quotation  from  Ps.  xxii.  i,  and  calls 
attention  to  the  fact  that  His  death  was  there 
prophesied  of.  That  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God 
and  one  with  His  Father  is  clear  from  His  own 
statements.  If  these  were  false,  how  can  the  Qur'an 
speak  of  Him  as  a  prophet?  He  spoke  in  His 
human  nature  on  the  cross,  just  as  in  His  human 
nature  He  suffered  and  died.  The  words  show  (i) 
that  His  was  a  real  human  body,  in  which  He  suffered 
mental  and  physical  pain  for  your  sake  and  for 
mine :  and  (2)  they  are  therefore  a  proof  of  His 
Humanity.  We  need  proofs  of  His  human  nature 
as  much  as  proofs  of  His  Deity,  for  both  natures 
in  union  were  requisite  to  make  His  atoning  work 
perfect  (§  loo)1. 

102.  M.  From  John  xvii.  3  it  is  clear  that  He 
was  distinct  from  God,  and  was  merely  sent  from 

1  Of  course  this  is  not  intended  as  a/wK  explanation  of  tho 
passage. 


120       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHEISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

God  like  other  prophets.  If  God  sent  Jesus,  then 
God  must  be  greater  than  Jesus. 

C.  These  are  some  of  the  difficulties  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  helps  us  to  understand. 
They  help  to  prove  that  doctrine,  for  all  Christ's 
teaching  must  be  true,  if  He  is  even  a  true  prophet  : 
and  He  made  these  and  other  statements  about 
Himself  (e.  g.  His  oneness  with  the  Father)  which 
can  be  reconciled  with  one  another  only  by  accepting 
that  doctrine.  Christians  have  always  acknowledged 
that  the  Father  is  the  "  Fountain  of  Deity,"  and  that 
in  lit  is  sense  the  Son  is  subordinate1  to  Him,  just  as 
the  ray  of  light  springs  from  the  sun  ;  but  the  sun 
would  not  be  the  sun  if  it  were  devoid  of  rays, 
nor  would  the  Father  be  Father  without  the  Son. 
(Vide  §  114.) 

103.  M.  How  can  Jesus  be  Divine  when  He  said 
that  He  could  do  nothing  of  Himself  (John  v. 


C.  A  careful  study  of  the  passage  will  show  that 
in  it  He  claimed  to  do  all  that  God  did.  How  then 
can  He  le  less  than  God  ?  Besides,  the  context  shows 
that  He  was  proving  that  what  He  did  was  in  ac- 

1  The  Eev.  P.  Z.  Easton  says  "The  fundamental  Muham- 
madan  objection  to  Christianity  is  that  Christianity  does  not 
teach  the  Unity  of  God.  This  objection  is  not  met  and  cannot 
be  met  by  any  presentation  of  Christianity  which  either  denies 
or  ignores  the  doctrine  of  the  subordination  of  the  Son  and 
Spirit  to  the  Father.  There  can  be  no  question  of  Arianism 
so  long  as  the  Son  is  set  forth  as  the  Eternal  Logos,  nor  of 
Sabellianism  so  long  as  the  Father  is  set  forth  as  the  root  and 
fountain  of  Deity." 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        321 

cm-dance  with  the  will  of  God  His  Father,  and  not 
contrary  thereto,  as  His  enemies  were  trying  to 
show. 

104.  M.  How  can  the  "  Word  of  God  "  be  God  I 
C.  We  shall  see  by  and  by  what  is  meant  by 

calling  Christ  the  "Word  of  God,"  as  the  Quran1 
does  as  well  as  the  Bible.  We  shall  then  see  that 
it  is  impossible  that  the  "  Word  of  God  "  should  be 
other  than  Divine. 

105.  M.  How  is  it  possible  for  the  Divine  to 
mingle  with  the  human,  the  Infinite  with  the  finite  ? 

C.  We  clearly  teach  that  the  Divine  nature  was 
not  confounded  or  mingled  with  the  human  in 
Christ,  but  that  the  Eternal  Word  of  God  assumed 
human  nature  without  any  lessening  of  His  own 
Divine  nature.  Of  course  our  knowledge  of  the 
Divine  nature  is  too  limited  for  us  to  understand 
the  whole  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  but  our 
reason  teaches  us  that  what  God  has  revealed  must 
be  true.  We  cannot  understand  /ton-  our  own 
immaterial  spirit  acts  upon  our  material  body ; 
how  much  less  can  we  understand  how  the  Divine 
can  unite  with  the  human.  We  must  therefore 
accept  what  God  has  taught  us  in  the  New 
Testament.  So  too  we  cannot  understand  how  the 
Kesurrection  will  occur,  or  how  God  created  all 

1  It    may   bo  said  that  the  value  of  tli-    t.-tim<>ny  •  .!'  the 
(Jur'an  in  tin-  ni.-itt.  r  is  iiiimilli-1  by  its  very  dinVr-nt  t.-U'-hin- 

,,r,  tli.-  s,ib]Y«-t  ebewhere.     But  if  the  (jm-'an  otmtrw&t 

that  Is  an  arumnent  against  the  book.     Muslims  have  tu  take  it 
as  it  a  a  ads. 


122        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

things  out  of  nothing,  yet  He  has  taught  us  that 
it  is  so,  and  we  know  that  He  is  true.  The  same 
thing  applies  to  the  Incarnation.  We  accept  it 
because  God  has  revealed  it. 

106.  M.  If,  as  you  say,  Jesus  did  not  foretell  the 
coming  of  Muhammad,  then   He   was    not   omni 
scient,  and  therefore  not  Divine. 

C.  This  begs  the  question  as  to  Muhammad's 
apostleship,  which  we  deny,  as  you  know,  since 
we  cannot  find  any  proof  of  it.  It  would  be  more 
logical  to  say,  since  Christ  did  not  foretell  the 
coming  of  Muhammad,  we  have  all  the  less  reason 
to  believe  the  latter's  claims  to  be  sent  from  God. 

107.  M.  If  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  why  did 
He  so  constantly  call  Himself  the  Son  of  Man  ? 

C.  That  He  was  the  Son  of  God  is  clear  from  many 
passages,  of  which  one  is  Matt.  xxvi.  63,  64,  where 
we  find  Him  answering  to  that  effect  on  oath.  He 
called  Himself  also  the  Son  of  Man  (not  a  Son  of  Man) 
to  make  His  real  Manhood  evident,  but  especially 
(i)  because  in  the  Syriac  language,  which  was  His 
mother-tongue,  the  expression,  Son  of  Man,  is  con 
tinually  used  to  denote  Man ;  (2)  because  Daniel 
(vii.  13)  uses  the  title  to  denote  the  Messiah,  and 
Jesus  claimed  to  be  that ;  (3)  because  of  the  promise 
that  a  man,  one  of  Adam's  descendants,  the  seed  of 
the  woman,  should  bruise  the  Serpent's  head  (Gen. 
iii.  15),  and  Christ  was  the  person  referred  to.  All 
this  we  learn  from  His  use  of  the  expression.  Thus 
the  Bible  teaches  that  He  is  both  God  and  Man. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        123 

108.  M.  Why  then  did  He  tell  His  disciples  not 
to  let  people  know  that  He  was  the  Christ  (Matt. 
xvi.  20)  ? 

C.  Because  the  time  had  not  yet  come  for  the 
announcement.  The  Jews  would  have  taken  up 
arms  to  make  Him  their  King,  if  they  had  then 
heard  that  the  Messiah  had  come,  as  they  tried  to 
do  (John  vi.  15).  Even  His  disciples  had  not  yet 
learnt  that,  instead  of  coming  to  receive  an  earthly 
kingdom,  He  had  come  to  die  on  the  cross.  He 
had  to  teach  them  this,  and  He  began  to  do  so  as 
soon  as  ever  they  had  learnt  that  He  was  the  Christ 
(Matt.  xvi.  16,  21). 

109.  M.  If  He  was  Divine,  He  ought  to  have  been 
omniscient,  as  God  is  (Surah  VI.,  Al  An  am,  59), 
yet  He  said  that  He  did  not  know  when  was  the 
time  fixed  for  the  Day  of  Judgment  (Matt.  xxiv. 
36;    Mark   xiii.    32).      [Nor   did    He    know   who 
touched  Him  (Mark  v.  i)1.] 

C.  In  the  very  verses  in  which  He  is  recorded  to 
have  said  this,  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  the  Son  of 
God.  Evidently  therefore  there  can  be  no  con 
tradiction  intended.  He  probably  meant  that  in 
His  human  nature  He  had  laid  aside  that  know 
ledge,  as  He  had  laid  aside  His  freedom  from 
suffering  and  death. 

110.  M.  If  He  was  God's  Son,  why  did  He  say 
that  He  could  not  give  a  place  on  His  right  or  on 

1  This  question  no  more  implies  ignorance  than  does  that  in 
Luke  xx.  24,  or  those  in  Gen.  iii.  9,  n,  13. 


124        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

His  left  except  to  those  for  whom  it  had  been 
prepared  by  God  (Matt.  xx.  23  ;  Mark  x.  40)  *? 

C.  Probably  for  the  same  reason1.  All  this  is 
explained  by  such  passages  as  lt  The  Word  became 
flesh"  (John  i.  14),  and  "  He  humbled  Himself" 
(Phil.  ii.  8) 2.  In  the  verses  you  quote,  Christ 
speaks  of  God  as  His  Father,  thereby  asserting 
His  own  Divine  Sonship. 

111.  M.  Many  of  the  passages  which  you  quote 
to  prove  the  deity  of  Jesus  do  not  prove  it  at  all. 
For  instance,  He  said,  "  Before  Abraham  was.  I  am  " 
(John  viii.  58).  Now  that  does  not  prove  His 
deity,  for  we  can  all  say  the  same  (since  Muslims 
believe  in  the  pre-existence  of  souls). 

C.  None  of  us  can  truthfully  say  the  same.  For, 
on  the  supposition  of  the  pre-existence  of  souls 
(a  doctrine  which  you  have  derived  from  heathen 
philosophers,  and  which  is  not  taught  by  the 
prophets  and  apostles),  if  Christ  had  meant  to  say 
merely  "  Before  Abraham  was  born,  I  existed,"  the 
phrase  would  have  been  meaningless,  since  (on  that 
theory)  Abraham  also  existed  before  his  birth. 
Whether  the  theory  be  true  or  false,  Christ  clearly 
stated  that  He  existed  before  Abraham  and  other 
creatures  came  into  existence  at  all.  This  shows 

1  Our  Lord's  answer  also  means  that  such  rewards  could  not 
justly  be  made  on  the  basis  of  simple  favouritism,  as  the  two 
apostles  wished,   but  must  depend   on  moral  characteristics. 
(Bishop  of  Lahore.) 

2  More  forcible  still  is  the  expression   in  verse  7,  titivcaatv 
tavrov. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        125 

that  He  claimed  not  to  be  a  creature  like  Abraham 
and  ourselves.  Moreover,  Christ  did  not  say, 
<•  Before  Abraham  was,  I  tea*"  but  "  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  am."  He  thereby  claimed  for  Himself  God's 
highest  title  (from  which  "  Jehovah  "  was  derived  : 
Exod.  iii.  14).  The  Jews  understood  this,  and,  not 
believing  in  Him,  desired  to  stone  Him  for  what 
they  considered  blasphemy.  So  the  passage  does 
bear  the  meaning  which  we  assign  to  it. 

112.  M.  Christ  is  only  a  prophet,  like  the 
prophets  which  were  before  Him. 

C.  That  is  contrary  to  the  Taurat,  the  Zabur,  the 
Injil,  and  the  Quran,  in  all  of  which  language  is 
used  of  Him  that  is  not  used  of  any  other  prophet. 
No  other  prophet  was  born  of  a  Virgin,  no  other  is 
called  "The  Word1  of  God"  (it  Ljtf)  Or  "a  Spirit 
from  Him  "  (L^  ^),  of  no  other  prophet  is  it  said 
that  he  was  "  illustrious  in  this  world  and  in  the 
next "  (Surah  III,  Al  'Irnran,  40),  and  He  is  the 
only  sinless  prophet. 

113.  M.  It  is  said  (Surah  III,  Al  'Imran,  52), 
"  Verily  the  similitude  of  Jesus  is  as  the  similitude 
of  Adam  "  in  the  sight  of  God  :  for  we  are  told  that 
God  "  created  him  of  dust :  He  then  said  to  him,  Be, 
and  He  was."  Hence  Jesus  was  not  the  Son  of  God 
in  any  other  sense  than  Adam  was,  to  whom  the 

1  The  exact  words  of  the  Quran   are:    "Innama  '1  Muslim 
'KV    'too     Marv.-ima    ra  -  ulu'llal.i    wa    kallmatuhu,   alqaha     Ha' 
Maryama,  wa  rnlnn.  minim  "  (Surah  IV.,  An  Nisii,'  169).     The 
contexi   ihowi  that  /.-,///„,«/«</*»«  ("His  \v,,i-,r^,  ,.«,uals 
•'God's  Word").     Vide§n8. 


126        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

title  Son  of  God  is  also  given  in  the  Gospel  (Luke 
iii.  38),  as  it  is  to  the  angels  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  to  believers  in  the  New  (i  John  iii.  2). 

C.  Doubtless  the  meaning  of  that  verse  in  the 
Qur'an  and  the  verse  in  Luke  is  that  Jesus  was  like 
Adam  in  having  no  human  father.  The  angels  are 
probably  called  sons  of  God  in  Job  i.  6 ;  ii.  I,  &c. 
But  neither  of  Adam  nor  of  the  angels  are  the  other 
things  said  that  are  said  of  Christ.  (Vide  Heb.  i.)  For 
example,  Adam  was  not  sinless,  nor  is  he  called 
"  The  Word  of  God  "  (vide  §§117,118,1 19).  All  the 
prophets  believed  in  Christ  and  received  life  from 
Him  (John  xiv.  6).  The  difference  between  them 
and  Him  is  seen  from  the  whole  teaching  of  the 
Bible  (e.  g.  John  i.  17,  18).  Believers  become  "  sons 
of  God  "  only  through  union  with  God's  Son  (John 
i.  12). 

114.  M.  The  Bible  certainly  does  call  Jesus  the 
Son  of  God  (John  i.  34,  &c.),  and  teaches  His  Deity. 
This  is  contrary  both  to  reason  and  to  the  Qur'an,  as 
is  clear  from  Surahs  IX.,  At  Taubah,  30  ;  X.,  Yvinus, 
69  ;  XXXIX.,  Az  Zumar,  6  ;  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  1 10 ; 
VI,  Al  An' am,  100,  101  ;  XIX.,  Maryam,  36,  91-93  ; 
LXXIL,  Al  Jinn,  3  ;  XLIIL,  Az  Zukhruf,  81 ;  CXIL, 
Al  Ikhlas,  3  ;  and  V.,  Al  Maidah,  19,  76,  78. 

C.  Many  of  these  verses  (e.  g.  VI.,  Al  An' am,  100, 
101)  show  that  what  Muhammad  wished  to  repudi 
ate  was  the  carnal  idea  of  the  generation  of  a  Son, 
an  idea  similar  to  that  which  the  heathens  of  Greece 
and  Rome  had  held  before  they  became  Christians, 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.         127 

just  as  the  Hindus  hold  it  now  regarding  some  of 
their  deities.     The  heathen  Arabs  of  Muhammad's 
time    held    it    also,    and    called    their    goddesses 
daughters    of    God    (Surah    XVI.,  An  Nahl,  59). 
Such  an  idea  is  blasphemous,  and  Christians  have 
never  held  it.     Centuries  before  Muhammad's  time 
a  learned  Christian  writer,  Lactantius,  wrote  a  work 
in  which  he  told  the  heathen  that  the  Christians 
did  not  hold  such  carnal  and  blasphemous  ideas 
regarding  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ  as  those 
which  were  attributed  to  them.     It  is  this  In-athm 
doctrine   which   is    contrary   to    reason,    not    the 
Christian  one.      When  the  Gospel   speaks  philo 
sophically,  it  speaks   of  Christ  as  "the  Word  of 
God  "  («u)T  L*tf).      The  expression  "  Son  of  God  " 
really  denotes  the  same  \  but  is  used  for  the  benefit 
of  simple  people.     It  reveals  the  Lore  which  must 
exist  between  the   Persons   (^Vsl  Jy«W///)  of  the 
Trinity.      No   human   language  can  be  really  in 
every  respect  suitable  to  express  the  realities   of 
the  Divine  nature,  but  we  are  quite  justified  in 
using  the  words  employed  by  the  inspired  writers 
themselves.     The  relationship  between  the  Persons 

1  This  is  the  reason  why  we  call  Christ  Ibnu'lldh  and  not 
Waladu'lldh.  In  Arabic  there  is  a  clear  and  beautiful  dis 
tinction  between  Ibn  and  Walad  ("Son"),  just  as  there  is 
b.-t\vi-«-n  Ab  and  Wdlid  ("Father").  Christians  never  use  the 
latter  of  each  group  of  words  (Walad  and  Wnlid  f'«»r  "  Son  "  and 
"Father"  respectively  in  reference  to  the  Trinity,  as  they 
denote  physical  Son.ship  and  Fatherhood  ;  not  so  the  won  I-  K  n 
and  .!'',  which  are  often  used  in  Arabic  in  &  spiritual  01 
j.h'.rkal  sense.  (Kev.  Dr.  Zwemer.) 


128       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

of  the  Godhead  so  transcends  all  human  thought 
and  language  that  we  cannot  fully  comprehend  or 
express  it.  Whether  we  call  Jesus  the  Son  of  God 
or  the  Word  of  God,  the  meaning  in  each  case 
is  to  express  His  Deity.  When  we  come  to  dis 
cuss  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  we  shall  see  that 
belief  in  His  Divine  Sonship  is  not  contrary  to 
reason  but  demanded  thereby.  No  true  doctrine 
can  be  directly  contrary  to  reason,  but  all  that 
concerns  the  nature  of  God  Most  High  may  well 
be  superior  to  our  fallible  and  limited  intellect. 
This  is  why  your  Tradition  (oiAjjua.  Jfa<UtJi]  says, 
"  Argument  about  the  nature  of  God  is  blasphemy  " 
(j^  4iJl  ui>lj>  ^  ^^Jl).  All  we  can  know  of  such 
matters  is  what  has  been  revealed  to  us  by  God 
Himself,  and  the  Bible  very  clearly  asserts  the 
Divine  Sonship  of  Jesus. 

115.  M.  The  Qur'an  denies  the  Deity  of  Jesus, 
and  declares  that  God  can  destroy  Him  (Surah  V., 
Al  Maidah,  19).  He  was  a  prophet,  and  is  com 
pared  to  Adam  (Surah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  52) ;  and  he 
was  a  servant  of  God  (Surah  XLIIL,  Az  Zukhruf, 
59:  cf.  V.,  Al  Maidah,  109,  no),  but  no  more. 
Your  Bible  must  therefore  be  wrong  in  proclaim 
ing  His  Deity. 

C.  Again  you  take  the  Qur'an  as  a  touchstone, 
and  assume  that  it  is  from  God.  This,  however, 
you  cannot  prove.  Until  it  is  proved,  the  argu 
ment  that  the  Qur'an  is  opposed  to  the  Bible  may 
shake  the  authority  of  the  Qur'dn  l>ut  not  that  of  the 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE,        129 

Bible.  For  the  Quran  not  only  confesses  the  Bible 
to  be  the  Word  of  God,  but  xta/cx  thai  It  wax  ifm-ff  sent 
down  to  confirm  and  guard  the  Bible ;  nay  more,  it 
appeals  to  the  Bible  in  support  of  MukammatT*  cLiims 
(Surah  VII,  Al  A'raf,  156  ;  Surah  LXL,  As  Saff,  6). 
Even  taking  into  consideration  the  verses  to  which 
you  refer,  the  teaching  regarding  Jesus  which  the 
Qur'an  gives  amounts  to  this,  that  He  is  far  higher 
in  nature  and  dignity  than  any  other  prophet. 

116.  M.  It  certainly  cannot  be  proved  from  the 
Qur'an  that  Jesus  is  superior  to  Muhammad,  who 
is  called  "  the  Apostle  l  of  God  and  the  Seal  of  the 
Prophets  "  (Surah  XXXIII.,  Al  Ahzab,  40). 

C.  Besides  these  titles,  the  first  of  which  is  given 
to  Salih  as  well  as  to  Muhammad  (Surah  XCL, 
Ash  Shams,  13),  the  latter  is  also  called  a  "Warner" 
(Surahs  LL,  Adh  Dhariyat,  50,  51  ;  XXIX.,  Al 
'Ankabut  49  ;  XV.,  Al  Hajr,  89).  But  we  are  told  by 
Tradition  (as  we  have  seen),  by  implication  at  least, 
that  he  was  not  exempted  from  receiving  the  prick 
of  Satan  at  his  birth.  He  needed  to  have  his 
breast  opened  and  his  burden  removed  (Surah 
XCIV.,  Al  Inshirah,  1-3),  and  his  sins  forgiven 
(Surah  XLVIL,  Muhammad,  21).  Moreover,  Mu 
hammad  died  and  was  buried,  and  he  wrought 
no  miracles.  Regarding  Christ  the  Qur'an  gives 
much  higher  testimony.  We  have  sivn  tliut 
Muhammad,  according  to  Tradition,  testified  that 
at  Christ's  birth  alone  Satan  was  not  present, 
Vide  note  at  the  end  of  Chaj.t.  i  VII. 
I 


I3O       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

nor  could  he  prick  Him 1.  We  have  seen  that, 
according  to  the  Qur'an,  Christ  did  not  die,  and 
that  He  was  taken  up  alive  to  Heaven,  where 
He  still  lives  *.  We  have  also  noticed  that  to  Him 
alone  of  the  prophets  no  sin  is  ascribed.  He  did 
not  need  to  have  His  breast  cleansed,  His  burden 
removed,  or  to  ask  forgiveness  of  His  sins.  Besides 
all  this,  the  Qur'an  acknowledges  that  Jesus  was 
born  of  a  virgin  (Surahs  LXVL,  At  Tahrim,  12  ; 
XXL,  Al  Anbiya',  91  ;  XIX.,  Maryam,  16-22 ;  III, 
Al  'Imran,  40-42),  through  God's  Spirit  (Surah  XXL, 
Al  Anbiya',  91),  and  was  strengthened  with  the 
Ho]y  Spirit  (Surah  II,  Al  Baqarah,  81,  254).  These 
things  are  said  of  no  other  prophet 3. 

117.  M.  Why  do  you  make  so  much  of  Jesus' 
birth  from  a  virgin  ?  The  Qur'an  teaches  us  that, 
no  doubt :  but  it  also  teaches  us  that  Adam  had 
neither  father  nor  mother.  Ought  he  not  then 
to  be  preferred  to  Christ,  with  whom  we  have  seen 
that  the  Qur'an  compares  him,  doubtless  for  this 
very  reason,  as  commentators  say  ? 

C,  If  that  is  the  reason  of  the  comparison,  why 
do  Muslims  try  to  explain  the  verse  (Surah  III., 

1  Vide  §  80. 

2  Mr.  Harding  says  :  "  I  have  found  most  effective  the  argu 
ment  that  Jesus  is  alive  and  Muhammad  is  dead."    This  is 
a  very  general  experience  of  missionaries,  and  much  use  should 
be  made  of  the  admitted  fad. 

3  A  missionary  should  use  the  Qur'an  only  as  a  subsidiary 
aid,  to  show  the  greatness  of  Jesus  even  from  the  took  on  which  the 
Muslims  rely,  but  not  to  prove  distinctively  Christian  truths. 
(Rev.  W.  A.  Eice.) 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        131 

Al  'Imran,  52)  as  implying  that  Christ  was  not 
greater  iJian  Adaml  The  verse  may  mean  that 
(as  the  New  Testament  says)  Christ  is  the  second 
Adam  ([  Cor.  xv.  45),  greater  than  the  first  because 
He  gives  spiritual  life,  whereas  it  is  merely  our 
natural  life  that  comes  from  the  first  Adam.  "  For 
as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be 
made  alive "  (i  Cor.  xv.  22).  Adam  was  not 
born  but  created :  Christ  was  born l  without  a  father. 
The  creation  of  Adam  was  in  this  respect  similar 
to  the  creation  of  the  world,  plants,  and  the  lower 
animals ;  whereas  the  Qur'an  itself  says  that 
Christ's  supernatural  birth  took  place  through 
God's  purpose  to  give  men  a  sign,  and  this  is  not 
said  of  any  other  prophet's  birth.  To  Abraham 
and  Zacharias  there  was  promised,  according  to  the 
Qur'an,  "  a  wise  son,"  "  a  righteous  prophet."  But 
regarding  Christ's  birth  the  language  used  is  very 
different,  for  of  Mary  it  is  said,  "  Her  who  kept  her 
maidenhood,  and  into  whom  We  breathed  of  Our 
spirit,  and  made  her  and  her  son  a  xi(jn  fo  all  crea(t>rc* 
(Siirah  XXL,  Al  Anbiyta ,  91).  The  Qur'an  there 
fore  represents  Christ's  birth  as  without  a  parallel. 

1  In  dealing  with  this  question,  I  used  to  lay  stress  on  the 
significance  of  interrupting  the  ordinary  method  of  human 
generation,  after  it  had  been  once  established,  in  the  case  of  our 
Lord,  and  of  Him  only.  If  the  human  race  was  to  commence  at 
all,  it  must  hare  been,  so  f;ir  a>  \v<>  c.-ui  see,  by  something  likt  fix- 
creation  of  Adam  directly  by  God  Himself.  But  this  is  wholly 
different  from  the  unique  interruption  in  the  chain  of  human 
life  once  it  had  been  started."  (Bishop  of  Lahore.) 

I  2 


132        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

The  same  language  is  used  neither  of  Muhammad 
nor  of  any  one  else.  Why  is  this,  except  because 
Christ  is  superior  to  all  other  prophets  ? 

118.  M.  He  is  a  servant  of  God  and  an  apostle, 
but  no  more. 

C.  He  is  that,  but  also  much  more.  In  Isa. 
liii.  ii  He  is  styled  God's  servant,  but  the  expres 
sion  is  "  My  righteous  servant,"  because  He  was 
the  only  one  of  the  prophets  who  was  without  sin, 
as  the  Qur'an  acknowledges.  In  Phil.  ii.  6,  7, 
we  are  told  that  He  was  much  more  than  this 
originally,  but  "took  upon  Him  the  form  of  a 
servant"  for  your  salvation  and  for  mine.  The 
Qur'an  agrees  with  the  Bible  in  stating  that  He 
was  much  more  than  a  servant  of  God  and  an 
apostle  of  God,  for  in  Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa',  169,  He 
is  called  "  An  apostle  of  God  and  His  Word  (JJLJ5) 
which  He  conveyed  into  Mary,  and  a  spirit  from 
Himself " ;  and  in  S&rah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  40  we 
read,  "  When  the  angel  said, '  0  Mary,  verily  God 
announceth  to  thee  the  Word  from  Him  :  His  name 
shall  be  Messiah,  Jesus  the  Son  of  Mary,  illustrious 
((4.^*3)  in  this  world  and  in  the  next,  and  one 
of  those  who  have  near  access  to  God  (^^ail  cr»)  V 
Here  Christ  is  called  "His  Word,"  and  "the  Word 
from  Him,"  and  "a  spirit  from  Him."  These 
titles  must  have  some  meaning,  and  they  are 
applied  to  no  other  than  to  Christ.  No  other 
prophet  has  such  lofty 1  titles  given  him  by  God. 

1  "  I  always  used  to  quote  the  titles  of  the  other  five  greater 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        133 

119.  M.   Ar  Razi  and  Jalalain  well  explain  this 
by  saying  that  Jesus  is  called  the  Word  of  God 
because  He  was  created  by  God's  command,  born 
without  a  father. 

C.  If  we  assume  this  explanation  to  be  sufficient, 
we  still  see  that  He  was  superior  to  all  other 
prophets  in  that  very  particular.  But  the  explana 
tion  is  wrong,  for  Adam  was  created  without  either 
father  or  mother  by  God's  command,  but  is  not 
called  God's  Word.  We  shall  consider  the  full 
meaning  of  this  title  when  treating  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity1.  Meanwhile,  is  not  God's  Word 
or  "  a  spirit  from  Him  "  greater  than  any  apostle 2 
or  messenger  can  be  ?  Moreover,  Jesus  is  said 
to  be  "  illustrious  in  this  world  and  in  tfie  next" 
which  is  not  said  of  any  other  prophet. 

120.  M.   In   Surah   XXXIII.,   Al  Ahzab,  69  it 
is  said  of  Moses  that  "  with  God  he  was  illustrious  " 

jjjl  ±±c.  ^  kdna  'inda  'lldhi  wajihan). 
C.  Yes,  but  not  that  he  was  "illustrious  in 
this  world  and  in  the  next."  Ar  Razi  explains 
the  "  illustriousness "  (laUj  wajdliali)  of  Moses  as 
consisting  in  his  "  knowledge "  of  God  (i^-xil 
al  marifa/i]  :  whereas  Zamakshari  in  his  Al  Kash- 
shaf  explains  that  of  Jesus  as  "  The  office  of  prophet 

prophets,  and  show  how  each  of  them  can  obviously  be  ;ip|>li<  >l 
to  a  creature,  and  then  contrast  with  these  the  titles  *  The  Word 
of  God,'  'The  Spirit  of  God,1  given  by  Muslims  to  Christ." 
(Bishop  of  Lahon-.) 

1  Vide  §§  158  sqq. 

a  In  Arabic  apostle  (-)  is  used  of  any  messenger. 


134       OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 


and  supremacy  (*JJS^J1  at  taqadduni)  over  men,  in  this 
world  ;  and  in  the  next  world  the  office  of  inter 
cessor  (aLftUjJl  ash  shqfaaJi)  and  loftiness  of  rank  in 
Paradise  V  So  clear  is  it  from  the  Qur'an  that 
Christ  was  superior  to  Moses  as  well  as  to  all  other 
prophets.  Here  again  the  Qur'an  harmonizes  to 
some  extent  with  the  Bible;  for  in  Heb.  iii.  5,  6, 
we  read  :  "  And  Moses  verily  was  faithful  in  all 
His  (i.  e.  God's)  house  as  a  servant  ;  .  .  .  but  Christ 
as  a  son,  over  His  own  house."  Besides  all  this, 
there  is  another  passage  in  the  Qur'an  which  goes 
further  and  ascribes  Divine  power  to  Jesus. 

121.  M.  Impossible. 

C.  Is  not  the  act  of  creating  (<jl^  al  Khalq) 
peculiar  to  God,  and  an  act  of  Divine  power  1 

122.  M.  It  is. 

C.  Well  then,  in  Surah  III.,  Al  'Irnran,  43,  Jesus 
is  represented  as  saying,  "  Verily  I  CREATE  (jl 
tjla.1  inni  akhlaqu)  for  you  from  clay  as  it  were  the 
likeness  of  a  bird,  then  I  breathe  into  it,  then  it 
becomes  a  bird  by  God's  permission."  Here  the 
Qur'an  represents  Him  as  creating  a  bird  2  in  the 
same  way  in  which  God  created  Adam,  when  He 

1  The  Rev.  W.  Goldsack  observes  that  Baizawi  uses  similar 
language  in  his  comment  on  Surah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  40.  Baizawi's 

words  are  IcUUT  s^iSl  <y  j  jjj^Itt  W^f  ^J  ^W^  : 
"The  illustriousness  in  this  world  is  the  office  of  a  Prophet,  and 
that  in  the  next  world  the  office  of  Intercessor." 

a  Vide  Ibhdthu'l  Mujtahidin,  pp.  62  sqq.  Of  course  it  is  possible 
that  Muhammad  used  the  verb  khalaqa  here  in  a  loose  sense, 
but  a  Muslim  can  hardly  grant  that. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        135 

formed  him  from  the  dust  of  the  earth  and  breathed 
into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life  (Gen.  ii.  7). 

123.  M.  The   Gospel   does   not  say  that  Christ 
made  a  bird  in  this  way. 

C.  We  are  not  now  talking  of  the  evidence  of  the 
Gospel  but  of  that  which  the  Qur'an  gives  to  Christ's 
superiority  to  the  rest  of  the  prophets.  The  New 
Testament  says  that  all  things  were  created  in  or 
through  Christ  (Col.  i.  16  ;  John  i.  3). 

124.  M.   The  Qur'an  says  that  the  bird  was  made 
"  by  God's  permission." 

C.  Of  course :  the  Gospel  says  that  all  that 
Christ  does  is  in  accordance  with  the  will  and  per 
mission  of  God  (John  v.  19  ;  viii.  28). 

125.  M.   We  honour  Jesus  more  than  you  do,  for 
we  call  Him  "  a  spirit  from  God."     But  we  do  not 
thereby  imply  His  Deity.      All   men   are  spirits 
from  God. 

C.  All  men's  spirits  were  created  by  God,  which 
is  a  different  thing.  Your  last  words  hardly  agree 
with  your  preceding  ones.  Nor  does  the  Qur'an 
call  any  other  man  <;  a  spirit  from  God,"  as  it  does 
Christ  (Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa',  169).  According  to 
your  argument  this  expression  becomes  meaning 
less.  If  you  honour  Jesus  more  than  we  do,  why 
do  you  assert  that  Muhammad  was  superior  to 
Him,  and  why  have  you  left  Christ  to  follow 
Muhammad1  ? 

1  The  proper  way  to  honour  a  prophet  is  to  hear  and  obey 
his  Divinely  given  message.  (Rev.  W.  A.  Rice.) 


136        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

126.  M.  Because  Muhammad's  miracles  were  far 
greater  than  Christ's  \ 

C.  The  Qur'an  acknowledges  that  Christ  wrought 
miracles  (Surah  II.,  Al  Baqarah,  254,  &c.),  but  denies 
that  Muhammad  did  so.  Christ's  are  acknowledged 
not  only  in  the  New  Testament  but  by  the  Jews 
(who  thought  they  were  wrought  by  magic,  but  yet 
could  not  deny  that  they  were  really  performed,  as 
their  own  books  show),  and  by  the  Muhammadans, 
in  accordance  with  the  Qur'an,  while  none  but 
Muslims  believe  that  Muhammad  wrought  any 
miracles.  Of  his  miracles  we  have  no  contem 
porary  written  account,  for  those  mentioned  in  the 
Traditions  were  not  written  down  till  long  after 
the  death  of  his  contemporaries.  Moreover,  the 
Qur'an  shows  clearly  that  he  wrought  none. 

127.  M.  Our  Traditions  are  full  of  accounts  of 
Muhammad's  miracles,  and  moreover  the  Qur'an 
asserts  that  it  is  itself  a  miracle  (Surah  X.,  Yunus, 
38,  39).     Besides  this,  the  Qur'an  records  the  split 
ting  of  the  moon  (Surah  LIV.,  Al  Qamar,  i),  the 
night  journey  (Surah  XVII.,  Al  Asra',  i),  and  the 
victory  at  Badr  (Surahs  X.,  Yunus,   n,  and  III., 
Al  'Imran,  n).     In  addition  to  this  we  have  the 
prophecy  in   Surah   XXX.,  Ar   Rum,  1-3:   "The 
Greeks  have  been  defeated  in  a  land  hard  by,  and 

1  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  says,  "  I  do  not  think  that  any  at  all 
well-instructed  Muhammadan  would  make  this  reply."  But 
the  majority  of  them  are  not  well  instructed,  and,  if  they  accept 
the  teaching  of  such  books  as  the  Rauzatu'l  Ahbdb,  for  instance, 
they  are  led  to  think  and  say  so. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        137 

after  their  defeat  they  shall  defeat  (their  foes)  in 
a  few  years."    The  Persians  under  Khusrau  Parviz 
[A.D.   615,  B.H.   6]    defeated  the   Greeks,  and   in 
accordance  with  this  prophecy  the  Greeks  under 
Heraclius  defeated  the  Persians  [in  A.D.  625,  A.H.  3] 
ten  years  later.    This  wonderful  prophecy  is  of  itself 
a  sufficient  proof  of  Muhammad's  being  a  prophet. 
C.  Let  us  take  the  prophecy  first.     As  the  text 
stands,  the  verses  assert  that  the  Greeks  would  be 
victorious  "within   a   few   years"  (c^i—  /^  (j}> 
Jalalain's  commentary  explains    ^  as  denoting 
a  period  "between  three  years  and  nine  or  ten," 
and  asserts  that  the  Greeks  gained  their  victory 
"  in  the  seventh  year."     It  was  not,  however,  until 
rather  more  than  ten  years  had  elapsed  that  they 
were  victorious.     Nor  was  this  statement  of  Mu 
hammad  worthy   of  being  called  a  prophecy,  for 
it  was  not  difficult  for  a  clever  man  to  see  that 
the  Roman  Empire  was  stronger  than  the  Persian, 
and  would  in  the  long  run  prove  victorious.     But 
we  know  that  the  vowel  points  were  not  written 
in  the  early  copies  of  the  Qur'an ;  hence,  had  the 
Greeks  again  been  defeated,  the  passage  would  have 
been  just  as  correct,  for  the  word    ^jU**-1  8"Va~ 
gMildnat"\h*y  shall  defeat,"  would  have  been  read, 
with  a  change  of  two  vowels,  J,^li-U  9ayngUMnal 
"  they  shall  be  defeated."   You  must  really  produce 
some  better  proof  than  this,  if  you  can.     The  Bible 
prophecies  are  of  quite  a  different  description,  as 
we  have  already  seen. 


138        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

Now  let  us  consider  the  alleged  miracles  of 
Muhammad.  The  victory  at  Badr  was  not  a 
miracle,  for  many  idolaters  have  gained  quite  as 
great  victories.  No  one  but  Muhammad  seems  to 
have  seen  the  angels  who  are  said  to  have  fought 
on  his  side.  As  for  the  Night  Journey,  commen 
tators  differ  regarding  it.  Muhiyyu'ddin  says  it 
has  only  a  spiritual  meaning,  and  'Ayishah  asserted 
that  during  that  whole  night  Muhammad  had  not 
quitted  her  chamber1.  There  are  no  witnesses  of 
the  event,  and  there  is  this  strong  evidence  against 
it.  Regarding  the  splitting  of  the  moon  2  (j+jd\  JU'), 
commentators  and  traditions  differ.  According  to 
some,  the  passage  means  that  one  of  the  signs 
of  the  approach  of  the  "Hour" — that  is,  the  Day 
of  Judgment — will  be  the  splitting  of  the  moon. 
Perhaps  so,  but  we  must  wait  till  then  to  know 
whether  this  is  a  true  prophecy  or  not.  This  seems 
to  be  the  clear  meaning  of  the  verse,  and  so  'Abbasi 
understands  that  the  splitting  in  two  of  the  moon 
and  the  appearance  of  Dajjal  will  be  signs  that  the 
Resurrection  is  at  hand.  If  so,  you  can  hardly 
assert  that  the  Qur'an  here  attributes  a  miracle  to 
Muhammad.  If  the  moon  had  thus  been  split, 

1  Vide  the  opinions  of  Muslim  commentators  and  the  Tradi 
tions  quoted  on  this  point  in  my  Yandbiu'l  Islam. 

2  On  the  question  whether  the  first  verse  of  Surah  LIV., 
Al  Qamar,  is  borrowed  from  a  Qafidah  of  Imrau'l  Qais,  see 
Appendix  to  Ch.  II  of  my  Original  Sources  of  the  Quran.     The 
Rev.  Dr.  Zwemer  says   that   learned  Muslims  in  Arabia  are 
much  perplexed  about  the  matter. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        139 

doubtless  some  record  of  it  would  have  been  kept 
by  astronomers,  and  the  moon  would  still  bear 
marks  of  it.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  Again, 
had  the  moon  been  split,  that  would  have  been  no 
proof  of  Muhammad's  being  an  apostle.  For  (i) 
it  would  not  be  evident  that  tie  had  done  the  deed 
(which  even  the  Qur'an  does  not  ascribe  to  him) ; 
and  (2)  injuring  part  of  God's  creation  would 
not  of  itself  suffice  to  prove  a  Divine  commission. 
How  different  would  such  a  deed  have  been 
from  the  miracles  of  mercy  wrought  by  Christ 
and  testified  to  in  the  Qur'an  itself:  raising  the 
dead,  opening  the  eyes  of  the  blind,  healing 
the  lepers,  &c.  (Sarahs  V.,  Al  Maidah,  no;  III., 
Al  'Imran,  43). 

Nor  again  can  the  Qur'an  itself  be  considered 
a  miracle.  All  Arabic  scholars  are  not  agreed  that 
its  style  is  superior  to  that  of  the  Mu'allaqat  or 
to  that  of  the  Maqainat  of  Al  Hariri,  although  the 
fact  that  Muhammadans  have  for  ages  regarded 
it  as  of  Divine  composition  has,  by  many  people, 
caused  it  to  be  deemed  the  model  of  the  best  Arabic 
style1.  But  even  if  we  acknowledge  its  style  to 

1  But  in  one  or  two  places  it  contains  grammatical  errors : 
e.g.  in  Surah  XIII.,  Ar  Ra'd,  28,  wo  have  al  qululm  'llculh'nm  ; 
in  Surah  XX.,  Ta  Ha,  66,  we  find  in  Iniillnini  instead  of  inna 
hadhaini.  Vide  also  Mandru'l  Haqq,  Arabic  Ed.,  pp.  14-16  ;  also 
iV.M.-ke's  Geschichte  d«s  Qurans',  also  the  Appendix  on  the 
slyl.-  of  the  Qur'an  in  the  Maqdlahfi'l  Mam  (an  Arabic  revision 
.-'s  "Introduction").  It  also  contains  not  a  lV\v  f-m-iu'ii 
wordt  ;is  K.mi;m,  Taghut,  Tabut,  and  others),  so  that  its 
lan-uage  is  not  pure  Arabic.  (Vide  Yatidbl'u'l  IsW»u.) 


140        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

be  unrivalled  in  Arabic,  that  does  not  prove  it  a 
miracle.  In  Sanskrit  the  Rig-Veda  is  a  work  which 
cannot  be  imitated  successfully ;  in  English  no 
dramatist  equals  Shakespeare ;  in  Persian  Hafiz  is 
unique  in  one  form  of  composition,  Firdausi  in 
another.  Yet  no  one  supposes  that  these  authors 
were  prophets  on  this  account.  In  a  book  which 
claims  to  be  inspired  we  look  not  for  elegance  of 
style  but  for  true  doctrinal  teaching  l,  as  we  do  even 
in  the  case  of  ordinary  theological  works  in  our 
own  time.  When  we  test  the  Qur'an  in  this  way, 
we  find  no  reason  for  accepting  it  as  a  revelation 
(J^jjj)  from  God.  Nay  rather  [as  is  shown  in 
The  Original  Sources  of  the  Qur'an],  we  come  to 
a  contrary  conclusion. 

128.  M.  How  can  you  say  that  the  Qur'an  denies 
that  Muhammad  had  power  to  work  miracles,  when 
the  Traditions  relate  so  many  ? 

C.  The  Qur'an  informs  us  that  the  unbelievers 
challenged  Muhammad  to  work  miracles,  and  that 
he  evaded  the  demand  by  saying  that  miracles 
were  in  the  power  of  God  alone,  and  that  he  was 
not  sent  with  miracles  but  with  verses  from  the 

1  The  teaching  of  the  Qur'an  ought— as  is  well  shown  in  the 
late  Rev.  Dr.  Koelle's  Food  for  Reflection— to  be  as  far  deeper  than, 
and  superior  to,  that  of  the  New  Testament  as  that  of  the  latter 
is  to  the  Old  Testament,  if  the  Qur'an  were  a  later  and  more 
perfect  revelation  from  God.  This  is  not  the  case.  On  the 
contrary,  while  the  Bible  deals  with  the  great  facts  of  sin  and 
salvation  most  fully,  the  Qur'an  almost  ignores  them,  and  its 
teaching  is  distinctly  on  a  far  lower  level  than  that  of  the  Law 
of  Moses. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        14! 

Qur'an,  lest  the  Arabs  should  see  miracles  and  still 
disbelieve,  and  therefore  be  destroyed  as  other 
unbelieving  peoples  had  been.  This  is  what  we  learn 
from  the  following  passages:  Surahs  XXIX.,  Al 
'Ankabut,  49,  5° ;  XIII.,  Ar  Ra'd,  8,  30 ;  VI,  Al 
An'am,  37, 57,  109 ;  IL,  Al  Baqarah,  112;  X.,  Yunus, 
21  ;  XVIL,  Al  Asra' ',  93,  95,  96;  VII.,  Al  A'raf,  202. 
But  the  statement  in  Surah  XVII.,  Al  Asra',  6 1  is  the 
clearest  of  all :  "  Nothing  hindered  Us  from  sending 
(thee)  with  miracles,  except  that  the  peoples  of  old 
treated  them  as  lies2."  It  is  quite  clear  from  this 
that  Muhammad  did  not  work  miracles,  for  the 
Qur'an  represents  God  as  explaining  why  that  power 
had  not  been  given  to  him. 

129.  M.  The  Qur'an  itself  is  a  sufficient  miracle, 
as  we  see  in  the  same  Surah,  verse  91  :  "  Say  thou  : 
Assuredly  if  mankind  and  the  Jinn  should  con 
spire  to  produce  the  like 3  of  this  Qur'an,  they  could 

1  Also  called  Surah  Bani  Isrdil. 

2  In  his  commentary  on   this  passage  Bai?awi  thus   para 
phrases  it :  "That  is  to  say:  'We  have  abstained  from  sending 
thee  with  miracles,'  as  the  Quraish   demand,   'only   because 
the  former  peoples'— those  of  like  temper  with  tlnni,  as  tlu> 
tribes  of 'Ad  and  Thamud — 'gave  them  the  lie  :'  and  so  like 
wise  would  these  men  of  Mecca:  'and  they  would  ..1hrr\\  !-• 
have  been  destroyed  according  to  our  wont'  (i.  e.  if  they  had 
rejected  the  miracles)  ;  so  '  We  determined  not  to  destroy  tin  m.' 
seeing  that  there  are  amongst  them  those  that  believe,  or  will 
have  believing  seed."     (Quoted  in  Sir  W.  Muir's  English  renion 
of  Sweet  Firstfruits,  p.  141.)     'ALhuM  adopts  virtually  the  same 
explanation. 

8  The   Qur'an   does   not    tell   us  in  what   the  likeness  is  to 
consist,  \vhfth«T  in  eloquence  or  in  something  else.     Hence  the 


142        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES 

not  produce  its  like,  though  the  one  should  help 
the  other."  The  miracles  granted  to  the  prophets 
varied  with  the  requirements  of  each  separate  age. 
In  Moses'  time  the  power  of  the  magicians  was 
greatly  feared,  therefore  the  miracles  of  Moses 
resembled  theirs,  but  were  more  wonderful.  In 
Jesus'  time  the  healing  art  had  reached  its  acme', 
hence  Jesus  came  with  miracles  of  healing,  which  at 
that  time  impressed  people  more  than  anything  else 
would  have  done.  So  in  Muhammad's  time  eloquence 
among  the  Arabs  had  reached  perfection,  and  he 
was  sent  with  the  Qur'an,  a  marvel  of  eloquence, 
which  no  one  could  equal.  Even  if  he  wrought 
no  other  miracle,  this  was  quite  enough  for  the 
"  illiterate  prophet "  to  do. 

C.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  Qur'an  is  not 
a  miracle.  Many  other  books,  in  other  languages, 
far  surpass  it  in  eloquence :  for  example,  the  Book 
of  Isaiah  the  prophet,  the  Psalms  of  David,  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  to  say  nothing  of  the  works 
of  the  Arabic,  European,  Indian,  and  Persian 
writers  already  mentioned.  Eloquence  cannot  be 
considered  as  sufficient  proof  of  a  prophet's  calling. 
We  now  know  from  what  erroneous  sources1  the 
Qur'an  was  derived,  and  this  alone  suffices  to  prove 
that  the  book  is  not  from  the  all- wise  God. 

difficulty  in  "  bringing  a  verse  like  "  one  of  those  in  the  Qur'an. 
(Dr.  H.  M.  Clark.) 

1  See  this  proved  in  my  Yanabl'u'l  Islam,  and  Original  Sources  of 
the  Qur'an. 


AS    ALLEGED    TO    BE    TAUGHT    IN    THE    BIBLE.        143 

From  this  whole  investigation  we  see  that  the 
Qur'an  itself  ascribes  a  higher  power,  dignity,  and 
nature  to  Christ  than  to  Muhammad  or  to  any  of 
the  prophets,  since  Christ  is  represented  as  alone 
sinless,  miraculously  born,  and  the  worker  of 
miracles,  and  is  called  "  God's  Word  "  and  "  A  spirit 
from  Him."  Moreover,  the  ability  to  create,  which 
is  peculiar  to  God  the  Creator,  is  ascribed  to  Christ. 
Should  not,  therefore,  believers  in  the  Qur'an  give 
due  weight  to  these  statements  regarding  Christ  ? 
The  Gospels  give  us  His  own  statements  about 

'  Himself,  which  agree  with  these  assertions  of  the 
Qur'an,  though  other  verses  in  the  Qur'an  may 
conflict  with  these.  It  follows  therefore  that  our 

'  statements  about  the  deity  of  Christ  should  not  be 
rejected  without  careful  study  of  the  Bible,  to  which 
your  own  Qur'an  bears  such  high  testimony.  In  fJie 
Jlihle  you  will  see  that  His  deity  is  repeatedly 
asserted  in  the  clearest  terms '.  And 'surely,  if  you 
believe  what  your  own  Qur'&n  says  of  Christ,  it  is 

1  It  is  not  necessary  here  to  quote  passages  to  prove  this  to 
a  Christian  missionary.  He  will  know  where  to  find  them  in 
both  the  Old  and  the  New  TY-taim-nt.  Vide  Liddon's  Bampton' 
Lectures  on  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  Bull's  Defensio  Fidei  Nicaenae, 
&c.  &c.  Rev.  Dr.  Rouse,  in  a  tract  on  The  Nature  of  God,  well 
and  simply  shows  that  the  attributes  of  God  are  displayed  and 
,  claimed  by  Christ  as  His  own,  and  assigned  to  Him  in  Scripture, 
BO  that  very  many  of  the  "ninety-nine"  special  names  or 
titles  which  Muslim  thr"l«»»ijms  uiv«»  to  God  suit  what  tin- 
Bibl'-  t-lU  us  of  Jt'sus  Christ.  Hi-  indicates  th«-  -aim-  lin«-  «-f 
argument  in  reference  to  the  II«>ly  Spirit.  (Vide  Up.  Harold 
Browne  on  Art.  I.  of  the  Thirty-Nine  Articles.) 


144        OBJECTIONS    TO    SOME    CHRISTIAN    DOCTRIN1 

unreasonable  to  disbelieve  His  own  statements  at 
Himself,  for  He  who  is  "  the  Word  of  God  "  cann 
lie,  since  God  is  Truth  (JU1  Al  Haqq)^  and  Christ 
is  Himself  spoken  of  in  the  Qur'an  as  "  The  Speech 
of  the  Truth  "  (jJJ  Jy  Qaulu'l  Hagq)  \ 

1  Surah  XIX.,  Maryam,  35.     (Rev.  W.  Goldsack.) 


CHAPTER  V. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  CERTAIN  LEADING  CHRISTIAN 

DOCTRINES  (continued). 

THE  TRINITY1. 

130.  M.  FROM  your  belief  in  the  Deity  of  Christ 
rings    the    Christian    doctrine    of    the    Trinity. 
;s  is  one  of  the  greatest  faults  in  Christianity, 
e  Muslims  are  Monotheists,  whereas  you  Chris- 
ens  believe  in  three  Gods.     This  is  contrary  to 
ie  Qur'an  and  to  Reason  2  itself.     How  can  you 
sk  us  to  abandon  Monotheism  for  such  an  impious 
nd  irrational  doctrine  ? 

1  Vide  §§  102,  114,  135.  "The  Christian  doctrine  of  the 
'rinity  is  this:  There  is  but  one  God  ;  but  in  this  Godhead  the 
dost  High  God,  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  God,  these 
»ree,  are  present  in  a  way  which  man  cannot  comprehend, 
he  Word  of  God  became  man,  was  conceived  by  the  power  of 
he  Spirit  of  God  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  became 
evealed  as  Jesus  Christ."  (Rev.  Dr.  Rouse  in  preface  to  the 
Jengali  edition  of  Siceet  Firstfruits.} 

3  A  correspondent  well   says  that   the  very  fact  that   the 
octrine  of  the  Trinity  presents  difficulties  at  first,  and  seems 
•  many  at  first  sight  to  be  illogical,  tends  rather  to  prove  that 
is  not  the  product  of  hiun:in  imagination.     It  is  noteworthy 
o  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Triune  nature  of  the  Godhead 
•  1  the  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ  originated,  hi-t'-rirally  speaking, 
Palestine  and  among  the  Jews,  who  wn-r  thru  as  ardent 
sellers  of  the  Unity  of  God  as  Muhananadaus  now  are. 
K 


146          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

(?.  We  do  not  ask  you  to  abandon  Monotheism. 
Belief  in  the  Unity  of  God  is  the  very  foundation 
of  Christianity  in  general,  and  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  in  particular.  Any  one  who  abandons 
it  and  believes  in  three  Gods  is  a  Polytheist  and 
not  a  Christian.  Both  in  the  Old  Testament  and 
in  the  New  the  Unity  of  God  was  taught  ages 
before  Muhammad's  time.  In  the  Taurat,  for  ex 
ample,  Moses  thus  lays  down  the  Kalimak  or  Creed 
of  the  Jews  :  "  Hear,  0  Israel :  the  LORD  our  God 
is  one  LORD  "  (Deut.  vi.  4).  In  the  Injil,  Jesus 
repeats  the  very  same  words :  t{  Hear,  O  Israel : 
the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord "  (Mark  xii.  29). 
The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  taught  in  the  Bible 
and  held  by  Christians  in  all  ages  since  the  Resur 
rection  of  Christ,. is  not  contrary  to  this.  Reason 
could  not  reveal  to  us  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
but  it  is  not  contrary  thereto  ;  nay,  we  shall  see 
that  Reason  demands  our  acceptance  of  the  doctrine. 
Let  us,  however,  leave  the  question  of  Reason  for 
the  present  and  confine  ourselves  to  the  Qur'an. 
What  proofs  have  you  that  the  Qur'an  is  opposed 
to  belief  in  the  Trinity  ? 

131.  M.  The  Qur'an  in  many  places  denies  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  :  for  instance  in  Surah  V., 
Al  Maidah,  77  :  "  They  surely  are  Infidels  who  say, 
'  God  is  a  third  of  three ' :  for  there  is  no  God  but 
one  God." 

C.  This  verse  is  not  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  for  we  all  acknowledge  that  eve  . 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES  —THE    TRINITY.  147 

word  in  this  extract  is  true.  The  doctrine  opposed 
in  this  verse  was  never  held  by  Christians  at  all. 
Certain  heretics,  followers  of  Marcion1,  said  that 
there  were  three  Gods — the  God  of  Justice,  the 
God  of  Mercy,  the  God  of  Evil.  Perhaps  Muhammad 
had  heard  of  this  most  blasphemous  doctrine  and 
here  rejects  it  in  God's  name. 

132.  3[.  It  is  to  Christians  that  this  verse  refers, 
for  in  the  same  Surah  we  read  : — 

"  Surely  now  are  they  Infidels  who  say, '  God  is 
the  Messiah,  Son  of  Mary ' :  for  the  Messiah  said , 
'  0  children  of  Israel !  worship  God,  my  Lord  and 
your  Lord' ..."  (v.  76).  "The  Messiah,  Son  of  Mary, 
is  but  an  Apostle  ;  other  Apostles  have  nourished 
before  Him;  and  His  mother  was  a  just  person  : 
they  both  ate  food  ..."  (v.  79).  «  Say  thou  ;  '  0 
people  of  the  Book !  outstep  not  bounds  of  truth 
in  your  religion'  ..."  (v.  81).  "And  when  God 
shall  say  :  '  O  Jesus,  Son  of  Mary  !  hast  thou  said 
unto  mankind,  '  Take  Me  and  My  mother  as  two 
Gods,  beside  God?'  He  shall  say:  '  Glory  be  unto 
Thee  !  it  is  not  for  Me  to  say  that  which  I  know 
to  be  not  the  truth.  ...  I  spake  not  unto  them 
aught  but  that  which  Thou  <H<lst  bid  Me — Worship 
God,  My  Lord  and  your  Lord'.  .  ."  (vv.  116, 

117). 

C.  The    Qur'an   here   denounces   the   idea  of  a 

1  Atharmsius,  Orationes  contra  Arianos,  III.  15  (whore  he 
attributes  the  same  doctrine  to  Mani  also).  Vi<I«'  also  Mosheim, 
Read's  ed.,  Cent.  II,  pt.  II,  cap.  V,  §  7. 

K   2 


148          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

Triad  of  Gods,  consisting  of  1  God,  Jesus  and  Mary. 
Christians  have  never  believed  in  this  Triad.  It  is 
only  too  true  that  many  ignorant  "  Christians "  in 
Muhammad's  time  worshipped  Mary  (as  some  still 
do),  asking  her  to  intercede  with  her  Son  for  them, 
and  the  early  Muhammadans  may  hence  have  fancied 
that  belief  in  three  separate  Gods,  of  which  Mary 
was  one,  was  what  was  meant  by  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity.  But  such  an  idea  was  wrong  and  of  heathen 
origin.  The  Gospels  show  that  Christ  did  not  bid 
men  worship  His  mother,  and  He  did  use  words 
very  similar  to  those  here  imputed  to  Him,  for  in 
John  viii.  28,  He  says,  "I  do  nothing  of  Myself; 
but  as  My  Father  hath  taught  Me,  I  speak  these 
things"  ;  and  in  xx.  17,  He  says,  c;  I  ascend  unto 
My  Father,  and  your  Father  ;  and  to  My  God,  and 
your  God."  But  in  both  passages  He  asserts  His 
own  Divine  Sonship.  If  therefore  the  Qur'an  is 
correct  in  representing  Him  as  saying,  <c  I  spake 
not  unto  them  aught  but  that  which  Thou  didst 
bid  Me,"  we  cannot  be  blamed  for  accepting  this 
and  every  other  part  of  His  teaching. 

133.  M.  The  Qur'an  refutes  this  as  part  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  for  in  Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa', 
i  69,  we  read  :  "  O  people  of  the  Book  !  overstep 
not  bounds  in  your  religion  ;  and  of  God  speak 

1  Vide  Jalalu'ddin's  commentary  on  Surah  V.,  77,  and  also 
his  and  Baizawi's  and  Yahya's  comments  on  Surah  IV.,  156. 
These  commentators  show  that  their  opinion  was  that  the 
Christian  Trinity  consisted  of  Father,  Mother,  and  Son. 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES — THE    TRINITY.  149 

only  the  truth.  The  Messiah,  Jesus,  Son  of  Mary, 
is  only  an  Apostle  of  God,  and  His  Word  which 
He  conveyed  into  Mary,  and  a  Spirit  from  Him. 
Believe  therefore  in  God  and  His  Apostles,  and  say 
not '  A  Triad.'  Forbear!  it  will  be  better  for  you. 
God  is  only  one  God!  Far  be  it  from  His  glory 
that  He  should  have  a  Son."  And  so  we  read  in 
vv.  51,  1 1 6  :  "  God  truly  will  not  forgive  the  join 
ing  other  Gods  with  Himself." 

C.  Here  again  what  is  denounced  is  belief  in 
three  Gods — the  sin  of  joining  other  gods  with 
God.  The  Old  Testament  shows  how  severely  the 
Israelites  were  punished  for  this  sin,  and  the  New 
Testament  includes  idolaters  among  those  who 
<;  shall  have  their  part  in  the  lake  which  burneth 
with  fire  and  brimstone  "  (Rev.  xxi.  8  ;  cf.  xxii.  15). 
We  have  already  seen  that  it  is  the  carnal  idea  of 
the  generation  of  Christ  which  the  Qur'an  rightly 
rejects,  as  do  all  Christians.  The  acknowledgement 
that  Christ  is  the  Word  of  God  (4!  1  i-JiS)  implies 
in  philosophical  language  what  we  mean  by  calling 
Christ  God's  Son,  for  the  same  title  is  used  in 
John  i.  i,  14.  Here  again  therefore  we  see  that 
what  the  Qur'an  repudiates  is  what  we  Christians 
too  repudiate,  and  not  the  true  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  (vide  §§  114,  135,  and  chapter  V). 

134.  M.  In  Surah  IX.,  At  Taubah,  30,  31,  we 
read :  "  The  Christians  say,  '  The  Messiah  is  a  Son 
of  God.'  .  .  .  God  do  battle  with  them!  How  ;iro 
they  misguided!  They  take  their  teachers  and 


150          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

their  monks  and  the  Messiah,  Son  of  Mary,  for 
Lords,  besides  God,  though  bidden  to  worship  one 
God  only.  There  is  no  God  but  He  !  " 

C.  We  have  already  seen  why  and  in  what 
sense  the  Qur'an  refuses  to  Christ  the  title  of  Son 
of  God.  The  habit  of  giving  religious  teachers  the 
title  of  Rabbi  (to  which  v.  31  refers)  is  condemned 
by  Christ  Himself  in  Matt,  xxiii.  8.  But  the  title 
did  not  mean  in  Hebrew  what  it  does  in  Arabic. 

135.  M.  If  you  say  that  you  do  not  believe  in 
three  Gods  but  in  one  God,  and  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  is  not  what  the  Qur'an  condemns, 
what  is  your  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 

C.  It  is  given  in  the  Nicene  Creed  (A.  D.  325),  in 
the  Creed  known  as  that  of  St.  Athanasius,  and  more 
simply  still  in  the  following  Article  : — "  There  is  but 
one  living  and  true  God,  everlasting,  without  body, 
parts  or  passions  ;  of  infinite  power,  wisdom,  and 
goodness  ;  the  Maker,  and  Preserver  of  all  things 
both  visible  and  invisible.  And  in  unity  of  this  God 
head  there  be  three  Persons  "  /Hypostases,  Subsist 
ences),  "  of  one  substance,  power,  and,  eternity ;  the 
[Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  7  (Art.  i  of  the 
39  Articles).  These  statements  are  merely  attempts 
to  summarize  what  the  Bible  l  teaches ;  that  there 
is  but  One  God  in  three  Hypostases  (  ~ate\ ).  These 
Hypostases  cannot  be  separated  from  one  another ; 
but,  if  they  could,  no  one  of  them  alone  would  be 

1  The  Bible  proofs  are  given  by  Boultbee  and  by  Bishop 
Harold  Browne  on  Art.  i. 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES THE    TRINITY.  15! 

God,  while  each  with  the  other  two  is  God  l.  This  is 
what  we  understand  to  be  taught  in  the  Bible.  It  is 
not  taught  in  the  Quran,  but  it  can  hardly  be  said 
to  be  contrary  to  the  latter.  It  is  above  Rea^n. 
not  contrary  to  Reason.  Of  God's  Nature  ice  can 
know  only  what  lie  has  Himself  revealed :  hence 
the  saying,  "  Disputation  about  the  Nature  of  God 
is  blasphemy"  (JiS  4ill  cylj  ^  o»~J1) 2. 

136.  3L  It  is  contrary  to  both  Reason  and  the 
Quran  :  for  God  is  One,  and  the  idea  of  Unity  is 
the  very  contrary  of  that  of  plurality.  Contraries 
cannot  be  both  true. 

C.  The  idea  of  Unity  does  not  exclude  all  idea  of 
plurality.  You  rightly  acknowledge  the  Unity  of 
Essence  in  God  as  well  as  plurality  in  His  attributes, 
such  as  mercy,  justice,  power,  wisdom,  eternity. 
These  two  ideas  do  not  contradict  one  another. 
You  rightly  call  God  the  "  Union  of  (good)  Attributes :' 
(cyUUl  ft****  Mqjmiiiix  Sifaf),  and  His  many  Names 
or  Titles  express  these,  as  "  the  Merciful,  the  Just, 

1  This  is,  in  effect,  what  Dr.  Cook  says  (Boston  Monday 
Lecture*). 

8  "The  New  Testament  clearly  expresses,  and  (in  most  of  tl.. 
places  where  a  plurality  within  tho  Godhead  is  referred  to) 
strongly  insists  on,  the  novapxia  of  the  Father.  He  is  th. 
original  Divim-  IVr.-.n  original,  <>f  «-,,urso,  not  in  time  but  in 
cou«a«on) ;  the  Son  and  tl.-  Spirit  isMio  (in  diffon-nt  ways 
from  Him.  It  lias  always  seemed  to  me  that  tin-  Scriptural 
insistence  on  the  suburdiim'i'in  ••!'  tin*  Second  and  Third  Persons 
to  the  First  within  th.-  (J..dh.-:id  ought  to  be  helpful  t-.  an  open- 
iiiiinli-d  ami  intelligent  Mu>lim."— Ii»-v.  Dr.  II".. j.,  r.  V.di-  ii"t» 
to  §  loa.) 


152          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

the  Almighty,  the  All- Wise,  the  Eternal."  So  too 
the  belief  in  the  existence  of  three  Hypostases  in 
the  Divine  Unity  is  not  contradictory.  No  perfect 

•»   ^ 

illustration  (J-i^  mathal}  can  be  found,  but  the 
meaning  will  in  some  slight  degree  be  clearer  from 
considering  your  own  nature,  according  to  the 
traditional  saying  of  cAli,  "  Whoso  knoweth  him 
self  knoweth  his  Lord "  (<-^-£  II*  »-~Jo  v_3j!c  ^ 
wj)1,  for  the  Bible  tells  us  that  God  created  man 
"in  His  own  image"  (Gen.  i.  27).  You  speak  of 
your  Spirit  (^  rfih)  as  "  I "  (the  Ego,  U1  ana),  of 
your  Mind  (Jic-  *aql)  as  "  I,"  of  your  Soul  (J*&>  nafs) 
as  "  I " :  these  are  distinct  in  some  measure,  and 
yet  your  personality  is  one 2.  There  is  no  contra 
diction  in  this.  In  the  Divine  Nature  we  are  told 
of  three  Hypostases,  but  of  only  one  God. 

137.  M.  Spirit,  Soul  and  Mind  are  parts  of  the 
man ;  but  God  has  no  parts. 

C.  True,  as  I  have  already  said.  Yet,  though 
the  example  is  imperfect,  we  may  learn  something 
from  it.  If  you  had  no  Spirit  but  only  Soul  and 

1  This  is,  of  course,  a  later  form  of  the   old  Greek  saying, 
TvwOi  aavrov.    It  is  taken  from  a  poem  in  a  collection  attributed 
to  'Ali. 

2  I  have  found  this  argument  most  useful  with  Persians.     A 
correspondent  suggests  instead  the  comparison  of  body,  soul,  and 
spirit.     But  Muslims  rightly  retort,  "  God  has  no  body."     Nor 
can  we  here  appeal,  as  has  been  suggested,  to  their  belief  in  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  since  their  idea  of  this  is  so  very 
materialistic  that  it  needs  to  be  corrected,  not  confirmed.     The 
Bahais   explain   away   the   resurrection    of   the   body,   under 
standing  thereby  a  change  of  heart. 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES THE    TRINITY.  153 

Mind,  or  no  Mind,  but  only  Spirit  and  Soul,  you 
would  not  be  a  man.  These  three  differ  from  one 
another,  though  we  cannot  fully  explain  in  what : 
yet  all  three  together  form  what  you  call  your  Ego, 
and  each  may  be  spoken  of  separately  as  your  Ego. 
Somewhat  similarly  "the  Father  is  God,  the  Son 
God,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  God,  and  yet  they  are 
not  three  Gods  but  one  God."  The  three  are  one 
in  will,  nature,  power,  eternity. 

138.  M.  The  "Holy  Ghost"  (y-jJLN  ^    MM  I 
Qudus)  is  only  another   name   for   the    archangel 
Gabriel.     (Surah  XVI.,  104.) 

C.  So  Muslims  use  the  words,  but  the  Bible 
clearly  distinguishes  between  them.  Gabriel  is 
a  creature  of  God. 

139.  J/.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Qur'an  to  support 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

C.  We  accept  it  on  ihe  authority  of  the  llihh- 
alone.  Yet  there  are  two  facts  in  the  Qur'an  which 
cannot  be  properly  explained  or  understood  except 
by  accepting  the  doctrine.  The  first  is,  that  God  is 
spoken  of  as  One,  He  is  called  God  (411!  ,-///<///),  Lord 
(u^Jl  Ar  Rahb)  in  the  singular,  and  addressed  as  Thou. 
The  other  is,  that  He  is  represented  as  speaking 
of  Himself  in  the  plural  as  We,  Us.  Examples  are 
found  in  almost  every  Surah  :  for  example,  in  Surah 
XCVI.,  Al  'Alaq,  supposed  to  be  the  first  Surah 
revealed  to  Muhammad,  God  is  called  "  the  Lord  " 
(v.  8),  and  "  God  "  (v.  13)  in  the  singular,  and  yet 
in  v.  17,  He  says,  "  We  f«o  will  stunt  man  the  guards 


154          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN     LEADING 

of  hell,"  using  the  plural.  Does  not  this  imply  the 
existence  of  some  kind  of  plurality,  other  than  that 
of  attributes,  in  the  Divine  Unity  ? 

140.  M.  Certainly  not.     The  "  We  "  is  used,  as 
kings  use  the  word,  to  imply  majesty. 

C.  On  what  authority  do  you  say  this  so 
positively  ?  If  the  Qur'an  is  from  God,  nothing  in 
it  can  be  unmeaning.  Whatever  God  says  is  true : 
and  this  expression,  so  often  repeated  in  the  Qur'an, 
may  contain  deep  teaching.  We  observe  that,  in  the 
use  of  the  plural,  the  Qur'an  agrees  with  the  Bible, 
since  we  find,  for  instance,  in  Gen.  i.  26 ;  iii.  22  ; 
xi.  7,  the  very  same  expression  used.  Those  parts 
of  the  Bible  which  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  Unity  may  possibly  explain  the  reason  of  this, 
as  far  as  the  Bible  is  concerned.  If  the  Qur'an 
was  revealed  to  confirm  the  Taurat  and  the  Injil, 
perhaps  this  is  one  of  the  points  in  which  it 
does  so. 

141.  M.    The  Jews  explain  these   passages   by 
saying  that  God  was  addressing  the  angels. 

C.  That  is  because  the  Jews  reject  the  Gospel, 
which  the  Qur'an  "confirms."  But  whether  their 
explanation  be  right  or  wrong,  will  it  explain  the 
use  of  the  plural  in  the  Qur'an  ? 

142.  M.  No,  it  will  not :  but  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  contrary  to  the  Qur'an. 

C.  We  have  seen  that  what  the  Qur'an  denounces 
is  a  doctrine  which  taught  the  existence  of  three 
Gods.  This  is  not  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES THE    TRINITY.  155 

Trinity.  To  worship  Mary  as  God  is  blasphemy  ; 
to  call  Jesus  another  God  besides  God  is  also 
heretical.  But  to  say  that  there  is  only  one  God 
and  that  in  the  Divine  Unity  there  are  three 
Hypostases  of  one  substance,  power,  and  eternity, 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  quite 
a  different  thing.  This  latter  doctrine  gives  a  pos 
sible  explanation  of  and  justifies  the  use  of  the 
"  We  "  in  the  Bible,  and  may  explain  and  justify 
it  in  the  Qur'an.  It  cannot  therefore  be  proved 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  contrary  to  the 
Qur'an. 

143.  M.   At  any  rate  it  is  contrary  to  Reason. 
How  can  three  be  one  and  one  three  ? 

C.  How  can  you  be  Spirit,  Soul,  and  Mind,  and 
yet  one  individual  ?  It  is  so,  and  yet  we  know  not 
how.  If  then  we  cannot  understand  our  own 
nature,  how  can  we  understand  that  of  the  infinite 
God  1  Our  Reason  is  finite  as  well  as  created:  it 
cannot  comprehend  to  the  full  the  nature  of  its 
infinite  Creator.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is 
above  Reason,  not  contrary  to  it.  But  we  can  go 
further  and  truly  assert  that  Reason  demands  some 
such  doctrine. 

144.  M.   It  will  be  strange  indeed  if  you  can 
prove  that ! 

C.  You  will  supply  the  proof  if  you  will  kindly 
answer  my  questions.  Do  your  theologians  believe 
that  God  is  the  "  Union  of  all  good  Attributes  " 


156          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

145.  M.  Yes :  and  these  Attributes  exist  in  Him 
to  the  degree  of  Perfection. 

C.  What  are  the  good  Attributes  ? 

146.  M.  Those  implied  by  the  ninety-nine  most 
Excellent  Names  1  of  God,  such  as  Almighty  Power, 
Goodness,  Wisdom,  Eternity,  Mercy,  &c. 

C.  Is  not  one  of  these  Divine  Titles  "  the  Causer 
of  Causes  "  (vW-5\  u.4—  MusalUlu'l  Asbdb)  ? 

147.  M.  Yes  ;  we  Muslims  acknowledge  God  to 
be  that. 

C.  "Well  then,  let  us  consider  the  meaning  of  the 
term,  for  it  has  a  very  deep  and  true  meaning. 
Philosophers  have  discovered  that  there  is  a  law  of 
causality,  and  that  cause  underlies  all  created  things. 
The  final  cause  of  anything  lies  quite  beyond  our 
cognizance,  though  Reason  demonstrates  its  exist 
ence.  We  know  the  Law  of  Gravity,  the  Law  of 
the  Conservation  of  Energy,  and  so  on ;  but  the 
only  conceivable  origin  of  these,  the  cause  of  them, 
must  be  sought  in  the  Will  of  the  Creator,  which  is 
the  origin  of  all  Force.  But  these  laws  act  upon 
Matter  which  is  cognizable  to  the  senses,  and  thus 
produce  certain  results.  The  results  may  be  known 
to  us.  Behind  each  result  or  effect  lies  some  mani 
festation  or  Form,  and  behind  that  again  lies  the 
invisible  cause.  For  example,  we  see  the  Form 
which  we  call  Fire.  Its  effects  are  heat  (burning, 
&c.).  Behind  the  Form  of  Fire  lies  its  invisible 

1  As  given,  e.  g.  in  Mishkatu'l  Masabih,  Book  On  fhe  Names  of 
God,  §§  i  and  ii,  quoted  in  my  Religion  of  the  Crescent,  pp.  15,  16. 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES THE    TRINITY.  157 

cause  (Combustion).  There  is  therefore  a  group  of 
three  things,  Cause,  Form,  Effect.  If,  as  you  rightly 
say,  God  is  the  Causer  of  Causes,  may  we  not  in  all 
reverence  see  some  manifestation  of  His  nature  in 
this  as  in  a  metaphor?  God  the  Father  may  be 
regarded  as  the  Cause ;  God  the  Son  as  the  Form ; 
God  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  Effect,  proceeding  from 
both.  Fire  cannot  exist  without  Heat,  or  Heat 
without  Combustion,  and  so  we  have  an  indivisible 
Trinity.  This  is  only  an  illustration  of  the  way  in 
which  God  who  is  the  Causer  of  Causes  has  grouped 
Causes,  Forms  and  Effects  together  in  groups  of 
threes  l.  When  we  learn  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
in  Unity  from  the  Bible,  we  think  that  we  can  see 
illustrations  of  it  in  God's  works  2,  as  if  the  Invisible 
Causer  of  Causes  had  chosen  thus  as  it  were  to 
mirror  forth  something  of  the  secret  mystery  of  His 
Divine  Nature a. 

Once  more,  among  other  titles  of  God  is  He  not 
called  "The  Lover"  (1^1  Al  J/W«V)  4  ? 

1  Again,  the  rays  of  the  spectrum  are  of  three  kinds,  the 
luminous,  the  heating,  and  the  chemical,  yet  all  three  exist  in  and 
form  one  single  ray  of  white  light.  (Rev.  J.  W.  L:il.) 

3  Rev.  Dr.  Wherry  prefers  the  old  illustration  of  the  Sun 
with  its  light  and  heat:  "The  Sun  reveals  itself  only  by  its 
light :  so  '  No  man  hath  seen  the  Father'  (John  i.  18).  Christ 
is  the  Light  of  God,  revealing  the  Father ;  and  the  heat  or 
energy  of  the  Sun  may  be  likened  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom 
the  power  of  God  is  manifested." 

3  Suggested  by  the  Rev.  P.  M.  Zenker.     Such  philosophical 
considerations  have  a  great  value  to  the  Oriental  mind,  especi 
ally  with  Sufis.     Vide  Dr.  Pfander's  Miftnhul  Atrir. 

4  This  is  in  substance  Anselm's  argument. 


158          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

148.  M.  He  is. 

C.  Does  not  that  imply  the  existence  in  the  Divine 
Nature  of  the  attribute  of  Love  (^UjJl  al  ivicldd), 
pure  unselfish  love,  such  as  that  of  a  father  towards 
his  children  *  ? 

149.  M.  It  does. 

C.  Do  you  not  also  say  that  the  Nature  of  God 
cannot  change  ? 

150.  M.  We  do. 

C.  Has  then  the  attribute  of  Love  always  be 
longed  to  God,  or  has  He  after  a  time  acquired  it  ? 

151.  M.    It  must   always  have   existed  in   His 
nature. 

C.  Love  must  have  an  object.  Before  the  creation 
of  the  worlds,  whom  did  God  love  2  ? 

152.  M.  He  loved  Himself. 

1  The  Christian  doctrine  gives  a  far  nobler  and  worthier  reason 
for  calling  God  "The  Lover"  than  does  the  Muhammadan.    For, 
according  to  the  Christian  view,  He  loved  from  all  eternity, 
having  in  Himself  an  object  of  love  :   but,  according  to  the 
Muhammadan  view,  He  did  not  exercise  the  power  of  loving 
until  after  Creation.     The  Christian  doctrine  also  represents 
God   as   possessing   the  highest  form   or  degree   of  love,   self- 
sacrificing  love  ;  whereas  the  Muslim  view  practically  represents 
man  as  possessing  a  higher  form  of  love  than  God,  because  man 
c;in  exercise  self-sacrifice.    (Rev.  Dr.  Rouse,  Nature  of  God,  p.  24.) 

2  A  possible  objection  to  the  argument  here  given  has  been 
pointed  out  by  one  or  two  correspondents.    It  is  partly  removed 
in  the  note  to  §  148.     The  doctrine  that  God   had  from  all 
eternity  within  His  own  Being  an  object  for  the  exercise  of  the 
attribute  of  Love  exalts  our  conception  of  the  loftiness  and 
sufficiency  of  the  Divine  Nature.     It  must  therefore  be  true,  as 
we  cannot  possibly  think  too  highly  of  God,  since  He  must  excel 
our  loftiest  conceptions  of  Him. 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES  —  THE    TRINITY.  159 

C.  Is  self-love  a  virtue  or  a  vice,  a  good  attribute 
or  a  bad  ?  If  a  man  loves  himself  and  himself  only, 
do  we  consider  him  a  good  or  a  bad,  selfish  man? 
Can  God  be  such  ? 

153.  M.  He  loved  the  angels. 

C.  But  they  had  not  yet  been  created.  If  love  is 
a  good  attribute  and  is  most  so  when  unselfish ;  if 
it  has  always  (like  all  other  good  attributes)  existed 
in  the  Divine  nature,  and  must  have  had  an  object, 
is  it  not  clear  that  from  all  eternity  there  must 
have  existed  some  kind  of  plurality  of  existences 
(Hypostases,  ~*J^)  in  the  Unity  of  God,  one  loving 
the  other  ?  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  shows  how 
this  was  possible. 

154.  M.  Can  you  explain  how  there  can  be  three 
Hypostases  in  the   Unity  of  the  Godhead1?     Can 
you   even   understand  it?     If  not,  how  can   you 
expect   me  to  accept  the  doctrine  1     What  is  the 
good   of  professing   to   believe    what   you    cannot 
understand  ? 

C.  You  believe  that  you  have  a  spirit  and  an 
intellect.  Can  you  explain  what  these  really  are 
in  their  essence,  or  where  they  reside,  or  how  they 
affect  and  rule  the  body,  or  how  the  senses  affect 
the  mind  ?  You  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  ;  can  you  explain  how  it  is  possible  1  Yet 
you  rightly  condemn  a  man  who  disbelieves  in  it. 
You  see  therefore  that  there  is  good  in  believing 
what  you  cannot  understand  or  explain.  You 
know  that  ignorant  people  cannot  explain  how  it 


l6o          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

is  that  the  food  they  eat  does  them  good,  or  why 
man  cannot  live  long  without  food.  But  if  a  man 
were  to  decline  to  eat  until  he  knew  all  about  the 
use  of  food,  you  would  consider  him  mad.  The 
benefit  of  the  food  does  not  at  all  depend  upon 
ability  to  understand  its  effects.  So  with  the 
knowledge  of  the  truth. 

155.  M.  But  what  is  the  good  of  believing  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity l  ? 

C.  It  enables  us  to  believe  in  the  truth  of  Christ's 
claims  to  be  the  Word  of  God  or  the  Son  of  God, 
and  to  accept  the  salvation  which  He  offers.  If 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  true,  then  Christ 
was  not  what  He  professed  to  be.  He  was  not 
even  a  true  prophet  if  His  teaching  was  untrue. 
Thus  disbelief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  over 
throws  both  Christianity  and  Islam.  Again 

1  Here  may  be  entered  the  following  Muhammadan  objec 
tions  : — 

M,  If  God  is  One,  how  can  there  be  three  Persons  in  the 
Godhead  ? 

Ans.  Your  difficulty  probably  arises  from  your  not  under 
standing  the  technical  use  of  the  word  "Person."  [In  Arabic, 
Urdu,  and  Persian  we  use  the  Syriac  word  (Aqnum")  |*^-*^>  Ar.  pi. 
Aqdnim  ^^\Js\}  to  express  "Person"  or  "Hypostasis"  in  its 

theological  sense  in  reference  to  the  Godhead,  explaining  it  by 
the  Persian  word  ^JL*  (hasti}  existence.] 

M.  To  say  that  three  "  Persons"  are  necessary  to  do  the  work 
of  One  God  is  to  represent  God  as  weak  and  incomplete.  Which 
is  greater,  God  the  Father  or  God  the  Son  ? 

The  answers  to  this  will  be  found  given  in  different  parts  of 
this  chapter. 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES THE    TRINITY.  l6l 

Muslims  often  ask  such  questions  as  this :  "If 
Christ  was  God,  who  ruled  the  world  when  Christ 
was  in  the  grave  ? "  No  one  who  believed  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  would  ask  such  a  silly 
question. 

156.  3/.  We  want  logical J  proof,  and  what  you 
say  falls  short  of  that. 

C.  Different2  subjects  require  different  kinds  of 
proof.  Were  I  to  demand  from  you  chemical  proof 
of  Alexander  the  Great's  existence,  or  historical 
proof  of  the  composition  of  water,  or  mathematical 
proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  you  would 
justly  declare  the  demand  absurd.  What  kind  of 
proof  convinces  you  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  of  life  after  death, 
of  rewards  and  punishments  in  the  next  world  ?  . 

1  As  such,  the  Rev.  A.  E.  Johnston  suggests  the  following 
argument : — 

Is  God  possessed  of  Attributes  ?  Are  they  active  or  dormant  ? 
Or  is  there  change  in  Him,  so  that  they  would  be  sometimes 
one  and  sometimes  the  other  ?  Was  He  ever  devoid  of  any  of 
His  Attributes?  Is  God  dependent  on  anything  outside  of 
Himself?  Does  He  need  anything,  without  which  He  would 
not  have  or  could  not  exercise  His  Attributes?  Does  not  the 
.  pith,  t  As  Samadu  (Surah  CXIL,  Al  Ikhlas,  2)  denote  His 
>»  If-sufficiency  ?  Is  not  God  'alim?  Does  not  the  very  existent.' 
of  'ilm  ' knowh-.l-c  imply  throe  things,  an  'dlim  (knower),  a 
ina'lum  (tiling  known'  and  a  nisbat  i  'ilmiyyah  (bond  of  con 
nexion  between  the  two)?  Since  God  is  independent  of  any 
tliin^  outside  of  His  own  Nature,  and  is  Omniscient  ('alhu  , 
must  He  not  have  within  Him-.  It  all  three,  and  be  therefore 
a  Trinity  in  Unity?  Rev.  Dr.  Hooper  founds  much  the  same 
argument  on  the  words  Allah  Kdfi  inscribed  in  a  Lahore  mosque. 

"  Cf.  Iblathu'l  Mujtahidin,  pp.  73,  74. 
I. 


1 62          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

157.  M.  The   proof  of  these   doctrines   is   that 
they  have  been  revealed  by  God  to  us ;  therefore 
we  believe  in  them. 

C.  The  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  too  is 
found  in  the  Bible,  therefore  we  believe  it  to  be 
true.  God  has  revealed  it  through  the  prophets 
and  apostles,  and  especially  through  Jesus  Christ. 
His  character,  His  fulfilled  prophecies.  His  noble 
teaching,  His  miracles,  and  the  fulfilment  of  His 
promises  to  every  one  who  comes  to  Him  in  faith — 
as  we  know  from  personal  experience — all  these 
prove  the  truth  of  His  claims.  These  claims  involve 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

158.  M,  What  the   Qur'an  says  about  Him  is 
sufficient  for  us,  and  involves  no  such  doctrine. 

•  C.  In  Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa',  169,  Christ  is  called 
"  His  Word,"  that  is,  God's  Word  (CiU/  Kalimatuhu, 
that  is,  41  \  Lji^ Kalimaluttdk).  The  Arabic  shows 
that  it  means  "  the  Word  of  God,"  not  "  a  Word  of 
God"  (£\  LjS^not  AT^Uir^  ^LUT).  Now  what 
does  that  imply  ? 

159.  M.   It  is  a  mere  title,  nothing  more.     So 
Abraham  is  called  "the  friend  of  God"  (S\  J-J^ 
KhalUu'lldk]  in  the  Qur'an,  and  we  call  Moses  "  He 
that  talked  with  God"  (AT  '^ Kattmn'lldh). 

C.  A  title  is  either  rightly  or  wrongly  given. 
The  title  "  Shah  of  Persia,"  if  given  to  you,  does 
not  express  the  truth;  but  if  given  to  Muzaffar- 
u'ddin  Shah  it  does  state  a  fact.  Who  gives  to 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES  —  THE    TRINITY.  163 

Jesus  in  the  Qur'an  the  title  of  ':  the  Word  of 
God"? 

160.  M.  God  Himself. 

C.  You  call  God  "the  Truth"  (Jll  Al  7%y).  and 
rightly.  Is  He  speaking  the  truth  when  He  calls 
Christ  "  the  Word  of  God,"  as  He  does  not  only 
in  the  Qur'an  but  in  the  Bible  (John  i.  i,  14  ;  Rev. 
xix.  13)? 

161.  J/.  Of  course :  God  cannot  speak  falsely. 
C.  Then  we  conclude  that  Christ  is  really  "  ///> 

Word  of  God."  Now  what  does  Word  (Lj&KaKmaA l 
=  Aoyos)  mean, — your  word,  or  any  one's  word  ? 
What  is  its  office  and  object  ? 

162.  M.  It  expresses  what  is  in  the  mind  of  the 
speaker,   if  he    be   truthful.     It   may   be    spoken, 
written,  or  expressed  by  signs,  or  in  other  ways. 

C.   A  word  is  thus  an  expression  of  the  mind  or 
thought.     If  Christ  were  a  Word  of  God  (^  lj 
ill  u^UA5),  He  would  be  merely  one  expression  of 

1  The  Arabic  term  iju  expresses  \6yos  or  "Sermo"  fairly 
well,  ns  it  means  a  word  not  as  to  its  oral  utterance  but  as  i<>  its 
meaning  — an  expression,  a  speech,  and  so  on.  Arabic  scholars 

will  notice  that,  while  ill    e^L»-L$    (^    i-^.15  would  mean   "a 

Word  of  God,"  the  term  i]l   L+JS  means  v  \6yos  rov  0«of<.      In 
the  following  argument  this  diiVeieiice  is  dwelt  upon. 
The  Arabic   for  ''Word  of  God"  as  applied  to  the  Bible 

(Surah  II.,  70)  is  not  the  same  :  it  is  4JT  ^^  110t  4Vil  i^JS- 
Some  nii.ssi-iii.iri. -,  ar^'iie   similarly  from   the   title  "  Spirit   "1 

God"  (ill    _^)  jriv«-ii  by  Mul.aimiia.lans  to  Christ.     But  in  tft>- 
V"-'''n   He  is  not  so  called,   but   <>nly   "a   spirit  from   Him" 
Surah  IV.,  169 .. 

L  2 


164          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

God's  will.     What  is  the  force  of  calling  Him  "  the 


163.  M.  By   the   rules    of   Arabic   grammar    it 
should  mean  that  He  is  the  one  expression  of  God's 
will.     But  this  cannot  be,  as  the  other  prophets 
also  expressed  God's  will. 

C.  Your  argument  would  convict  the  Qur'an  of 
error.  We  understand  that  the  prophets  spoke 
through  the  Word  of  God,  to  whom  they  bore 
witness.  Thus  the  difficulty  vanishes.  Is  the  title 
of  "  the  Word  of  God  "  given  to  any  other  prophet 
in  the  Qur'an  ? 

164.  M.  No. 

C.  Well  then,  is  it  not  clear  from  the  Qur'an  that 
Christ  alone  is  the  one  expression  of  God's  mind 
and  will  (Luke  x.  22)  1  If  so,  how  can  He  be 
a  mere  man,  like  the  other  prophets  ?  Can  any  one 
but  yourself  and  God  know  your  mind  and  thoughts, 
unless  they  are  expressed  ? 

165.  M.  No  one. 

C.  Are  they  not  expressed  by  your  word  ? 

166.  M.  Yes. 

C.  Then  Christ  is  the  expression  of  God's  mind 
and  will.  Only  through  Him  can  these  be  revealed. 
Can  He  reveal  them  without  knowing  them  ?  If 
not,  can  He  be  less  than  or  different  from  God,  the 
expression  of  whose  will  He  is  ?  Hence  He  says, 
'-  1  am  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life  :  no  man 
cometh  unto  the  Father,  but  by  Me"  (John  xiv.  6). 
You  see  here  again  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  comes 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES THE    TRINITY.  165 

in  to  explain  not  only  the  Gospel's  but  even  the  Qu- 
r'an's  teaching  about  Christ.  You  Muslims  often  call 
Jeans  "the  Spirit  of  God"  (<5T  -^  Euhulldlt],  which 
we  do  not.  If  you  are  right,  then  this  is  another 
proof  of  His  deity.  The  Bible  gives  this  title  to 
the  Third  Hypostasis  of  the  Most  Holy  Trinity, 
which  proves  l  that  all  the  three  Hypostases  are 
included  in  the  Unity  of  the  Divine  nature  2. 

1  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  says:  "  There  is  a  slightly  diflVn-nt 
line  of  thought  which  I  have  often  found  extremely  helpful. 
I  begin,  much  as  in  this  chapter,  by  asking  the  Muhammadan 
to  define  the  nature  of  the  Unity  of  God.     In  many  respects 
one  accepts  his  definition  arid  lays  stress  on  the  Unity — in  tin- 
sense  of  entire  distinction  from  all  created  Being.     Then  I  say, 
'  Now  here  we  have  the  Divine  Nature  on  one  side,  by  itself  (so 
to  speak),  and  all  else  on  the  other  :  we  see  how  wholly  distim-t 
and  unique  it  is.     But  we  have  not  yet  touched  the  question 
of  what  mysteries  it  may  contain  in  itself.'     I  go  on  to  point 
out  how  inevitable  it  is  that  there  should  be  some  great  myster\ 
in  that  Supreme  Nature  when  there  is  so  much  in  the  world 
of  which  we  are  parts.    I  then  lay  stress  on  the  fact  that,  what 
ever  answer  we  may  give  to  this, — whether  \v<-   h<>M  a  stn-il.- 
Monotheism  or  a  Plurality  of  hypostases  in  one  Essence — in 
either  case  it  does  not  conflict  with  the  Unity,  for  we  an-  iN-aliim 
simply  with  the  inner  Nature  of  that  Essence  \\hi<  h  \ve  have 
already,   in   accepting   the  Unity,   separated    <.fl'  and    jm-itf.! 
wholly  by  itself.     This  kind  of  line  of  argument  I  ha\«    ..inn 
found  to  win  assent.     I  should  also  lay  more  stress  on  what  I 
consider  the  immensely  weighty  argument  as  to  the  fact   that 
tin    nature  of  Lore  involves  subject  and  object." 

2  Dr.  II.  Martyn  Clark  says  that  he  has  f. -mid  the  fiill«»win- 
illustration  helpful  to  Muslims: — 

The  figure  i  by  itself  is  a  mere  straight  line  :  its  value  is 
determined  by  its  position  with  reference  to  the  iinj»li.«l 
•  Itriinal  point.  It  is  usually  taken  to  mean  <>/  ,  I'.-.MUSO  it  is 
supposed  to  repn-ent  i  .  Lut  if  written -x  its  meaning  would  1. 


l66          OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    CERTAIN    LEADING 

167.  1\J.  Belief  in  the  Trinity  seems  to  us  to  be 
common  to  you  with  the  Hindus,  who  speak  of  the 
Trimurtt),  Brahma,  Vishnu ,  and  Siva. 

C  These  are  three  l  separate  false  gods,  while 
we  believe  in  the  One  True  God  2.  Between  belief 
in  a  Triad  on  the  one  hand,  and  belief  in  the  Trinity 
in  Unity  on  the  other,  there  is  the  greatest  possible 
difference.  Have  you  ever  considered  how  the 
world  is  divided  into  two  parts  regarding  the 
deity  of  Jesus,  which  involves  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity? 

168    M.  Only  Christians  believe  it. 

C.  From  the  Bible  we  learn  that  (i)  the  prophets 
(as,  for  instance,  David,  Isaiah,  and  John  the 
Baptist)  declared  Christ's  deity  ;  (2)  the  apostles 
believed  in  it ;  (3)  so  do  all  Christians ;  and  (4)  so 
do  the  angels.  Even  the  devils  were  compelled  to 
confess  it.  Those  who  disbelieve  are  (i)  the  Mus 
lims,  (2)  the  heathen,  (3)  infidels.  A  time  is  coming 


very  different.     Hence  the  very  idea  of  unity  implies  three  dimen 
sions. 

1  The  doctrine  of  Triads  in  India,  Egypt,  and  elsewhere  may 
possibly  be  a  corruption  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Ti'inity,  if  the 
latter  doctrine  was  part  of  an  early  Revelation.     At  any  rate, 
it  shows  that  men  have  felt  that  barren  Monotheism  or  Uni- 
tarianism  is  not  sufficient  for  either  reason  or  faith. 

2  a  Though  the  three  Hindu  deities  referred  to  are  philoso 
phically  conceived   of  as  three   in  one,   yet  that  One,  being 
impersonal,  and  the  three  being  the  chief  personal  manifestations 
of  It,  there  is  really  nothing  whatever  in  common  between 
this  Hindu  belief  and  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Trinity." 
(Rev.  Dr.  Hooper  ) 


CHRISTIAN    DOCTRINES THE    TRINITY.  167 

when  all  shall  believe  and  every  tongue  shall  con 
fess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God 
the  Father  (Phil.  ii.  10,  11).  How  much  better  it 
will  be  for  you,  my  brother,  to  confess  Him  who 
died  for  you,  and  believe  in  Him  now,  ere  it  is  too 
late  to  be  saved. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  THE  DOCTKINE  OF 
ATONEMENT1. 


169.  M.  YOUR  whole  doctrine  of  the  Atonement, 
which  you  say  was  made  by  Christ,  is  quite  con 
trary  to  Reason  and  to  the  Qur'an.  There  is  no 
need  of  an  Atonement  2  or  of  a  Plan  of  Salvation. 
To  speak  of  these  things  is  to  declare  that  God  is 
not  Almighty.  He  can  do  exactly  what  He  wills, 
and  He  can  and  does  forgive  penitent  sinners 
without  any  Atonement  whatever,  for  He  is  free 
and  is  not  answerable  to  any  one  for  what  He  does. 

C.  By  saying  this  you  show  that  you  do  not  realize 
the  guilt  of  sin  and  how  hateful  it  is  in  the  sight 
of  God,  who  is  the  Holy  One  (^llll  Al  Quddits).  Yet 
Sin  and  Holiness  are  the  antitheses  of  each  other. 
It  is  because  you  do  not  realize  the  hatred  of  God 

1  In  this  chapter  I  have  made  no  attempt  to  deal  fully  with 
the  great  doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  being  prevented  from 
doing  so  by  the  limits  of  the  present  Manual.  The  reader 
should  consult  Dr.  Dale's  and  other  works  on  the  Atonement. 
(Vide  Preface,  para.  8.) 

3  Muslims  entirely  fail  to  understand  our  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement,  while  fancying  that  they  know  all  about  it.  (Rev. 
J.  P.  Ellwood.) 


AGAINST  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.     169 

for  sin  and  how  opposite  it  is  to  His  holy  Nature 
and  Will  that  you  do  not  feel  the  need  of  an 
Atonement.  This  is  one  of  the  evil  results  of  your 
religion.  It  has  in  large  measure  obliterated  from 
your  minds  the  truth  which  even  the  very  heathen 
once  knew,  as  shown  by  the  sacrifices  offered  ever 
since  Adam's  time  in  all  nations,  until  the  perfect 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  of  which  they  were  types  and 
prophecies,  removed  all  reason  for  their  continu 
ance  among  Christians.  Yet  the  conscience  of  HHIH, 
which  accuses  him  of  sin  and  insists  on  tfie  need  of 
a  propitiation,  is  too  strong  for  you.  Hence  sacri 
fices  of  camels  and  other  animals  are  still  offered 
by  Muhammadans  on  certain  occasions :  [and 
the  Shi'ites  believe  that  the  deaths  of  Hasan  and 
Husain  were  an  atonement  for  the  sins  of  Muslims.] 
Here  we  see  human  nature  asserting  its  conscious 
need  of  an  Atonement,  but  taking  a  stone  for 
bread.  You  do  not  believe  that  an  Atonement  is 
necessary,  because  you  do  not  realize  the  guilt  of 
sin,  and  how  impossible  it  is  for  impenitent  sinners 
to  be  reconciled  to  God  and  happy  in  His  holy 
presence.  Hence  the  fearful  pictures  of  the 
nature  of  the  pleasures  which  your  traditions 
[and  even  the  Qur'an]  describe  as  appointed 
by  God  for  Muslims  in  Paradise1.  What  you 

1  The  attempt •<  m;nl<  \>\  Muliiy\  uM<lin  mid  otlior  mystic  an<i 
rationalistic  commentator*  to  explain  these  descriptions  as 
merely  figurative  do  not  agree  with  the  belief  of  Muslim^  in 
the  early  ages,  nor  are  they  even  now  generally  accepted  l>y 
Muslims. 


170  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 


say  as  to  the  possibility  of  God's  forgiving  a 
sinner  on  his  repentance  without  an  Atonement 
is  contrary  to  our  innate  feeling  of  Justice.  If 
a  human  judge  were  to  do  so,  it  would  be  said  that 
he  was  unjust,  for  justice  must  be  satisfied :  but 
God  does  not  do  what  is  unjust,  for  He  is  Just 
(J-iUJI  Al*Adil\  and  does  not  therefore  forgive  with 
out  an  Atonement.  Nor  can  a  sinner  truly  repent 
if  he  does  not  realize  the  guilt  he  has  incurred. 
Christ's  Atonement  was  needed  to  make  us  realize 
the  guilt  of  sin. 

170.  M.  How  can  one  man's  death  atone  for  the 
sin  of  many  ? 

C.  One  diamond  may  pay  a  debt  of  many 
thousands  of  rupees  x.  But  the  true  reason  why 
Christ's  death  has  atoned  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world  (i  John  ii.  2)  is  that  He  died  as  the  Head  of 
the  human  race  and  as  its  representative  (i  Cor.  xv.  22, 

45-49) 2- 

171.  M.  Where  is  the  justice   of  the  innocent 
suffering  for  the  guilty  ? 

C.  The  substitution3  of  the  innocent  for  the 
guilty  in  the  case  of  human  justice  could  not  be 
admitted.  But  much  of  the  difficulty  which  is 
often  found  in  accepting  the  Christian  Doctrine 
of  the  Atonement  of  Christ  arises  from  the  fact 

1  Kev.  Dr.  Bouse. 

2  A  man's  back  may  pay  the  penalty  for  the  sin  of  his  hand, 
because  both  are  parts  of  one  body.    (Rev.  J.  A.  Wood.) 

3  Vide  Dr.  Dale  on  the  Atonement :   5th  Edition,  ch  ix.  p. 
358. 


OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.  171 


that  so  many  people  mistake  an  illustration  fur 
a  full  explanation  or  statement  of  the  doctrine. 
We  have  again  and  again  seen  (§§  39,  114,  &c.) 
that  no  human  language  is  adequate  (because  of  its 
imperfection)  to  express  Divine  realities.  Almost 
all  the  objections  are  based  upon  a  misunderstand 
ing  of  this  fact.  I  hesitate  therefore  to  use  any 
illustration,  lest  it  should  be  misunderstood.  But 
if  you  remember  that  what  I  am  about  to  say 
is  intended  only  as  a  (necessarily  imperfect)  illustra 
tion,  it  may  perhaps  be  helpful  to  you.  Remember 
too  that,  if  you  find  defects  in  the  illustration*,  that 
does  not  disprove  the  truth  of  the  doctrine.  In  one 
sense  we  frequently  see  that  the  innocent  suffers 
for  the  guilty.  A  mother's  pangs  usher  the  child 
into  the  world  ].  On  the  other  hand,  a  drunkard's 
or  a  spendthrift's  children  suffer  in  consequence 
of  their  father's  sins.  Or  again,  a  child's  prosperity 
may  be  due  to  his  father's  toil  and  suffering.  So 
our  salvation  depends  on  Christ's  sufferings  for 
us.  Christ,  the  sinless  One  who  suffered,  the  Just 
for  the  unjust,  is  Himself  also  the  Judge  of  living 
and  dead.  If  a  judge  is  compelled  by  a  just  law  to 
sentence  a  man  to  pay  a  heavy  fine,  and  if  the 
judge  is  kind  and  generous  enough  to  pay  the  fine 
himself  \vhen  the  other  cannot 2,  is  not  justice  satis- 

1  Rev.  T.  P.  Ellwood. 

8  A  man  may  pay  another's  dt-W,  his  money  is  his  own  pro 
perty.  He  could  not  pay  it  honestly  with  another  man'-* 
money.  So  a  man  cannot  give  his  life  for  another's  ..n'.-n.-r. 


172  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

fied  as  well  as  mercy  shown  ?  None  but  the  sinless 
can  be  a  substitute  for  the  guilty,  for  a  debtor 
cannot  pay  another's  debt,  a  criminal  cannot  pay 
the  penalty  for  another  criminal.  Hence  the  Bible 
represents  the  sinless  Christ  as  making  atonement 
for  us  (Isa.  liii.  5  ;  i  Pet.  ii.  21-24). 

172.  M.  Would  the  substitution  of  the  innocent 
for  the  guilty  be  accepted  in  a  secular  court  of 
justice  ?  Man  sinned,  and  you  say  the  sinless  Christ 
suffered  for  him.  This  is  contrary  to  Ezek.  xviii.  20. 

C.  The  latter  verse  does  condemn  us  and  all 
men  except  Christ.  Unless  therefore  there  be 
some  way  of  escape,  the  result  is  and  must  be 
what  is  said  in  the  Qur'an  about  hell-fire  (Surah 
XIX.,  Mary  am,  72),  "  There  is  none  of  you  but 
descends  into  it."  Hence  you  see  that  a  religion 
without  an  Atonement  can  give  men  no  well- 
grounded  hope  of  salvation.  But  the  Gospel  brings 
good  news  of  the  way  of  escape  which  God's  love 
and  mercy  has  devised,  without  violating  Justice. 
If  the  Gospel  is  not  true,  then  you  see  that  you 
and  I  and  all  men  are  condemned  and  have  no 
hope.  It  is  therefore  to  your  great  advantage  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  Atonement  of  Christ  should  be 
proved  true. 

Now  there  are  certain  conditions  of  affairs  which, 


for  that  is  a  Divine  trust  (amdnat  i,  ildhi)  entrusted  to  him. 
But  Christ  could,  for  He  alone  could  truly  say  of  His  life,  "  I 
have  power  to  lay  it  down"  (John  x.  17,  i8X  (Dr.  H.  M. 
Clark.) 


OF    CHRIST  S    ATONEMENT.  173 

it  must  be  admitted,  would  have  rendered  the 
death  of  Christ  useless  and  our  belief  in  His  Atone 
ment  unreasonable,  //'  those  coiuliUmix  had  exix/,',1. 
(i)  If  Christ  had  been  a  sinner :  or  (2)  if  He  had 
been  put  to  death  against  His  will :  or  (3)  if  He 
were  a  mere  man,  though  the  best  of  men  :  or  (4) 
if  His  death  did  not  really  take  place  but  only  in 
appearance  :  or  (5)  if  He  were  an  angel,  or  (6)  one 
of  three  Gods,  as  certain  heretics  held  :  then  our 
belief  in  His  Atonement  would  be  in  vain.  But  we 
Christians  do  not  hold  any  of  these  ideas.  The 
true  doctrine  is  that  Christ,  being  perfect  God  and 
perfect  Man  in  one  person,  the  two  natures  united 
as  in  man  are  body  and  soul,  freely  gave  His  life 
for  us  and  for  all  men  (ire  pi,  Matt.  xxvi.  28  ;  vvtp 
Luke  xxii.  20;  wit,  Matt.  xx.  28;  Mark  x.  45). 
Being  free  from  sin,  He  did  not  deserve  death,  but 
freely  took  it  on  Him  for  us.  He  "bore  our  sins  in  His 
own  body  up  to  (or  on)  the  tree  "  (i  Pet.  ii.  24),  and 
there  died  as  our  representative.  Those  who  realize 
His  love  and  who  truly  believe  in  Him  are  so  united 
with  Him  that  His  death  is  a  propitiation  for  their 
sins  (i  John  ii.  2).  But  this  cannot  be  understood 
unless  we  recollect  that  He  who  died  on  the  Cross 
for  us  was  one  with  God,  and  that  thus  our  Creator 
and  our  Judge  voluntarily  satisfied  the  demands  of 
justice,  by  dying  for  the  guilty  in  the  human  nature 
which  He  had  assumed. 

One   or    two    considerations    make    the    matter 
clean  i  . 


174  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

(a)  By  one  man's  sin :  it  was  that  condemnation, 
sin,  and  death  came  upon  all  men  through  their 
federal    union    with    him2.      Hence    it    was  just 
that  by  "  the  righteousness  of  One  "  all  men  should 
be  offered  salvation.     As  all  men  are  not  compelled 
to   perish   through    Adam's    sin   (for   salvation   is 
offered  through  Christ),  so  all  men  are  not  compelled 
to  be  saved  through  Christ  (since  they  who  will 
may  refuse  the  salvation  which  He  offers). 

(b)  The  sight  of  Christ's  sufferings  and  the  fearful 
cruelty,  hardheartedness,  and  wickedness  of  those 
who  crucified  Him,  shows  us,  as  nothing  else  could 
do,  the  awful  nature  and  heinous  guilt  of  sin,  since 
it  is  hostile  to  God  and  to  everything  good  in  man. 
This  helps  us  to  hate  and  shun  sin  and  to  repent  of 
our  past  iniquity. 

(c)  Since  Christ  tells  us  that  He  is  one  with  His 
Father  (John  x.  30),  and  that  whosoever  sees  Him 
beholds  His  Father  (John  xiv.  7,  9),  and  also  informs 
us  that  the  Father's  love  for  men  was  manifested 
in   the   gift  of  His  Son  (John  iii.   16),   therefore 
Christ's  love  reveals  His  Father's  and  "  we  love 

1  Cf.  Mishkat  (Bab  IF.,  fasl  ii.),  where  a  tradition  states  that 
Adam's  children  have  inherited  sin  from  him. 

2  In   accordance  with  this   is   the   Muhammadan  tradition 
which  states  that  God  extracted  all  men  from  Adam's  loins  in 
the  form  of  " existent  motes"  (adh-dharrdtu''l  Kdindf),  in  order 
to  make  them  parties  to  the  Covenant.    (Mr.  H.  G.  Harding.) 
This  refers  to  what  is  called  the  AkhdlwCl  Mifhdq  ^jlt-J.1  J-J>-1,  and 
the  various  traditions  on  the  subject  are  given  in  the  Turkish 
Mir'dtu'l  Kdindt,  vol.  i.  p.  106). 


OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.  175 


because  He  first  loved  us"  (i  John  iv.  19). 
Thus  the  believer's  heart  is  drawn  to  God,  his  will 
submits  with  perfect  trust  to  God's  will,  not  as 
a  slave  but  as  a  son.  Thus  man  is  reconciled  to 
God,  and  the  Atonement  is  accomplished. 

Although  much  else  is  shrouded  in  mystery,  yet 
enough  is  here  revealed  to  enable  every  one  who 
wills  it  to  obtain  salvation  through  Christ  (cf. 
Deut.  xxix.  29). 

173.  J/.  We  know  from  the  Qur'an  (Surah  IV., 
An   Nisa',   156)   that   Jesus   was   not   killed,    but 
ascended  up  to  heaven  without  dying1.     It  is  a 
mere  Jewish  legend  that  represents  Him  as  put  to 
death. 

C.  If  so,  there  is  no  hope  of  salvation  for  you, 
for  me,  or  for  any  man.  But  we  know  from  God's 
Word  that  He  died  and  rose  again  before  He  ascended 
into  heaven.  [Vide  §§  94,  95.] 

174.  37.  If  the  forgiveness  of  sins  is  dependent  on 
the  death  of  Christ,  how  was  it  that  He  forgave 
sins  before  Ho  died  ?  and  how  were  men  saved  in 
the  ages  before  His  birth  \ 

C.  Through  the  Atonement  which  He  was  about 
to  accomplish  (Heb.  ix.  13,  14,  24-28).  [There  is 
no  time  with  God,  though  we  speak  of  past,  present, 
and  future.] 

175.  M.  If  Christ  paid  our  debts,  to  whom  did 
He  pay  them  ? 

1  For  varinix  Muhammadan  accounts  of  this  vide  The 
of  the  Crescent,  App.  A,  and  authorities  there  cit«  •<!. 


176  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

C.  This  is  a  metaphor  and  may  be  pressed  too 
far.  By  His  death  for  us  He  satisfied  the  claims  of 
Divine  Justice,  ultimately,  though  not  proximately, 
for  Divine  Justice  still  demands  the  death  of  our 
bodies  (Ezek.  xviii.  20:  vide  §§  193-195). 

176.  M.  Did  He  make  atonement  for  all  men,  or 
only  for  His  own  disciples  ? 

C.  Potentially  for  all  (i  John  ii.  2),  though 
practically  (as  far  as  we  know)  His  death  benefits 
only  those  who  believe  in  Him. 

177.  M.  If  He  died  for  all,  then  all  are  thereby 
freed  from  guilt  and  punishment 1. 

C.  Only  potentially.  If  a  rope  be  thrown  to  a 
drowning  man,  it  is  safety  to  him  only  if  he  catches 
it  and  clings  to  it  until  he  is  drawn  ashore.  Salva 
tion  means  deliverance  from  the  power  of  sin  and 
the  guilt  of  past  sin  (Matt.  i.  21),  and  only  con 
sequently  from  the  future  punishment  of  sin.  It 
does  not  denote  escape  from  temporal  punishment 
(2  Sam.xii.  10-1 8,  and  subsequent  history  of  David). 

1  Somewhat  the  same  objection  is  occasionally  put  thus  : — 
M.  If  Christ  paid  all  men's  debt  (i  John  ii.  2  :  Heb.  ii.  9) 
and  if  God  nevertheless  punishes  some  men,  then  He  is  unjust. 
Or  if  you  say  that  God  only  wishes  to  save  all  men  through 
Christ's  death  and  yet  punishes  some  for  not  being  saved,  He 
is  still  unjust.  But  this  is  impossible.  Hence  the  doctrine  of 
the  Atonement  is  false. 

(7.  Christ  paid  the  debt  and  opened  the  prison  doors  and  now 
offers  all  men  both  the  will  and  the  power  to  come  out,  but  does 
not  force  them  to  do  so.  If  they  refuse  to  come  out,  they  are 
doubly  guilty,  both  as  sinful  rebels  and  for  despising  God's 
mercy.  (Rev.  W.  A.  Rice,  from  Leupolt.) 


OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.  177 

178.  M.  If  Christ  paid  the  penalty,  all  men  may 
sin  as  they  like  without  fear. 

C.  Certainly  not  (Rom.  vi.  I  sqq. ;  2  Cor.  v.  14,  15; 
Titus  i.  15  and  ii,  esp.  ii.  11-14;  Heb.  x.  26-31; 
i  John  ii.  1-6,  &c.,  &c.). 

179.  M.  How  could  He  make  atonement  for  the 
world,  since  we  are  told  in  the  Old  Testament  that 
no   man   may   make   atonement    for    his    brother 
(Ps.  xlix.  7)? 

C.  That  means  atonement  to  save  a  man  from 
death.  The  next  verse  says,  "  For  the  redemption 
of  their  soul  is  costly"  (Ps.  xlix.  8).  Hence 
Chrisf s  death  was  necessary  to  atone  for  sin. 
Christ  was  not  a  mere  man,  though  Ho  was  truly 
man.  "  God  was  in  Christ,  reconciling  the  world 
unto  Himself"  (2  Cor.  v.  19).  [See  above,  §§  171, 
172.] 

180.  M.  It  was  unjust  for  the  innocent  to  have 
to  suffer  for  the  guilty. 

C.  Christ  gave  Himself  for  us,  voluntarily  dying 
for  our  salvation  (John  x.  17,  18). 

181.  H.  How  can  that  be,  when  the  Gospel  tells 
us    that   He   was   seized    by   a   band   of  soldiers 
(Murk    xiv.   46;    John  xviii.   12),  and   that  with 
'strong  crying  and  tears"  He   prayed  to  escape 
death  (Heb.  v.  7)? 

C.  Scripture  explains  itself.  If  you  read  Mutt. 
xxvi.  36-46 ;  Mark  xiv.  32-42  ;  Luke  xxii.  39-46  ; 
John  xvii,  you  will  understand  Heb.  v.  7  ;  while 
John  xviii.  6  shows  that  He  had  power  to  resist, 

M 


178  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

had  He  pleased.  The  Gospel  narrative  is  so 
clear  on  this  point  that  no  one  can  fail  to  under 
stand  it. 

182.  M.  When  you  say  that  Christ's  death  saves 
Christians  from  their  sins,  this  must  mean  (i)  from 
ability  to  sin,  or  (2)  from  the  punishment  of  their 
sins.  According  to  your  Scriptures,  the  prophets 
(who,  as  you  say,  believed  in  Him)  were  not  saved 
from  either  the  one  or  the  other.  It  did  not  save 
from  sin  Judas  the  betrayer  of  Jesus,  or  Peter  who 
denied  Him,  or  Thomas  who  doubted  Him,  or  the 
other  disciples  who  "  forsook  Him  and  fled."  Nor 
does  it  save  modern  Christians  from  sin.  (We  see 
a  good  many  of  them  in  India,  in  Egypt,  in 
Palestine,  in  Turkey,  and  even  in  Persia!)  Some 
may  be  good,  but  good  men  are  found  in  all 
religions.  Christ's  death  does  not  exempt  Chris 
tians  from  punishment  here:  it  is  difficult  to  believe 
therefore  that  it  will  do  so  hereafter.  Nor  do  they 
even  escape  from  the  curse  on  Eve,  for  even  Christian 
mothers  suffer  in  childbirth. 

C.  Faith  in  Christ  crucified  saves  true  Christians 
(John  iii.  3,  5)  from  the  love  of  sin,  and  through 
the  grace  of  God's  Holy  Spirit  overcomes  sinful 
desires  and  temptations  in  them,  and  makes  them 
long,  pray,  and  strive  to  rise  from  the  death  of  sin 
to  the  life  of  righteousness.  If  they  fall  into  sin, 
they  are  punished  here  ;  but  change  of  heart  does 
produce  change  of  life.  They  are  conscious  of 
reconciliation  with  God,  and  obtain  that  peace  which 


OF    CHRIST  S    ATONEMENT.  179 

the  world  can  neither  give  nor  take  away.  No  other 
religion  produces  such  good  fruit.  Islam  certainly 
does  not.  We  find  the  Bible  bearing  witness  to 
the  change  which  faith  in  Christ  crucified  wrought 
in  Peter,  in  Paul :  we  see  the  like  change  in  many 
among  our  own  countrymen,  and  you  see  it  too  in 
those  of  your  people  who  have  become  true 
Christians.  You  must  not  confound  nominal 
Christians  with  true  ones.  The  tree  is  known 
by  its  fruit,  and  St.  James  tells  us  that  faith  which 
does  not  produce  good  fruit  is  dead  and  not  living 
faith  (Jas.  ii.  26). 

183.  J/.  If  it  is  true  that  "  in  every  nation  he 
that   feareth   Him   and  worketh   righteousness   is 
acceptable  to  Him"  (Acts  x.  35),  that  is  to  God, 
what  possible  need  can  there  be  for  an  Atonement  ? 

C.  St.  Peter,  in  the  very  chapter  from  which  you 
quote,  answers  your  question  by  preaching  remission 
of  sins  through  belief  in  Christ  crucified  (Acts  x. 
36-43).  He  shows  us  that  verse  35  means  that,  when 
God  sees  that  any  man  is  trying  to  do  right  through 
fear  of  God,  He  guides  that  man  to  believe  in 
Christ  who  died  for  him,  as  He  guided  Cornelius 
to  believe  and  be  baptized  (Acts  x.  48). 

184.  M.  At   least  we   Muslims   need  no   atone 
ment,  for  all  Muslims  are  ultimately  saved. 

C.  It  would  be  hard  to  prove  that  on  any  better 

authority  than  your  Traditions.     Yet  Surah  XII., 

HAd,   120  (cf.  Sarah  XXXIL,  As  Sujdah,  13,  &c.) 

tells  us  that  God  "will  fill  hell  with  jinns  and  men 

M  2 


l8o  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

all  together "  ;  and  the  Qur'an,  addressing  Muslims, 
says,  "  There  is  none  of  you  but  descends  into  it," 
that  is,  hell-fire  (Surah  XIX.,  Maryam,  72).  That  is 
a  terrible  prospect,  in  spite  of  the  attempts  which 
commentators  make  to  console  you  with  promises. 

[185.  J7.  The  name  of  God's  prophet  on  the  seal 
which  will  be  stamped  upon  our  foreheads  will 
prevent  the  flames  from  hurting  us  \ 

C.  If  you  are  wise  men,  you  will  write  the  name 
of  Muhammad  on  your  foreheads  and  make  the 
experiment  with  fire  now,  before  it  is  too  late  to 
change  your  opinion  should  it  be  wrong !] 

186.  M.  Ours   is  the  broad,    easy   way    (Surah 
LXXXVIL,  Al  A'la,  8),  while  yours  is  narrow  and 
difficult. 

C.  You  say  well,  but  Christ  has  told  us  whither 
the  broad  way  leads  (Matt.  vii.  13).  Does  not  the 
Qur'an  agree  with  this  in  telling  you  that  none  of 
you  shall  fail  to  arrive  at  hell-fire  (Surah  XIX., 
Maryam,  72)? 

187.  M.  Isaiah's  words,  "  He  was  wounded  for  our 
transgressions  "  (Isa.  liii.  5),  cannot  refer  to  Jesus, 
but  must  have  reference  to  some  prophet  who  pre 
ceded  Isaiah  2. 

1  This  view  is  not  now  entertained  by  educated   Indian 
Muslims.  But  it  is  sometimes  brought  forward  by  Muhammadans 
in  Persia,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  well-known  tradition 
that  the  nineteen  angels  who  preside  over  hell  are  thus  pre 
served  from  the  fire. 

2  How  little  weight  this  argument  has  with  Muslims  who 
know  Arabic  is  seen  from  the  fact  that  such  (vide  §  213)  men 


OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.  181 

C.  Even  if  we  suppose  that,  and  apply  the  same 
supposition  to  Ps.  xxii,  where  also  the  ^ast  tense  is 
used,  we  see  that  the  Old  Testament  agrees  with 
the  New  in  declaring  man's  need  of  an  atonement, 
for  "without  shedding  of  blood  there  is  no  re 
mission"  (Heb.  ix.  22).  But  what  you  say  cannot 
be  correct,  since  neither  the  Taurat,  the  Zabur,  the 
Injil,  nor  the  Qur'an  tells  us  of  any  such  prophet, 
and  reason  proves  that  no  mere  man  could  atone  for 
the  sins  of  all  men.  A  very  slight  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  or  even  of  Arabic  grammar  would  show 
you  that  the  past  tense  is  often  used  for  the  future, 
when  the  future  event  is  so  firmly  fixed  and  certain 
to  come  to  paps  that  it  may  be  regarded  as  already 
past.  An  example  of  this  from  the  Qur'an  itself 
(according  to  many  commentators)  is  found  in  the 
first  verse  of  Surah  LIV.,  Al  Qamar,  where  the  Day 
of  Judgment  is  said  to  have  approached,  and  the 
moon  to  have  been  split,  the  meaning  being  that 
these  things  will  take  place.  With  God  there  is 
neither  past  nor  future,  all  is  present.  The  Hebrew 
past  tense  is  called  the  }H'nnansive,  because  it  denotes 
a  permanent  state  of  things.  The  older1  Jewish 

sometimes  state   that   Isa.  liii   is  a  prophecy  of  Muhammad's 
coming  and  work. 

1  The  Targum  explains  "My  servant  "  in  Isa.  hi.  13  as  "The 
M«  —iali."  Solomon  Yar  i  says  "  Our  fathers  assigned  it  to  tlio 
M«-^-iah,"and  adds,  "  For  they  say  that  the  Messiah  is  stricken, 
as  it  is  written,  l  He  took  our  infirmities  and  bare  our  griefs.' " 
R.  Moses  Alshekh  also  says  that  many  said  this  was  spoken  "  of 
the  King  Messiah."  In  his  comment  on  Zech.  iv.  7,  also, 
Solomon  Yarhi  quotes  Isa.  Hi.  13,  and  refers  it  to  the  Messiah. 


182  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

commentators  understood  Isa.  liii  as  a  Messianic 
prophecy,  and  the  New  Testament  shows  its  ful 
filment  in  Christ. 

188.  M.  Since  God  is  Almighty,  He  can  make 
people  good,  and  thus  reconcile  their  wills  with  His 
own,  without  the  death  of  Jesus  or  any  other  atone 
ment. 

C.  But  God  has  chosen  to  do  everything  by  means 
which  He  has  appointed.  This  is  a  fact  of  experience T. 
We  are  not  now  discussing  the  power  of  God  or  His 
ability  to  do  what  He  chooses.  We  are  discussing 
the  fact,  revealed  to  us  in  the  Bible,  that  Christ 
gave  "  His  life  a  ransom  for  many  "  (Matt.  xx.  28  ; 
Mark  x.  45).  But  experience  shows  us  that  God  has 
given  us  freedom  of  will  to  choose  good  or  evil. 
To  destroy  this  and  force  us  to  choose  good  would 
(i)  be  unworthy  of  His  wisdom,  for  it  would  prove 
that  He  had  made  a  mistake  in  giving  us  freedom 
of  will  in  the  first  instance.  (2)  If  there  was  no 
freedom,  there  would  be  no  possibility  of  virtue, 
which  implies  choice.'  (3)  To  deprive  us  of  freedom 
of  will  would  not  be  to  undo  our  past  transgres 
sions.  This  plan,  instead  of  making  all  men  good, 
would  prevent  any  from  being  good. 

189.  M.  All  that  happens  is  fated  2  to  happen. 
God  has  firmly  fastened  every  man's  fate  to  his 

1  Rev.  W.  A.  Rice. 

2  Vide  Surahs  VI.  123,  125;  VII.  177,  185  ;  X.  99 ;  XI.  120  ; 
XIII.   27,  30  ;  XVI.  39,  95  ;  XVIII.  16  ;  XXXII.  17  ;  LXXVI. 
29,  30  ;  LXXXI.  28,  29,  &c. 


OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.  183 

neck  (Surah  XVII.,  Al  Asra',  14),  He  "  misleadeth 
whom  He  willeth  and  guideth  aright  whom  He 
willeth"  (Surah  LXXIV.,  Al  Muddaththir,  34). 
Hence  He  is  the  real  author  of  our  sins  l  (Surah 
VI.,  Al  An  am,  39 ;  Surah  XCI.,  Ash  Shams,  8). 
No  atonement  therefore  is  necessary. 

C.  This  fatalism  of  yours  is  contrary  to  both 
reason  and  experience.  You  call  God  "the  Just 
One  "  ( J^UJl),  and  such  He  is.  Hence  He  does  not 
commit  the  fearful  injustice  of  forcing  us  to  do  evil 
and  then  punishing  us  for  doing  it.  Such  a  doctrine 
represents  God  as  evil :  it  places  Satan  on  the 
throne  of  God.  You  would  define  sin  as  what  God 
has  forbidden  and  does  not  wish  us  to  do.  It  is 
illogical  therefore  to  hold  that  He  does  wish  and 
compel  us  to  commit  it.  Our  own  experience 
shows  us  that  we  are  generally  free  with  regard  to 
actions  and  always  free  in  reference  to  intention* 
(ili  niyyaJi).  You  forget  this  and  make  sin  consist 
(principally  at  least)  in  act,  whereas  Christ  shows 
that  God  judges  the  heart  (Matt.  v.  27,  2«  :  cf.  Exod. 
xx.  17  ;  Ps.  vii.  9).  In  reality  fatalism  is  a  pagan 
doctrine,  and  is  found  in  every  form  of  paganism. 
It  everywhere  shows  that  those  who  hold  it  do  not 
really  believe  that  their  God  or  Gods  are  the  true 
rulers  of  the  universe  2,  but  that  it  is  ruled  by  fate. 

1  Some  of  the  Shi'ites,  how.  vr,  hold  that  God  withdraws 
His  -jrace  when  a  man  has  made  up  his  mind  to  sin. 
(Rev.  W.  A.  Rice.) 

3  This  latter  point  is  urged  by  Prof.  \Vutt k«,  lli^ry  of 
Paganism.  I  OW€  tli«-  i-  !'•  rano<  t"  tin-  Rev.  P.  M. 


184  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

190.  M.  If,  as  you  hold,  God  is  the  Author  of  all 
good  and  Satan  of  all  evil,  we  are  still  not  respon 
sible  for  our  actions1. 

C.  We  hold  that  God  enables  us  "  both  to  will 
and  to  work"  (Phil.  ii.  13,  13)  what  is  good,  but 
we  do  not  hold  that  He  compels  us  to  do  so  or 
deprives  us  of  freedom  of  will.  He  gives  us  grace 
to  withstand  the  temptations  of  the  devil,  if  we 
wish.  The  very  existence  of  conscience  proves  our 
responsibility,  for  wefeel2  our  guilt  when  we  have 
done  wrong  even  in  thought. 

191.  M.    Christ's   atonement   is  needless :    Mu 
hammad's  intercession  is  sufficient  for  us.     He  is 
God's  chosen,  greater  than  Christ.     His  name  was 
written  on  the  Preserved  Tablet,  on  the  base  of 
God's  throne  (o^jJl  Al  'Arsfy,  before  the  creation  of 
the  world.     All  things  were  made  for  him,  and  his 
light  (jjj  nnr)  was  the  first  of  all  created  things  3. 

C.  In  saying  this  you  say  what  cannot  be  proved. 
It  is  mere  assertion  4.  Moreover,  we  have  already 
proved  from  the  Qur'an  Christ's  superiority  to 
Muhammad  (§§  116,  117;  cf.  §§  85-90).  Muham- 

1  Note  the  latent  Dualism  in  this  assertion.  (Mr.H.  G.Harding.) 
3  A  good  Pagan  proof  is  given  in  the  isth  Satire  of  Juvenal. 

3  Vide  the  'Ardisu't  Tijdn,  Story   of  Adam  (p.   36  of  Indian 
Edition),  and  traditions  there  recorded. 

4  Moreover,  Muhammad  is  dead,  Christ  is  alive  in  Heaven,  as 
you  confess.    Hence  Muhammad  cannot  now  intercede  for  men. 
You  say  he  will  do  so  at  the  Judgment  Day,  but  that  Tradition 
is  not  confirmed  by  the  Qur'an.     Besides,  it  witt  be  too  late  then. 
(Rev.  Dr.  Wherry.     Vide  §  196.) 


OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.  185 

mad  was  a  mere  man,  born  in  the  ordinary  way, 
while  even  the  Qur'an  acknowledges  Christ's  super 
human  generation  (vide  §§117,  n8),and  gives  Him 
higher  titles  than  it  does  to  Muhammad.  This 
theory  about  the  light  of  Muhammad  is  taken  from 
what  the  Gospel  (John  i.  4,  5)  says  about  Christ, 
and  it  is  of  Christ  and  not  Muhammad  that  we  are 
told  that  "  In  Him  were  all  things  created,  in  the 
heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visible  and 
things  invisible  ;  ...  all  things  have  been  created 
through  Him,  and  unto  Him"  (Col.  i.  16).  These 
things  are  true  of  the  Word  of  God  (ifi-JLfj,  but 
of  no  mere  man,  of  no  creature,  can  they  be  true. 

192.  M.  Jesus'  great  work  was  to  bear  witness 
to  Muhammad  [vide  chapter  VII,  §§  196,  sqq.], 
and  He  will  come  again  to  slay  the  swine,  to  break 
the  cross,  and  to  bring  all  men  to  Islam.  He  will 
marry,  and  ultimately  die,  and  be  buried  in  Medina, 
where  His  empty  tomb  is  ready  for  Him,  since 
"Every  soul  shall  taste  of  death"  (Surah  XXI.,  Al 
Anbiya',  36).  [See  commentators  on  Surahs  XIX., 
Mary  am,  34,  and  IV.,  An  Nisa',  156-157.] 

C.  Christ  did  not  bear  witness  to  Muhammad, 
[unless  possibly  Matt.  vii.  15,  16  ;  xxiv.  n,  and 
similar  passages  include  a  reference  to  him],  nor 
will  He  do  so  when  He  comes  again.  But  He  will 
certainly  come  again  to  judge  the  world  (Matt.  xxv. 
31  sqq.),  and  receive  His  own  unto  Himself  (John 
xiv.  3).  This  is  what  is  meant  by  the  reference  to 
His  metaphorical  "  marriage "  with  His  Church 


1 86  OBJECTIONS    AGAINST    THE    DOCTRINE 

(Rev.  xxi.  2,  9,  10).  But  He  will  never  die  again 
(Rom.  vi.  10 ;  Rev.  i.  18).  Christ's  tomb,  whether 
at  Jerusalem  or  at  Medina,  is  empty  now  and  for 
ever ;  and  by  His  Atonement  and  His  Resurrection 
He  hath  "abolished  death,  and  brought  life  and 
incorruption  to  light  through  the  Gospel "  (2  Tim. 
i.  10). 

193.  M.  Your  Bible  says  that  death  is  the  wages 
of  sin  (Rom.  vi.  23) — death  of  the  body  and  death 
of   the    spirit,    that    is    to    say   eternity    in    hell 
(Rev.  xx.  14).     Did  Christ  undergo  for  men  both 
parts  of  the  penalty,  eternity  in  hell  as  well  as 
death  of  the  body1? 

C.  No.  He  does  not  endure  eternal  existence  in 
hell. 

M.  How  then  can  you  say  that  He  bore  the 
punishment  of  your  sins? 

C.  We  do  not  say  so,  for  it  is  of  the  nature  of 
punishment  that  it  cannot  be  borne  except  by  the 
guilty,  and  Christ  was  without  sin.  If  an  innocent 
man  suffers  instead  of  a  guilty  one,  it  is  incorrect 
to  say  that  the  innocent  man  was  punished,  though 
he  endured  suffering  for,  on  behalf  of,  or  even 
instead  of,  the  criminal.  The  Bible  says,  therefore, 
"  Christ  suffered  for  us/'  .  .  .  and  He  "  bore  our  sins 
in  His  own  body  on  (or  up  to)  the  tree,  that  we, 
being  dead  to  sins,  should  live  unto  righteousness, 
by  whose  stripes  ye  were  healed"  (i  Pet.  ii.  21-24). 
Notice  that  the  word  punMment  is  not  used. 

194.  M.  Does  Christ  deliver  those  who  believe 


OF  CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT.  187 

in  Him  from  both  parts  of  the  penalty,  from  the 
death  of  the  body  as  well  as  from  eternity  in  hell  ? 
C.  (vide  §  182).  He  saves  from  the  death  of  the 
body  those  who  are  alive  in  Him  and  are  found 
living  at  His  Second  Coming  (i  Cor.  xv.  51),  and 
He  then  raises  to  an  eternal  life  of  purity  and 
happiness  those  who  have  died  in  the  true  faith, 
thus  overcoming  death  and  giving  them  deliver 
ance  from  and  victory  over  it  (i  Cor.  xv.  54~57)- 
Moreover,  He  delivers  His  faithful  followers  even 
now  in  one  sense  from  the  death  of  the  body,  for 
death  to  them  is  devoid  of  terror  and  is  therefore 
called  sleep  in  the  New  Testament.     In  this  sense 
"  Jesus   Christ  .   .   .  abolished    (annulled)    death " 
(2  Tim.  i.  10),  since  He  has  delivered  from  its  fear 
and  sting  those  who,  before  believing  and  receiving 
the  new  life  which  He  gives  (John  iii.  3,  5 ;  vi.  50, 
58 ;    xi.  25,  26),  "  through  fear  of  death  were  all 
their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage"  (Heb.  ii.  14,  ij). 

195.  M.  Does  it  not  seem  to  you,  then,  a  strange 
thing  that  the  part  of  the  penalty  that  Christ 
underwent  is  the  part  from  which  He  does  not 
deliver  you,  since  you  must  die  in  the  body,  and 
the  part  which  He  does  not  undergo  is  the  part 
from  which  He  does  deliver  you,  that  is  from  hell- 
fire? 

C.  Hell-fire  is  the  doom  of  the/w«%  impenitent, 
of  those,  that  is,  whose  hearts  are  hardened  against 
the  love  of  Christ,  who  died  to  save  them  from  their 
sins  (Matt.  i.  21).  Tnte  believers  in  Him  are  not 


l88     AGAINST  THE    DOCTRINE    OF    CHRIST'S  ATONEMENT. 

family  impenitent,  therefore  it  was  not  fitting  that 
He  should  "undergo  that  part  of  the  penalty" 
which  faith  in  Him  and  the  change  of  heart  which 
He  thereby  produces  in  His  people  prevents  them 
from  incurring.  It  is  by  saving  them  from  the 
power  and  guilt  of  sin  that  He  delivers  them  from 
final  separation  from  God  and  being  cast  out  into 
the  outer  darkness.  The  force  of  your  objection 
rests  upon  the  wrong  idea  that  Christ  was  punished 
instead  of  us,  and  it  has  weight  only  against  a  form 
of  the  doctrine  of  Atonement  which  arises  from 
a  loose  use  of  words  and  from  a  misunderstanding 
of  the  Bible1. 

1  The   questions   in    §§    194   and    195   are    suggested    by  the 
Rev.  A.  E.  Johnston  from  his  own  experience  as  a  missionary,, 


CHAPTER    VII. 

OBJECTIONS  AGAINST  CHRISTIANITY  ox  THE  GROUND 
OF  MUHAMMAD'S  DIVINE  MISSION  AS  THE 
LAST  OF  THE  PROPHETS. 

196.  M.  Christ  was  a  great  Prophet,  but  His  - 
time  is  past.  Muhammad,  the  Seal  of  the  Prophets 
and  the  Messenger  of  God,  has  succeeded  Him,  and 
is  now  the  Prophet  and  the  last l  of  them.  So  when 
one  king  dies,  another  succeeds  him  and  is  obeyed. 
Hence  the  Book  which  Muhammad  was  commis 
sioned  to  give  us  is  enough  for  us,  and  we  need 
nothing  else. 

C.  Let  us  for  the  moment  adopt  your  illustra 
tion.  You  all,  in  accordance  with  the  Qur'an  (and 
the  Gospel),  acknowledge  that  Jesus  is  alive  and 
that  Muhammad  is  dead  and  buried.  If  you  are 
a  Ilaji,  you  have  doubtless  seen  Muhammad's 
grave  at  Medina  and  noticed  that  the  grave  pre 
pared  beside  it  for  Jesus  i*  ewpfy.  Hence  the 

1  Muhammad  cannot  be  "the  last  of  the  Prophets  and  their 
because,  unlike  Christ,  he  did  not  fulfil  and  cany  <  n 
previous  revelations.  He  really  went  back  to  a  level  below 
Judaism.  The  difference  is  not  one  of  n->n-< -^.  nt  i;ils  only  but 
of  essentials.  The  Bible  deals  with  the /«"  ,,f  sin.  I.Ydrinption, 
&c. :  theQur'an  aliu«»>t  iu'ii"iv-  th«-m.  l,v\.  T.  F.  Walters.) 


IQO        OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD  S 

living  Prophet  and  not  the  dead  one  should  be 
obeyed,  more  especially  as  Christ  Himself  asserts 
that  He  is  alive  for  evermore  (Rev.  i.  18).  His 
"  time "  has  no  end,  for  He  says :  "  Heaven  and 
earth  shall  pass  away,  but  my  words  shall  not 
pass  away "  (Matt.  xxiv.  35).  You  cannot  any 
longer  argue  that  the  Bible  has  been  corrupted 
(chapter  II),  or  that  it  has  been  annulled  (chapter  III), 
so  that  these  words  of  Him,  whom  you  confess  to 
be  a  true  prophet,  must  have  weight  with  you. 
Remember,  too,  that  the  Qur'an  itself  bears  witness 
to  the  Bible  and  bids  you  profess  belief  in  it  (Surah 
II.,  Al  Baqarah,  130).  What  does  this  mean,  if 
you  no  longer  need  the  Bible  ? 

197.  M.  We   believe   in   Jesus   and   in    all   the 
prophets,  but  Muhammad  is  the  last  and  greatest 
of  them  all,  and  he  is  our  prophet  and   enough 
for  us. 

C.  Prove  his  claim. 

198.  M.  We  have  many  proofs,  among  the  prin 
cipal  of  which  are:  (i)  His  miracles,  (2)  the  style 
of  the  Qur'an,  (3)  the  spread  of  Islam,  (4)  the  pro 
phecies   regarding   Muhammad   still  contained   in 
the  Bible,  and  (5)  many  others  which  have  doubtless 
been  erased  by  the  Jews  and  Christians 

C.  We  have  already  considered  points  i  and  2 
(§§  126-165),  and  the  question  whether  any  pro 
phecies  concerning  Muhammad  have  ever  been 
erased  from  the  Bible  (§  14).  Let  us  now  deal 
with  the  two  which  remain. 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        IQI 

199.  M.  The   faith  of  Islam   could  never  have  " 
spread  so  quickly  over  so  many  lands  as  it  did, 
if  it  were  not  the  true  faith  and  Muhammad  a  true 
prophet. 

C.  If  that  argument  is  correct,  then  Buddhism 
must  be  the  true  faith,  for  it  spread  over  more 
countries  than  Islam,  it  spread  very  quickly,  and 
it  spread  peaceably ;  whereas  Islam  was  spread  prin 
cipally  by  the  sword,  certainly  a  very  trenchant 
argument!  Now  Buddhism  was  originally  an  ^^ 
Atheistic  philosophy1,  and  is  now  a  system  of 
demon-worship.  It  cannot  therefore  be  true. 
Again,  while  Muhammad  merely  preacJied  his  faith, 
comparatively  few  embraced  it ;  but  when  he  drew 
the  sword  and  handed  it  on  to  his  successors  to 
wield  after  him,  then  land  after  land  was  quickly  2 
won.  In  this  we  see  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  his 
claims.  Both  before  and  after  Muhammad  there 
have  been  great  conquerors. 

200.  M.  God  would  not  permit  such  vast  num 
bers  of  men  to  remain  century  after  century  in 
error,  therefore  Islam  must  be  true. 

C.  In  spite  of  your  own  belief  that  "  He  mis- 
leadeth  whomsoever  He  willeth  "  (Surah  LXXI\7., 

1  "The  Noble  Eightfold  Path,"  passim. 

2  The  slowness  of  the  progress  of  Christianity,  since  it  was 
made    generally    by   peaceful    means,    in    contrast    with    the 
rapidity  of  that  of  Islam,  made  by  the  sword  for  the  most  part, 
is  a  proof  of  the  superiority  of  the  Christian  faith.     Bee  I>ean 
Church's   arguments  on   Christian   civilization.      (Rev.    J.  P. 
PUlwood.) 


IQ2        OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMADS 

Al  Muddaththir,  34) !  Your  argument  would  prove 
Hinduism  and  every  other  false  faith  true,  if  the 
contention  were  to  be  granted.  There  are  perhaps 
more  Hindus  in  the  world  than  Muhainmadans,  and 
their  religion  is  older  far.  There  are  more  Christians 
than  either.  Of  course  we  gladly  acknowledge  that 
Islam  contains  certain  great  truths,  as  for  example 
the  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of  God.  But  this  does 
not  make  the  religion  true  as  a  whole. 

201.  M.  Well,  at  least  the  prophecies  regarding 
Muhammad  still  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  are  quite 
enough  to  prove  that  he  was  a  true  prophet. 

C.  You  must  really  take  one  line  of  argument  or 
the  other.  If  you  rely  upon  the  Bible,  as  we  now 
have  it,  as  containing  prophecies  regarding  Muham 
mad,  and  deem  those  prophecies  the  best,  if  not 
the  only,  proof  of  the  truth  of  his  claims,  then  you 
must  confess  that  the  Bible  exists  free  from  corrup 
tion,  as  indeed  has  been  proved  (chapter  II).  Other 
wise  you  'are  building  upon  the  sand 1.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  you  reject  the  Bible,  you  have  no 
other  proof  of  Muhammad's  claims.  [If  you  accept 
the  Bible,  it  confutes  many  of  the  most  cherished 
tenets  of  Islam,  and  thereby  disproves  the  truth 
of  the  Qur'an  and  Muhammad's  claims;  but  you 

1  A  Muslim  may  retort  that  by  referring  to  the  testimony  of 
the  Qur'an  we  are  placing  ourselves  in  the  same  position.  But 
it  should  be  pointed  out  that  we  appeal  to  the  Qur'an  not  as  if 
it  had  any  real  authority,  but  solely  to  show  him  that,  from  his 
own  standpoint,  many  of  his  arguments  against  Christianity  are 
untenable. 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        193 

may  draw  from  it  what  you  believe  to  be  prophe 
cies  regarding  Muhammad.  If  you  reject  the  Bible, 
these  latter  fail  you  and  you  are  none  the  better 
off;  for  your  Qur'an  testifies  to  the  truth  and 
authenticity  of  the  Bible,  and,  if  the  latter  be  not 
worthy  of  credence,  there  must  be  something  radi 
cally  wrong  with  the  Qur'an.] 

202.  M.  Surah  ILL,  Al  'Irmin,  75  leads  us  to 
expect  to  find  prophecies  of  Muhammad  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  Surah  LXL,  As  Saff,  6  assures 
us  of  a  very  distinct  prophecy  which  Jesus,  in  the 
Gospel,  uttered  regarding  him.  I  proceed  therefore 
to  adduce  first  the  Old  Testament  and  then  the 
New  Testament  predictions  concerning  Muhammad. 
First  of  all  comes  the  wonderful  prophecy  in 
Deut.  xviii.  18,  where  God  said  to  Moses,  "I  will 
raise  them  up  a  prophet  from  among  their  brethren, 
like  unto  thee,  and  will  put  my  words  in  his 
mouth ;  and  he  shall  speak  unto  them  all  that 
I  shall  command  him." 

This  prophecy  evidently  refers  to  Muhammad. 
For  (i)  the  promised  prophet  was  not  to  be  from 
among  the  Israelites  but  from  among  their,  brethren, 
the  Ishmaelites  (compare  Gen.  xxv.  9,  18);  and 
(2)  no  such  prophet  ever  did  arise  among  the 
Israelites  (Deut.  xxxiv.  10). 

C.  This  last  verse  refers  only  to  the  time  when 
the  final  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  was  written,  as 
is  evident  from  the  word  "yet."  [On  the  other 
hand  Deut.  xviii.  15  shows  that  the  prophet  fore- 


194        OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD  S 

told  was  to  come  "from  the  midst  of  tkee"  thus 
explaining  "  of  thy  brethren."]  Ishmael  was  Isaac's 
brother,  or  rather  his  half-brother :  and  if  the  Ish- 
maelites  can  be  called  in  one  sense  the  brethren  of 
the  Israelites,  in  a  far  stricter  sense  can  the  Israelites 
themselves  be  called  one  another's  brethren.  (Of. 
Surah  VII.,  Al  A'raf,  83,  « their  brother  Shu'aib.") 
They  are  so  called  in  Deut.  iii.  18  ;  xv.  7 ;  xvii.  15  1 ; 
xxiv.  14;  i  Kings  xii.  24,  &c.,  &c.  Moreover,  the 
Taurat  shows  most  clearly  that  no  prophet  was  to 
be  expected  from  Ishmael,  for  God  had  made  His 
covenant  not  with  him  but  with  Isaac,  to  the 
rejection  of  Ishmael  and  his  posterity  (Gen.  xvii. 
18-21;  xxi.  10-13).  This  is  confirmed  by  the 
Qur'an,  which  represents  the  prophetic  office  as  given 
to  Isaacs  seed.  (Surah  XXIX.,  Al  'Ankabut, 
27,  and  Surah  XLV.,  Al  Jathiyyah,  15:  "Also  to 
the  children  of  Israel  gave  We  of  old  the  Book 
and  Wisdom  and  Prophecy,  and  We  supplied  them 
with  good  things,  and  privileged  them  above  all 
peoples.") 

203.  M.  But  the  words  "from  the  midst  of  thee," 

1  "I  always  found  a  reference  to  this  passage  effective.  No 
one  questions  to  what  race  Saul  and  David  belonged,  and 
therefore  we  see  unmistakably  what  '  from  among  thy  brethren ' 
means.  Refer  also  to  the  universal  Eastern  use  of  brother.  For 
instance,  in  the  sentence  '  Apne  bhaion  men  se  kisi  ko  bulao ' 
(e.  g.  to  receive  an  appointment),  what  Muhammadan  so  ad 
dressed  would  think  that  members  of  his  own  family  were 
excluded  ?  "  (Bp.  of  Lahore.)  "  Did  the  Israelites  ever  choose 
a  foreigner  to  be  their  king,  or  did  God  ever  appoint  in  Israel 
a  foreign  king?  "  (Rev.  Dr.  Hooper.) 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        195 

in  Deut.  xviii.  15,  must  be  an  interpolation,  for 
they  do  not  occur  in  the  oldest  Greek  translation 
(the  Septuagint) 1,  nor  do  they  occur  when  the 
verse  is  quoted  in  Acts  iii.  22. 

C.  That  by  no  means  proves  that  they  did  not 
stand  in  the  original  text,  though  we  acknowledge 
that  this  is  one  of  the  passages  in  which  a  marginal 
note  may  have  been  incorporated  into  the  text. 
Yet  our  argument  by  no  means  depends  upon  these 
words,  but  upon  the  whole  tenor  of  Scripture. 
The  Prophet  spoken  of  is  the  Messiah,  promised  to 
Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  (Gen.  xii.  3  ;  xxvi.  4; 
xviii.  18;  xxii.  18;  xxviii.  14,  &c.).  This  is  clear 
even  from  the  passage  you  quote  from  the  Acts. 
where,  although  "from  the  midst  of  thee"  (as  you 
have  pointed  out)  does  not  occur,  nevertheless  Peter 
(Acts  iii.  25,  26)  explains  that  the  reference  is  to 
Jesus  Christ.  [Some  hold  that  the  meaning  of 
"a  prophet,"  in  Deut.  xviii.  15,  18,  is  not  only  one 
man  but  the  whole  body  of  prophets;  just  as  "a 
king"  in  Deut.  xvii.  14,  means  the  kings  of  Israel 
and  Judah  in  general,  and  "the  priest"  in  Deut. 
xviii.  3,  means  the  priests  in  general.  But  even 
so  the  passage  refers  to  Christ,  who  is  the  Prophet, 
the  Priest,  and  the  King2.]  Jeaus  ex i* tain*  f/iis  and 

1  Nor  in  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  The  Heb.  text  contains 
just  two  letters  more  than  the  latter,  thus  making  the  difference. 
The  argument  as  given  above  is  one  a  Muhammadan  adduced 
in  discussion  with  me. 

3  But  from  John  i.  21,  we  see  that  the  Jews  then  understood 
the  passage  as  referring  to  an  individual.  (Rev.  Dr.  Hooper.) 

N  2 


196       OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND     OF    MUHAMMAD'S 

other  passages  in  the  Law  as  referring  to  Himself.  John  v. 
46.  Thus  in  the  New  Testament  we  have  the  in 
spired  explanation  of  the  prophecy. 

Again,  the  promised  prophet  was  to  be  sent 
"  unto  thee,"  that  is  unto  Israel.  Christ  arose 
among  Israel  and  spent  almost  His  whole  time 
among  them.  He  sent  His  Apostles  also  in  the 
first  place  to  Israel  (Matt.  x.  6),  and  only  second 
arily  to  the  Gentiles  (Luke  xxiv.  47).  Muhammad, 
on  the  other  hand,  professed  to  be  sent  to  the 
Arabs,  among  whom  he  was  born.  He  did  not  do 
much  for  the  Jews  [except  in  the  way  of  slaughter 
ing  them  fl 

204.  M.  Muhammad  is  evidently  the  prophet 
"like  unto  Moses."  For  (i)  both  of  them  were 
brought  up  in  their  enemies'  houses  ;  (2)  appeared 
among  idolaters  ;  (3)  were  at  first  rejected  by  their 
own  people  and  afterwards  accepted  by  them  ;  (4) 
were  married  and  had  children ;  (5)  each  gave 
a  Law  (which  Christ  did  not :  John  i.  17) ;  (6)  fled 
from  their  enemies,  one  to  Midian  and  the  other 
to  Medina — which  words  are  of  similar  meaning ; 
(7)  marched  to  battle  against  the  unbelievers ;  (8) 
wrought  similar  miracles;  and  (9)  enabled  their 
followers  after  their  own  death  to  enter  on  the 
possession  of  Palestine. 

C.  Almost  the  same  things  could  probably  be 
said  of  Musailamah  or  of  Manes  (Mani).  Surely 
these  points  of  resemblance  are  not  those  intended. 
We  might  proceed  with  the  comparison  by  adding 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        197 

that  [both  committed  murder,  that  both  married 
wives,  Muhammad  a  largo  number,  that  the  names 
of  both  begin  with  M  *.,  that]  both  died  natural 
deaths,  and  so  on.  But  all  this  is  in  vain,  because 
the  very  foundation  for  the  comparison  is  cut 
away  by  the  verses  which  we  have  quoted  from 
Genesis,  proving  that  God  dcfuulcli/  ilirfm-n!  that 
His  convenant  was  to  descend  not  in  IshmaeFs 
family  but  in  Isaac's. 

Let  us  now  appeal  to  the  Qur'an  for  a  proof 
that,  in  at  least  one  very  important  point  indeed, 
Muhammad  was  not  in  the  least  like  Moses.  In 
Surah  VIL,  Al  A'raf,  156,  158  we  are  told  that 
Moses  prophesied  of  Muhammad,  calling  him  "  the 
unlettered2  prophet,"  by  God's  command.  Now 
in  this  Muhammad  was  not  very  like  Moses,  who 
"  was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians  " 
(Acts  vii.  22).  Hence  either  you  are  wrong  or 
the  Qur'an  is.  Again  we  are  told  that  Moses  was 
the  meekest ;J  of  men  (Num.  xii.  3),  which  can  hardly 
be  truly  said  of  Muhammad.  There  is  no  likeness 
1 .1  -twcen  Moses'  matrimonial  arrangements  and  those 
of  Muhammad.  Moreover  Muhammad  was  not  even 
of  the  Jewish  nation  as  Moses  was.  The  words 

1  Dr.  H.  M.  Clark. 

2  I  think  that  this  title  (JS&\ )  means  rather  "tho  Gentile" 
prophet,  as  K.  Abraham  iJ.-igrr  lias  pointed  out.     But  Sir  \V. 
Muir  thinks  th»r  above  explanation  correct.*    It  is  that  a<l<- ]>!«•'! 
by  all  Muslims. 

'  The  Hebrew  word  so  rendered  is  capable,  however,  of  other 
meanings.  (Hev.  P.  M.  Zt-nker.) 


in  John  i.  17  do  not  imply  that  Jesus  gave  no 
law,  for  elsewhere  we  are  told  that  He  did,  but 
a  spiritual  and  not  a  carnal  one  (Rom.  viii.  2 ; 
Gal.  vi.  2 ;  Jas.  i.  25 ;  ii.  8 ;  cf.  Heb.  viii.  10 ;  x. 
1 6).  Moses  wrought  many  miracles  (Surah  VII.. 
Al  A'raf,  101-116,  1 60),  but  we  have  seen  that, 
according  to  the  Qur'an  (Surah  XVII.,  Al  Asra', 
61),  God  did  not  send  Muhammad  with  miracles. 
(See  above  §§  126-129.) 

This  last  is  a  very  important  matter  indeed :  for, 
if  you  read  in  Deut.  xxxiv,  10-12,  the  points  in 
which  the  Israelites  expected  the  promised  prophet 
to  be  like  Moses,  you  will  find  that  they  were  not 
those  you  mention  but  only  two :  ( i )  personal 
knowledge  of  God,  and  (2)  mighty  works  l.  Now  the 
Gospels  prove  that  Christ  resembled  Moses  in  both 
matters,  though  excelling  him  immensely.  If  you 
compare  what  the  Qur'an  says  about  Moses  (whom 
you  style  &\  ~^}  with  what  it  says  about  Jesus 
(whom  the  Qur'an  teaches  you  to  call  <5l  I-Jo  ),  you 
will  see  that  here  both  the  Gospel  and  the  Qur'an 
agree. 

Finally,  observe  that  God  Himself  has  shown 
that  Deut.  xviii.  15-18,  refers  to  Christ.  Compare 
the  words  (verse  15)  "  Unto  him  }7e  shall  hearken  " 

1  Perhaps  the  most  important  element  in  the  "likeness"  lies 
in  the  mediatorship  />f  Moses  and  Christ.  Moses  interceded  for 
his  people,  and  when  about  to  be  taken  away  he  foretold  the 
coming  of  the  one  true  and  effectual  Mediator,  of  whom  he  was 
the  type  in  interceding  with  God.  (Dr.  H.  M.  Clark.) 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        199 


(see  also  verse  19)  with  Matt.  xvii.  5,  "Hear  ye 
Him  "  (cf.  Mark  ix.  2  ;  Luke  ix.  35). 

In  fact,  what  you  have  to  do  isjir&t  of  all  to  prove 
Muhammad  to  be  a  prophet.  It  will  then  be  time 
enough  to  proceed  to  prove,  if  you  can,  that  he  is 
the  prophet  referred  to  in  Deut.  xviii.  15,  18. 

205.  M.  There  are  many  other  prophecies  re 
garding  Muhammad  l  in  the  Old  Testament. 

For  example  Gen.  xlix.  10.  Here  "  Shiloh "  is 
a  title  of  Muhammad,  whose  very  name  may  be 
said  to  occur  in  verse  8  ;  "  Judah,  thou  art  he  whom 
thy  brethren  shall  praise " :  for  Muhammad  means 
"  he  who  is  much  praised." 

C.  The  Taurat  was  not  written  in  Arabic  but  in 
Hebrew,  and  the  word  in  the  original  which  is 
rendered  "  shall  praise "  is  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  like  "Muhammad,"  but  is  the  verb  from 
which  "Judah"  is  derived.  Verse  8  refers  the 
praise  to  Judah.  Muhammad  was  not  a  Jew.  Shiloh 
means  "he  to  whom  it  belongs,"  and  the  old  Jewish 
commentators  rightly  explained  it  as  a  title  of  the 
Messiah  2.  [Onk.,  Targ.  of  Jonathan,  Targum  of 
Jerusalem,  "  until  the  coming  of  king  Messiah." 
The  Tract  Sanhedrin  of  the  Talmud  says  it  is  the 

1  Many  of  those  here  mentioned  are  brought  forward  in  tho 
IzhdruCl  Haqq,  and  well  refuted  at  considerable  length  by  Naqula 
Ya'qub  Ghabril  in  his  Ibhtitlm'l  Mnjtahidin  (Cairo,  1901). 

a  Some  commentators  think  that  Shiloh  here  is  the  name  of  tho 
place  so  often  mentioned  in  later  books  (e.g.  Judges  xxi.  19,  21), 
and  render  "until  he  come  to  Shiloh."  But  this  is  unlikely. 
In  any  case  it  has  no  possible  reference  to  Muhammad. 


2OO       OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD'S 

Messiah's  name ;  the  Samaritan  Targum  implies 
the  same.  LXX.  TO.  aTro/cetjue^a  avr<j>.]  Jesus  was 
born  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  the  Gentiles  have 
in  large  measure  already  been  gathered  to  Him. 

206.  M.  Deut.  xxxii.  21  "I  will  move  them  to 
jealousy  with  those  which  are  not  a  people,"  &c. 
This  refers  to  the  Arabs.     It  cannot  refer  to  the 
Greeks  to  whom  Paul  and  other  Apostles  preached, 
for   they   were   celebrated  for  their   learning  and 
philosophy,  and  were  not  "  a  foolish  nation." 

C.  But  i(  The  wisdom  of  this  world  is  foolishness 
with  God"  (i  Cor.  iii.  19).  Mention  is  made  not 
of  a  person^  Muhammad  or  any  one  else,  but  of 
a  nation.  If  we  grant  that  it  refers  to  the  Arabs, 
many  of  their  tribes  were  Christian  before  they  were 
compelled  to  embrace  Islam  (Himyar,  Ghassan, 
Kabi'ah,  Najran,  Hirah,  &e.).  But  such  verses  as 
Eph.  ii.  11-13,  i  Pet.  ii.  10,  give  a  sufficient 
explanation. 

207.  M.  In    Deut.   xxxiii.    2   the   words   "The 
Lord  came  from  Sinai"  refer  to  the  giving  of  the 
Taurat  to  Moses.     "And  rose  up  from  Seir  unto 
them  "  speaks  of  the  descent  of  the  Gospel :  while 
"  He  shined  forth    from   Mount   Paran * "    clearly 

1  The  same  argument  (as  the  Eev.  C.  H.  Stileman  points  out) 
is  often  founded  on  the  words,  "  The  Holy  One  from  Mount 
Paran,"  in  Hab.  iii.  3.  (Vide  Ghabril's  full  answer  in  Ibhdthu'l 
Mujtahidin,  pp.  84  sqq.)  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  says  :  "I  have 
answered  by  pointing  out  that  the  passage  (Hab.  iii.  3)  goes  on 
in  the  singular  ('  His  glory  covered,'  &c.),  from  which  it  is  plain 
that  only  one  'coming'  is  denoted  by  the  dual  expression." 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        2OI 

denotes  the  bestowal  of  the  Qur'an,  for  Paran  is 
one  of  the  mountains  near  Mecca. 

C.  This  verse  speaks  of  the  extent  of  country 
over  which  the  glory  of  God's  manifestation  was 
visible  to  the  Israelites  when  they  were  encamped 
in  the  desert  near  Mount  Sinai.  A  glance  at  the 
map  will  show  you  that  Sinai,  Seir,  and  Paran  arc 
three  mountains  quite  close  to  one  another.  Mount 
Paran  is  many  hundreds  of  miles  from  Mecca.  If 
you  read  the  verses  in  which  Mount  Paran  and  the 
desert  of  Paran  are  mentioned1,  you  will  see  that 
it  was  in  the  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  not  far  from  the 
borders  of  Egypt.  The  verse  has  nothing  to  do 
with  either  the  Gospel  or  the  Qur'an. 

208.  J/.  Ps.  xlv  is  a  clear  prophecy  of  Mu 
hammad,  "  the  prophet  with  the  sword,"  compare 
verses  3-5. 

C.  Verse  6  shows  that  this  explanation  is  im 
possible,  for  Muhammadans  never  apply  to  Mu 
hammad  the  title  of  '•  God."  The  Psalm  was  there 
fore  evidently  fulfilled  in  Christ  (cf.  Pss.  ii,  Ixxii,  ex). 
The  "  king's  daughter  "  of  verse  13  is  the  bride  of 
Christ,  that  is  the  Christian  Church  (cf.  Rev.  xxi.  2), 
and  the  conquest  is  primarily  that  of  Satan  and  all 
his  hosts  (cf.  Rev.  xix.  11-21).  In  Heb.  i.  8,  9  it  is 
clearly  stated  that  verse  6  refers  to  67/m/  -. 

1  Gen.  xiv.  6;  Num.  x.  xa  ;  xii.  15  ;  xiii.  3  ;  Dout.  i.  i,  &c.  ; 
also  i  Kings  xi.  18. 

8  Rev.  Dr.  Hooper  calls  attention  to  Bp.  Wostcott's  comment 
on  Ps.  xlv.  6. 


232        OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD  S 

209.  M.  Ps.  cxlix  is  another  manifest  prophecy 
of  Muhammad.     Notice  the  "  new  song  "  (verse  i), 
i.  e.  the  Qur'an,  and  the  mention  of  the  two-edged 
sword  in  verse  6.      This  last  refers  especially  to 
'Ali,    the  prophet's    son-in-law,   for   he   had   such 
a  sword  and  made  good  use  of  it.     The  "  king  "  in 
verse  2  is  Muhammad. 

C.  If  you  read  verse  2,  you  will  see  that  "  Israel/' 
"the  children  of  Zion,"  are  called  upon  to  rejoice 
"  in  their  king."  The  title  of  "  king  of  the  Jews  " 
is  a  strange  one  to  give  to  Muhammad !  Why 
they  should  rejoice  in  him  is  rather  a  difficult  thing 
to  explain,  if  you  remember  how  he  treated  the 
Banu  Qainuqa*  and  other  Jewish  tribes.  The  "  two- 
edged  sword  "  is  said  in  the  Psalm  to  be  "  in  their 
hands,"  i.e.  in  that  of  the  Israelites,  not  in  the 
hand  of  'Ali.  "  The  king  "  of  verse  2  is  explained 
in  verse  4  to  be  "  the  Lord,"  who  is  often  styled 
King  of  Israel. 

210.  M.  In  the  Song  of  Solomon  (v.  16)  Muham 
mad's  name  actually  occurs  in  the  Hebrew,  in  the 
form  Maliamaddim.      This  plural   form  is  used  to 
denote  his  greatness  as  a  prophet 1. 

C.  The  idea  that  Muhammad's  name  is  contained 
in  this  word  is  due  to  ignorance  of  Hebrew.  A 
Hindu  might  just  as  well  fancy  that  the  names  of 
some  of  his  deities  were  mentioned  in  the  Qur'an 
because  of  the  accidental  likeness  between  them 

1  The  Rev.  Ahmed  Shah  mentions  this  objection.  I  have 
met  with  it  in  India  but  not  elsewhere. 


IH  VINE     MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        203 


and  certain  Arabic  words ;  or  an  ignorant  Muslim 
might  as  correctly  assert  that  in  the  verse  Al  Jiatiulo 
l'ili<ihi  Tlii'jlj'il  'dlamm,  Muhammad's  name  occured. 
The  translation  of  the  word  malnnnadilun  in  Cant.  v. 
16,  is  simply  "  delightfulnesses."  It  is  a  common  and 
not  a  proper  noun,  and  it  occurs  as  frequently  in 
Hebrew  as  do  some  of  the  derivatives  of  the  root 
_u^  in  Arabic.  If  you  carefully  consult  the  other 
passages  in  which  the  same  word  occurs,  either  in 

A  o 

the  singular  or  in  the  plural,  you  will  see  that  the 
word  cannot  be  taken  as  Muhammad's  name.  Cf. 
Hosea  ix.  6,  16  ;  i  Kings  xx.  6  ;  Lam.  i.  10,  IT;  ii. 
4;  Joel  iv.  5;  Is.  Ixiv.  10  ;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  19; 
Ezek.  xxiv.  16,  21,  25.  In  the  last  passage  it  is 
applied  to  a  woman,  Ezekiel's  wife  (v.  1 6,  "  the 
desire  of  thine  eyes,"  cf.  v.  18),  and  to  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  the  idolatrous  Jews  (v.  25). 

211.  M.  In  Isa.  xxi.   7  the  "  chariot  of  asses " 
refers  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  who  entered  Jeru 
salem  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  whose  ass  is  one  of 
the  animals  admitted  into  Paradise.     In  the  same 
way  "a  chariot  of  camels"  refers  to  Muhammad, 
who  always  rode  a  camel. 

C.  Verse  9  explains  that  the  watchman  saw  people 
fleeing  to  escape  from  Babylon  when  it  was  captured 
by  the  enemy,  some  on  asses,  some  on  horses,  some 
on  camels.  There  is  no  reference  to  Christ  or  to 
Muhammad  either. 

212.  M.   Isa.    xlii.    10,    n.      Here    the    "  m-\\ 
sons:  "  is  an  evident  reference  to  the  new  method  of 


204       OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD  S 

worship  adopted  by  the  Muslims  ;  and  the  mention 
of  "Kedar"  distinctly  indicates  the  Arabian 
prophet. 

C.  [Those  of  us  who  know  what  Muhammadan 
worship  is  will  recognize  that  the  word  "  song " 
does  not  describe  it,  since  they  exclude  music  from 
their  worship.]  "The  villages  that  Kedar  doth 
inhabit" — this  phrase  denotes  certain  Arabian 
tribes,  such  as  those  that  were-  Christian  in 
Muhammad's  time  and  doubtless  will  be  so  again. 
But  "  my  servant "  in  verse  i  is  explained  in 
chapter  xlix.  3  as  meaning  "  Israel,"  doubtless  the 
spiritual  Israel,  those  who  believed  in  Christ  from 
among  the  Jews,  and  in  lii.  13  the  old  Jewish 
commentators  explain  the  same  word  as  referring 
to  the  Messiah.  Christ  came  from  Israel  and  re 
presented  it,  which  Muhammad  did  not.  Chapter 
xlii.  1-4  evidently  suits  Christ  and  not  Muhammad, 
and  in  our  own  days  we  see  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophecy  in  verse  4,  though  it  was  partly  fulfilled 
when  the  islands  and  coast-lands  of  Europe  were 
converted  to  Christ.  That  verses  1-4  refer  to 
Christ  is  taught  in  Matt.  xii.  17-21. 

213.  M.  Isa.  liii  is  a  prophecy  not  about  Jesus 
but  about  Muhammad.  The  latter  was  "a  root 
out  of  a  dry  ground,"  for  he  arose  in  Arabia 
(verse  2).  He  "  made  his  grave  with  the  wicked," 
for  he  was  buried  in  Medina  (verse  9).  The 
words  "he  shall  see  his  seed"  (verse  10)  are  true 
of  Muhammad  and  not  of  Christ,  as  is  the  promise 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        205 

that  he  should  "  divide  the  spoil  with  the  strong  " 
(verse  12),  i.  e.  with  the  Ansars,  as  Muhammad  did 
in  all  his  attacks  on  his  enemies  and  the  enemies  of 
God.  The  words  "  he  hath  poured  out  his  soul 
unto  death"  may  be  metaphorical  (verse  12),  but 
they  may  also  be  literal,  for  Muhammad  did  die 
and  Jesus  ascended  to  heaven  without  dying. 
[But  see  §§  93-951-] 

C.  The  whole  of  the  New  Testament  shows  how 
this  chapter  was  fulfilled  in  Christ.  See  also 
Ps.  xxii.  The  old  Jewish  commentators  also  under 
stood  it  of  the  Messiah.  Verses  5,  6,  7,  8,  and 
a  large  part  of  verse  1 2  are  evidently  inapplicable 
to  Muhammad  1. 

214.  M.  Isa.  liv.  i  :  "  Sing,  O  barren,  thou  that 
didst  not  bear."  This  is  a  prophecy  of  the  birth  of 
Muhammad  from  the  family  of  Ishmael,  and  predicts 
that  more  will  be  brought  to  God  as  his  followers 
than  were  converted  by  all  the  prophets  who  came 
from  Israel. 

C.  The  words  of  comfort  are  addressed  to  Israel 
in  captivity  at  Babylon,  and  predict  (verses  7-15) 
their  return.  St.  Paul  (Gal.  iv.  27)  explains  their 

1  It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  answer  this  argument  here  at 
any  length,  as  the  answer  so  readily  suggests  itself.  The 
argument  has  great  weight  with  Muslims,  especially  about 
••dividing  the  spoil."  I  have  met  it  in  Persia,  and  Rev.  H.  D. 
Goldsmith  mentions  the  whole  argument  as  above  as  met  with 
in  India  (C.M.S.  Annual  Report  for  1902,  p.  286).  Vide  §  187.. 
The  spoil  was  to  be  divided  by  the  Messiah  after  his  <lmth. 
Muhammad  did  not  do  this  :  he  did  it  during  his  life.  (Rev. 
Dr.  Wherry.) 


206 


spiritual  fulfilment  in  the  conversion  of  the  Gentiles 
to  Christ x. 

215.  M.  Another  similar  prophecy  of  the  conver 
sion  of  the  Arabians  and  others  through  Muhammad 
is  contained  in  Isa.  Ixv.  1-6  :  "I  am  sought  of  them 
that  asked  not  for  me,"  &c.     Verses  2  sqq.  tell  how 
wicked  were  the  Jews  and  Christians,  whom  God 
therefore  rejected. 

C.  Verse  i  is  a  prophecy  of  the  conversion  of  the 
Gentiles  to  Christ.  Verses  2-6  mention  the  sins  of 
some  of  the  Jews,  but  verses  8-10  declare  that  God 
will  not  reject  the  whole  Jewish  nation  (cf.  Rom. 
xi).  Nothing  is  said  of  the  Christians,  and  not 
one  word  about  Muhammad. 

216.  M.  In  Dan.  ii.  45  there  is  a  clear  prophecy 
of  Muhammad,  the  stone  cut  out  of  the  mountain 
without  hands,  and  of  the  Empire  of  Islam  which 
he  founded.     In  that  chapter  we  are  told  of  four 
kingdoms    which    were    to    precede    Muhammad's 
coming.     The  first  is  that  of  the  Chaldaeans,  the 
second   the  Median,  the   third  the  Kayanian   (or 
Persian),  and    the   fourth   that   of  Alexander  the 
Great.     Alexander  shattered   the   Persian   power, 

1  Muslims  sometimes  quote  Isa.  Ixiii.  1-6,  as  a  prophecy  of 
Muhammad,  "  the  prophet  with  the  sword."  But  from  com 
paring  v.  5  with  Isa.  lix.  15,  16,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  person 
who"  cometh  from  Edom, . . .  from  Bozrah,"  is  Jehovah  Himself, 
who  has  punished  Edom  for  its  sins.  Cf.  the  spiritual  develop 
ment  of  the  passage  in  Eev.  xix.  1 1,  sqq.  (Bozrah  is  Al  Busairah, 
a  little  south  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  is  nowhere  near  Mecca  or 
Basrah.) 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        207 

but  it  recovered  under  the  Sasanians.  After  that 
it  lasted,  at  one  time  weak  and  at  another  strong, 
until  Muhammad  was  born,  in  the  time  of  Anu- 
shiravan,  the  great  King  of  Persia.  After  that  the 
might  of  Islam  arose,  broke  for  ever  the  Persian 
power,  subdued  Persia,  Mesopotamia,  Macedonia, 
Palestine,  and  "  filled  the  whole  land "  (verses 

44,  45)- 

C.  It  is  unfortunate  for  your  argument  that 
history  is  against  it.  The  Book  of  Daniel  itself 
explains  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy.  The  first 
of  the  four  kingdoms  was  the  Chaldaean  or  Baby 
lonian  under  Nebuchadnezzar  (Dan.  ii.  37,  38),  ^as 
you  say  rightly.  Then  came  the  Medo-Persian 
kingdom  under  Cyrus  and  his  successors  (viii.  3,  4, 
20),  which  was  not  two  but  one  k'tn<j<loni,  as  the 
last  quoted  verse  (with  many  others)  proves. 
This  was  overthrown  by  the  Macedonian  (viii.  5, 
7,  21)  under  Alexander,  after  whose  death  his 
kingdom  was  divided  into  four  (viii.  8,  22),  and 
thus  gradually  faded  into  insignificance,  as  we 
know  from  history.  To  this  third  kingdom  suc 
ceeded  the  fourth,  the  Roman  Empire,  which  is 
described  in  ii.  40.  It  was  in  the  time  of  the 
Roman  Empire  !,  while  Rome  still  ruled  nearly  the 
whole  known  world,  that  Christ  was  born  and  set 

1  A  Muslim  may  argue  that  Muhammad  also  was  born  in  the 
time  of  the  Roman  (i.e.  Byzantine)  Empire.  But  we  have 
already  seen  that  there  are  no  proofs  in  support  of  Muh.miin;i«r^ 
claims,  and  that  the  Qur'an  itself  gives  to  Christ  higher  titles 
than  it  does  to  Muhammad.  (§§  116,  sqq.) 


208       OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD'S 

up  His  kingdom,  which  was  "not  of  this  world" 
(John  xviii.  36;  Luke  i.  31-33;  Dan.  vii.  13,  14, 
37).  He  called  Himself  the  Son  of  Man,  in  accor 
dance  with  Dan.  vii.  1 3  ;  and  His  is  the  kingdom 
described  as  the  stone  that  filled  the  whole  earth 
(ii.  45).  You  yourself  know  how  widely  extended 
that  kingdom  now  is.  When  Christ  returns,  every 
knee  shall  bow  to  Him  (Phil.  ii.  9-11). 

217.  M\  The  words  "The  Desire  of  all  nations 
shall  come"  (Hag.  ii.  7),  are  a  prophecy  of  Muham 
mad's  advent,  for  the  word  "  desire  "  is  in  Hebrew 
Hemdatfi,  from  the  same  root  as  Muhammad's  name. 

C.  (Vide  §  210.)  The  verb  in  this  passage  is 
in  the  plural,  and  this  shows  that  Tiemdatli  must  be 
used  in  a  collective  sense,  so  that  the  words  mean 
that  the  "choice  of  all  the  Gentiles"  shall  come 
to  Jerusalem,  doubtless  referring  to  the  "election  of 
grace  "  or  the  Christian  church.  This  common  noun 
(hemddh)  is  of  not  infrequent  occurrence.  E.  g.  in 
Dan.  xi.  37  "  the  desire  of  women  "  is  by  some 
thought  to  be  the  title  of  some  false  god  or 
goddess  worshipped  by  the  heathen. 

[218.  The  Shi'ites  assert  that  "Twelve  princes 
shall  he  (Ishmael)  beget "  (Gen.  xvii.  20),  is  a 
prophecy  of  the  Twelve  Imams,  who  with  them 
take  the  place  of  the  Khalifahs  as  Muhammad's 
successors.  In  answer,  it  is  enough  to  refer  to 
Gen.  xxv.  13,  16,  where  there  is  found  an  account 
of  the  accomplishment  of  the  promise. 

1  An  objection  mentioned  by  the  Rev.  Ahmed  Shah. 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        209 

219.  The  following  is  also  a  Shi'ite  argument  :— 
J/.  The  words  in  Jer.  xlvi.  10,  "The  Lord  GOD 

of  hosts  hath  a  sacrifice  in  the  north  country  by 
the  River  Euphrates,"  are  a  prophecy  of  the  martyr 
dom  of  Husain  at  Karl -alii.  They  also  teach  that 
his  death  was  a  sacrifice  or  atonement  for  sin. 

C.  If  you  read  the  *r<vW  verse  of  that  chapter 
you  will  see  that  it  explains  the  passage  you  quote 
as  referring  to  the  great  </>fntf  <>j  P/turno//  .Y/r//"'.v 
army  at  CanJieiiiixh  on  the  Euphrates.  It  can  hardly 
be  supposed  that  tin;  slavy/tler  of  these  Iu-al/«''n*  was 
an  atonement  for  sin.  Nor  can  Karbala  be  said 
to  be  "  in  the  north  country."  The  word  rendered 
'•sacrifice"  also  means  "slaughter,"  as  is  evident 
from  the  parallel  passages  (cf.  Isa.  xxxiv.  6-8  ;  Ezek. 
xxxix.  17-21  ;  Zeph.  i.  7,  8).] 

220.  J/.  In  the   New   Testament   also   we   find 
numerous  prophecies  of  Muhammad.     We  find  one 
of  these  quoted   in   the  Quran,  where  God  says 
(Surah  LXL,  As  gaff,  6) :  "  When  Jesus  the  son  of 
Mary  said,  '  O  children  of  Israel !    of  a  truth  I  am 
God's  Apostle  to  you,  to  confirm  the  Law  which  \\  as 
"iveii  before  me,  and  to  announce  an  apostle  that 
shall  come  after  me,  whose  name  shall  be  Ahmad.'  " 
In   St.  John's  G<>sj  «-l  ixiv.  xv,  xvi)  we  find  Jesus 
again  and   again   telling   His   disciples    that    the 
Paraclete    (Ar.  c^J^LJl    At    JiafaMit,  Peris.1   kOijU 
Fdraqlit),  would  come  after  Him.     Now  this  word 
has  the  same  meaning  as  Muhammad  or  Ahmad. 

1  Tin    \N(.nl  l.as  '-(.m,    into  IVrsinn  through  theSyriac. 
O 


210        OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GEOUND    OF    MUHAMMAD  S 

Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  here  we  have 
a  prophecy  of  his  coming. 

C.  The  word  Paraclete  [UapaKX^ros]  does  not 
mean  "  the  Praised,"  as  Muhammad  or  Ahmad  does, 
nor  has  it  any  such  signification.  It  has  two 
meanings:  (i)  the  Comforter  or  Sustainer,  and  (2) 
the  Advocate  ( J^  WaUl}.  The  first  of  these  titles  is 
clearly  inapplicable  to  Muhammad,  and  the  second 
is  denied  to  him  and  to  all  else  but  God  Himself  in 
the  Qur'an  (Surahs  XVIL,  Al  Asra'  or  Banu  Israil, 
56  ;  IV.,  An  Nisa',  83),  since  it  is  said  that  "God  is 
sufficient  as  an  Advocate."  In  the  New  Testament 
it  is  applied  only  (T)  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  in 
these  chapters  of  St  John's  Gospel,  and  (2)  to 
Christ  Himself  (here  by  implication,  xi v.  1 6 ;  also 
i  John  ii.  i).  Thus  the  Qur'an  (Surah  IV.,  An 
Nisa',  83),  by  asserting  that  God  is  sufficient  as  an 
Advocate  (J-^j),  supports  the  Biblical  statement 
of  the  deity  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Muhammad  was  doubtless  told  by  some  one  that 
he  was  described  and  foretold  by  Christ  under  the 
title  of  the  Paraclete:  hence  the  verse  you  quote 
on  the  subject.  But  his  informant  evidently  con 
founded  the  word  HapdK\r]To$  with  another  word 
rie/H/cAin-os,  which  latter,  if  it  had  been  used,  might 
have  been  translated  "  very  renowned  " — nearly 
the  same  meaning  as  "Ahmad." 

221.  M.  Doubtless  the  word  used  by  Christ  was 
ITepiKAvro'?,  and  this  has  been  altered. 

C.    This    latter   word,   though    Greek,    does    not 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        211 

occur  at  all  in  the  whole  of  the  New  YV.v A/ /„,///. 
It  occurs  neither  in  various  readings  nor  in  the 
old  versions  of  John  xiv-xvi,  made  long  before 
Muhammad's  time.  Hence  it  is  absolutely  certain 
that  Christ  did  not  use  it  here.  The  Arabic  and 
Persian  Bdrakltt  and  Fdraqttt  could  not  come 
from  UfpLK\vr6s.  If  you  read  the  verses  in  these 
chapters  where  Hapa/cA^ro?  is  used,  you  will  see 
that  they  do  not  apply  to  Muhammad  (xiv.  16,  17, 
26,  xv.  26,  xvi.  7-15)  or  to  any  other  man.  For 

(1)  the  promised  Comforter  is  a  spirit,  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  invisible,  who  was  then  dwelling  with  the 
disciples  of  Christ,  and  was  to  be  in  their  hearts  ; 

(2)  He  was  sent  £//  Christ  (xv.  26,  xvi.  7);  (3)  His 
work  was  to  convict  of  sin,  the  essence  of  which 
was  disbelief  in  Christ  (xvi.  9);    (4)  His  teaching 
was  to  consist  in  glorifying  Christ,  and  was  not  to 
be  His  own  but  what  Christ  gave  Him  (xvi.  14). 

222.  M.  Muhammad  was  given  the  Qur'an  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  angel  Gabriel1.  The  Qur'an 
came  to  confirm  the  true  Gospel,  which  was  so 
called  because  it  bore  witness  to  Muhammad.  He 
did  glorify  Christ  (John  xvi.  14),  because  he  taught 
that  Christ  was  a  great  prophet,  born  of  a  virgin, 
and  that  Christ  ascended  to  heaven  without  being 
crucified,  and  was  not  God  and  did  not  claim  to 
be.  Muhammad  does  dwell  in  the  hearts  of  all  true 
Muslims  through  their  faith  in  him  (John  xiv.  17). 

1  ThU  is  what  the  Muslims  understand  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
:  cf.  Surah  XVI.,  104. 
O  2 


212        OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD  S 

C.  Yes,  but  you  will  hardly  assert  that  he  dwells 
in  the  hearts  of  Christians  and  abides  with  them  for 
ever  (John  xiv.  16);  yet  it  was  to  Christians  that 
Christ  was  speaking.  The  angel  Gabriel  is  not  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  was  a  strange  way  of  glorifying 
Christ  to  teach  men  that  His  doctrine  was  false,  and 
that  when  He  claimed  to  be  God's  Son  He  was  blas 
pheming.  The  rest  of  your  argument  is  assertion, 
and  you  have  not  fully  answered  mine.  Besides, 
in  Acts  i.  4,  5,  8,  Christ  commanded  His  disciples, 
before  doing  the  work  of  evangelizing  the  world 
which  He  had  enjoined  on  them  (Acts  i.  8  ;  Matt, 
xxviii.  19,  20)  to  "tarry  in  Jerusalem"  until  the 
Paraclete,  the  Holy  Ghost,  came,  assuring  them 
that  He  would  come  "  not  many  days  hence  "  (Acts 
i.  5).  Did  this  mean  that  these  specially  chosen 
apostles  were  to  wait  nearly  600  years  in  Jerusalem 
(Luke  xxiv.  49)  until  Muhammad's  coming  1  Long 
ages  before  that  they  were  all  dead.  Moreover,  the 
promise  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when 
the  Holy  Ghost  descended  on  them  (Acts  ii). 

223.  M.  The  early  Christians  understood  that 
Christ  foretold  the  coming  of  "another  prophet, 
hence  many  of  them  believed  on  Manes  (Mani) 
when  he  claimed  to  be  the  Paraclete.  This  proves 
your  explanation  wrong  and  ours  right.  After  all, 
the  Bible  is  an  Eastern  book,  and  you  are  from  the 
West.  We  understand  it  better  than  you  do. 

C.  It  is  to  prove  your  understanding  of  the  Bible 
that  you  accept  the  erroneous  explanation  of  Mani 


I  I  VINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        213 

in  this  matter,  though  you  acknowledge  him  to 
have  been  a  false  prophet?  He  did  make  very 
much  the  same  claim  as  Muhammad  did  in  this 
respect.  But  remember  that  it  is  you  and  not 
/  who  compare  Muhammad  to  Mani.  [The  only 
prophets  of  whose  coming  Christ  informed  His 
disciples  are  those  mentioned  in  Matt.  xxiv.  1 1  and 
similar  passages.]  No  real  Christians  ever  thought 
that  the  Paraclete  was  a  future  prophet l. 

224:.  N.  In  John  xiv.  30  Muhammad  is  styled 
"  the  prince  of  this  world,"  a  well-known  title  of 
his,  and  his  coming  is  foretold. 

C.  It  would  offend  you  were  I  to  tell  you  who 
is  really  spoken  of  by  that  title,  and  elsewhere 
called  "the  god  of  this  world."  If  you  consult 
Luke  x.  18;  John  xii.  31,  xvi.  n;  a  Cor.  iv.  4; 
Eph.  ii.  2  and  vi.  1 1,  12,  you  will  discover  for  your 
self  who  the  awful  being  is  of  whom  Christ  speaks  2. 

225.  M.  The  "  kingdom  of  heaven "  prophesied 
of  by  John  the  Baptist  (Matt.  iii.  2)  and  by  Jesus 
(Matt.  iv.  17)  was  that  established  by  Muhammad 
when  he  gave  the  new  Law  contained  in  the 
Qur'an.  So  also  Matt.  xiii.  31,  32. 

C.  More  assertion,  contrary  to  fact.  The  Gospels 
show  that  this  was  the  kingdom  which  Christ  founded, 

1  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that,  when  Montanus  and  Mani 
(Manes)  claimed  to  be  the  Paraclete,  they  were  accused  of 
blasphemy.  (Rev.  W.  Goldsack.) 

a  Perhaps  the  only  distinct  prophecy  of  Muhammad  and 
of  the  Arab  conquest  of  many  Eastern  lands  is  that  contained 
in  Rev.  ix.  i-ia. 


214       OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND     OF    MUHAMMAD^S 

226.  M.  The  "Elias"  mentioned  in  Matt.  xvii. 
ii  as  yet  to  come  was  Muhammad. 

C.  See  Matt.  xvii.  12,  13. 

227.  M.  In  Matt.  xx.  1-16  the  '•' morning"  de 
notes  the  Jewish,  the  "noon"  the  Christian,  and 
the  "evening"  the  Muhammadan  dispensation. 

(?.  Perhaps  because  the  light  given  in  Islam  is 
so  faint  as  compared  with  that  given  by  Christ, 
the  true  Light1  (John  i.  9,  viii.  13,  &C.)1?  [It  is  only 
too  true  that  the  night  has  followed  the  evening  in 
Muhammadan  lands.] 

228.  M.  In  Matt.  xxi.  33-45,  and  especially  in 
verses  42,  45,  we  have  a  prophecy  of  Muhammad. 
He  is  c:  the  stone  which  the  builders  rejected  "  (that 
is,  the  Jews  and  Christians),  hence  the  kingdom  of 
God  was  taken  from  them  and  given  to  another 
nation,  the  Arabs  who  believed  in  Muhammad. 

C.  More  assertion,  contrary  to  the  whole 
context.  Christ  explains  the  prophecy  as  fulfilled 
in  Himself.  Strange  fruits  are  those  produced  by 
Islam,  and  visible  in  Muslim  lands. 

229.  M.  In  this  Parable,  the  "son"  (Matt.  xxi. 
37)  is  Christ,  while  the  "Lord  of  the  Vineyard" 
(verse  40)  who  was  to  come  is  Muhammad  himself. 

C.  Do  you  then  hold  that  Jesus  was  the  son  of 
Muhammad  ?  Is  that  not  something  like  the  state 
ment  in  the  Qur'an,  that  the  Virgin  Mary  was  sister 
of  Aaron  the  brother  of  the  prophet  Moses  (Surah 

1  The  only  light  that  the  "  Crescent "  has  is  the  reflexion  of  the 
sun's  rays.  Christ  is  the  "Sun  of  Righteousness."  (Rev  Dr.  Wherry.) 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS.        215 

XIX.,  Maryam,  29  ;  Surah  III.,  Al  'Imran,  30  sqq.)? 
The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  some 
forty  years  after  this  parable  was  uttered  showed 
its  meaning  very  clearly. 

230.  J/.  The  Gospel  contains  the  words  of  Jesus, 
and  there  we  read  the  prophecy,  "  There  cometh 
one  mightier  than  I  after  me  "  (Mark  i.  7).     This 
refers  to  Muhammad. 

C.  Verse  6  shows    that  John  the  baptist   spoke 
these  words  about  Christ.     Cf.  John  i.  26,  29,  30. 

231.  M.  Who  l  is  <;  the  prophet "  mentioned  in 
John  i.  21  ?     It  is  evidently  not  the  Messiah,  nor 
is  it  Elijah,  for  John  has  already  denied  that  he 
is  either  the  one  or  the  other.      It  is  evidently 
a  prophet  who  was  to  come  after  the  Messiah,  i.  e. 
the  prophet  mentioned  in  Deut.  xviii.  18,  that  is 
to  say,  Muhammad. 

C.  We  have  already  seen  (§§  202-205)  that  the 
latter  passage  cannot  refer  to  Muhammad.  From 
Matt.  xvi.  14,  it  is  evident  that  some  of  the  Jews  ex 
pected  Jeremiah  or  some  other  one  of  the  old  prophets 
to  reappear  before  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  and 
this  explains  the  question.  The  order  of  the  words 
shows  that  "the  prophet"  in  John  i.  21,  was  some 
one  who  was  looked  for  Itfore  even  Elijah,  and  still 
more  before  the  Messiah  whose  forerunner  Elijah 
was  to  be  (Mai.  iv.  5).  The  Jews  spoke  of  him  as 
"  the  prophet,"  because  they  were  not  certain  which 
of  the  prophets  was  to  come  before  Elijah.  Some 

1  ComnHiiii'-:iti-il  by  Rev.  A.  E.  Johnston. 


21 6       OBJECTIONS    ON    THE    GROUND    OF    MUHAMMAD'S 

thought  that  ':  the  prophet "  (Dent,  xviii.  18)  was 
the  Messiah  (cf.  John  vi.  14) ;  others  did  not  (cf. 
John  vii.  40-41),  thinking  him  to  be  one  of  the 
Messiah's  forerunners.  The  whole  passage  (John 
i.  19-28),  shows  that  what  the  questioners  wanted 
to  find  out  was  whether  John  was  the  Messiah  or 
one  of  his  forerunners.  There  would  have  been  no 
sense  in  asking  whether  he  was  a  supposed  prophet 
who  was  to  come  after  the  Messiah,  since  the 
Messiah  had  not  yet  manifested  Himself  as  such. 
(Vide  Godet  on  John  i.  21.) 

232.  M.  John  iv.  21  is  a  prophecy  that  Jeru 
salem  would  no  longer  be  the  Holy  City  and  the 
Qiblah,  but  that  when  Muhammad  came  Mecca 
should  take  its  place. 

C.  In  verses  23,  24  Christ  Himself  explains 
verse  2  r . 

[233.  M.  In  i  John  iv.  2,  3  Muhammad  is  spoken 
of  as  the  Spirit  of  God,  because  he  taught  that 
Jesus  Christ  had  "  come  in  the  flesh,"  i.  e.  that  He 
was  man  and  not  God. 

C.  The  title  "  Spirit  of  God "  is  neither  in  the 
Qur'an  nor  in  the  Traditions  given  to  Muhammad, 
nor  do  any  true  Muslims  give  him  such  a  blas 
phemous  title  now.  These  verses  are  in  refutation 
of  the  Docetic  heresy.  Your  views  about  Jesus 
are  refuted  in  very  plain  language  in  i  John  v.  5, 
9,  10,  n,  12,  13,  20,  ii.  22,  23.] 

[234.  M.  In  Jude  14,  15  "the  Lord"  who  was 
to  come  is  Muhammad,  the  apostle  with  the  sword. 


DIVINE    MISSION    AS    LAST    OF    THE    PROPHETS       217 

('.  This  title  belongs  to  God,  and  is  given  to 
Him  only  in  the  Qur'an,  and  not  to  Muhammad 
(cf.  Surah  IX.,  At  Taubah,  31).  This  is  not  a  true 
Muhammadan  argument.] 

235.  J7.  In  Rev.  ii.  26-29  Muhammad  is  spoken 
of  as  coming  to  rule  the  nations  with  a  rod  of  iron. 

C.  By  saying  this  you  imply  that  Muhammad 
kept  CJiritt'g  wvrkx  (i.  e.  obeyed  His  commands)  unto 
the  end,  and  that  therefore  he  received  from  Christ 
this  power,  which  Christ  had  received  from  His 
Fatter  I  You  who  deny  Christ's  Divine  Sonship, 
and  deem  Muhammad  a  greater  prophet  than  Jesus, 
cannot  really  believe  that  these  verses  refer  to 
Muhammad. 

We  are  therefore  absolutely  unable  to  find  any 
proof  whatever,  from  miracle,  prophecy,  or  anything 
else,  that  Muhammad  was  from  God1. 

1  A  learned  Maulavi  from  Swat,  now  a  Christian  convert, 
was  first  brought  to  doubt  Muhammad's  claims  by  reflecting 
upon  the  durud  (darud)  or  petition  in  which,  at  the  close  of  the 
fixed  prayers  (^ulawdt  ,  a  Muslim  says,  "0  Lord,  have  mercy 
upon  and  give  peace  to  Muhammad,"  &c.  The  thought  arose 
in  his  mind,  "In  no  other  religion  is  it  thought  necessary  to 
pray  for  God's  mercy  on  its  founder.  Why  ihen  is  Muhammad 
prayed  for?"  He  next  noticed  that  in  the  kalinidli  or  Muham 
madan  creed  the  title  given  to  Muhammad  is  merely  r«*i'i!  :  he  is 
not  even  called  a  nabi  or  "  prophet,"  whereas  far  higher  titles 
are  given  to  Christ  in  the  Qur'an  itself  (§§  116-122,  129).  In 
argument  it  would  be  well  to  put  these  objections  to  Muham 
mad's  claims  either  in  the  form  of  the  tale  told  h<-re,  or  as 
questions,  asking,  e.  g.,  "  Why  is  it  necessary  for  Muslims  to  pray 
for  Muhammad?"  This  leads  the  inquirer  to  form  his  own 
conclusions.  (Dr.  H.  M.  Clark.) 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

MISCELLANEOUS  OBJECTIONS. 

236.  M.  In  John  x.  8  Christ  calls  all  the  pre 
ceding  prophets  "  thieves  and  robbers."      How  can 
the  verse  which  represents   Him   as   doing   so  be 
from  God,  or  be  anything  but  an  interpolation  ? 

C.  He  does  not  do  so.  Again  and  again  He 
speaks  of  Moses  and  the  other  prophets  as  divinely 
commissioned.  The  persons  to  whom  He  refers  in 
this  verse  are  probably  the  Theudas  and  the  Judas 
of  Galilee  mentioned  in  Acts  v.  36,  37,  who  were 
deceivers  of  the  people,  falsely  claiming  to  be  the 
Messiah 1.  [Another  explanation  is  that  Christ 
spoke  of  the  Pharisees,  as  they  "  came  before " 
Him,  claiming  to  be  the  "  door  of  the  sheep," 
mediators  between  God  and  man.  But  they  had 
stolen  the  "  key  of  knowledge  "  (Luke  xi.  52),  and 
had  "  shut  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  against  men " 
(Matt,  xxiii.  13).] 

237.  M.  The  present  Gospels  contain  no  direc- 

1  The  Bishop  of  Lahore  refers  to  Bishop  Westcott's  note, 
which  makes  Christ's  words  condemn  every  one  who  came 
before  Christ  with  the  claim  to  be  u  epx<->pevos.  This  was  not  the 
case  with  any  of  the  true  prophets. 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  219 

tions  (as  the  Law  and  the  Qur'an  do)  regarding 
fasting,  almsgiving,  the  times  and  modes  of  wor 
ship,  the  correct  way  to  slaughter  animals,  &c. 
This  shows  that  they  have  been  tampered  with  by 
interested  persons. 

C.  The  objection  shows  a  failure  to  understand 
the  spirit  of  the  Gospels  and  the  "  perfect  law  of 
liberty"  which  Christ  gave.  He  did  give  what 
directions  He  deemed  needful  about  almsgiving, 
fasting,  prayer,  &c.  (John  iv.  24 ;  Matt.  vi.  1-23, 
&c.). 

238.  I/.  Christians  themselves  admit  that  the 
Bible  did  not  "  descend  "  word  for  word  and  letter 
for  letter  as  did  the  Qur'an,  which  is  a  transcript  of 
the  ' '  Mother  of  the  Book  "  preserved  in  Heaven 
(Surah  XLIIL,  Az  Zukhruf,  3).  It  is  therefore 
worthless  as  compared  with  the  Qur'an. 

C.  We  know  the  origin  of  the  Qur'an,  that 
it  was  composed  by  Muhammad1  [whose  prophetic 
claims  are  devoid  of  proof].  We  know  the  sources 
from  which  he  drew  his  teaching,  and  know  that 
they  are  unreliable  2.  No  book  has  come  down  from 
Heaven  in  the  way  you  imagine,  yet  we  have  proof 
of  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  in  the  fulfilment 

1  Care  must  be  taken  not  to  hurt  a  Muslim's  feelings  \vh.-n 
.-.;iyin^  this,  for  he  fancies  that  tin-  (Jur'an  is  of  Divine  author 
ship. 

3  Vide  the  Yandbi'ul  Islam,  and  also  my  Original  Sources  of 
the  Qur'an.  It  may  be  well  to  point  out  the  Redaction  which 
the  Qur'an  underwent  under  the  Khalifah  'Uthman.  (Vidu 
Mishkatu'l  Masai. ih.  H..  185,  186.) 


220  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

of  the  prophecies  it  contains,  and  in  many  other 
ways.     (See  §  79.) 

239.  M.  Christ  ascended  to  Heaven  through  fear 
of  His  persecutors. 

C.  Indeed  !  Does  it  not  seem  to  you  remarkable 
that  He  could  ascend  to  Heaven  if  He  were  unable 
to  protect  Himself,  had  He  wished  to  do  so  ?  Your 
assertion  is  contrary  not  only  to  the  Bible  (Acts  ii. 
33,  v.  31  ;  Phil.  ii.  9-11)  but  also  to  the  Qur'an, 
which  says  that  God  took  Him  up  unto  Himself 
(Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa',  156),  and  is  unworthy  of  a 
true  Muslim. 

240.  M.  Why   is   it  said  that  God  "rested  the 
seventh  day  "  (Exod.  xx.  n)1 

C.  His  work  of  creation  was  finished.  The 
words  mean  that  after  the  creation  of  man,  God 
has  brought  no  other  creature  of  any  new  kind 
into  existence  on  the  earth.  Human  language 
must  be  used  to  convey  thoughts  to  human  beings. 
(See  §  39.) 

241.  M.  By  destroying  the  herd  of  swine,  Christ 
maintained  the  unclean  nature  of  the  animal  (Matt, 
viii.  30-32). 

C.  But  the  Gospel  says  it  was  the  devils  who 
destroyed  them. 

242.  M.  You  Christians  eat  pork ! 

C.  Not  much  in  hot  countries,  since  it  is  un 
healthy  to  do  so,  and  this  was  doubtless  one  reason 
why  the  flesh  of  the  pig  was  forbidden  to  the  Jews. 
It  is  not  forbidden  to  «*,  for  Christ  says  (Matt.  xv. 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  221 

ii  ;    Mark    vii.   15-19)   that  all  meats  are   clean 
(vide  Revised  Version  and  best  reading). 

243.  M.  How  could  Christ  commend  the  unjust 
steward,  as  the  Gospel  says  He  did  (Luke  xvi.  8)  ? 

C.  The  Gospel  does  not  say  He  did.  It  repre 
sents  Him  as  saying  that  the  master  of  the  house  did 
so,  probably  by  saying,  "  What  a  clever  trick  that 
rogue  has  devised  !  " 

244.  M.  But  in  Luke  xvi.  9  we  are  told  that 
Christ  said  to  His  disciples,  "  Make  to  yourselves 
friends  of  the  mammon  of  unrighteousness."    Surely 
Christ  never  said  that l. 

C.  He  did,  but  not  in  the  sense  in  which  you 
understand  the  words.  What  they  mean  is,  "  Make 
good  use  of  your  money  and  other  property  :  do 
good  with  it,  and  people  whom  you  have  helped 
here  will  welcome  you  in  Paradise.  Your  money 
is  not  yours :  it  is  God's,  and  you  are  His  stewards. 
Without  dishonesty  you  may  imitate  the  steward 
in  the  parable,  and  by  doing  good  with  it  get  a 
reward  hereafter." 

245.  37.  "God  is  not  mocked"  (Gal.  vi.  7),  but 
Jesus  was  (Luke  xxii.  63).  Therefore  Jesus  is  not  God. 

C.  The  verbs  used  in  these  two  verses  are  quite 
different  and  have  different  meanings,  as  a  reference 
to  any  version  other  than  the  English  would  show 
you.  The  context  also  shows  the  difference  of 
sense.  It  is  well  for  us  all  to  remember  that  "  God 
is  not  mocked,  for  whatsoever  a  man  soweth,  that 

1  Mentioned  by  Rev.  A.  R.  Blackett. 


222  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

shall  he  also  reap."  Men  may,  in  one  sense,  mock 
God  here,  that  is,  they  may  scoff  and  blaspheme : 
but  finally  their  folly  will  be  manifested  (Ps.  ii.  4)*. 

246.  M.  In  Matt.  i.   1 1 ,  we  are  told  that  Josiah 
was  the  father  of  Jeconiah.     Now  in  i  Chron.  iii. 
15-17  it  is  stated  that  Jeconiah's  father  was  not 
Josiah  but  Jehoiakim.     This  is  a  contradiction. 

C.  Some  MSS.  read  in  Matt.  LIT,  "  Josias  begat 
Joakim,  and  Joakim  begat  Jechonias,"  &c.,  in 
accordance  with  i  Chron.  But  this  has  not  been 
admitted  into  the  text,  because  we  are  not  quite 
sure  that  the  additional  words  stood  in  the  original 
MS.  In  any  case  the  supposition  of  a  contra 
diction  arises  from  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
the  habit  of  the  Jews  to  contract  genealogies  by 
passing  over  certain  intermediate  generations  when 
considered  advisable.  There  can  be  no  reason 
assigned  to  account  for  any  one  deliberately  corrupt 
ing  the  text,  nor  is  a  contradiction  conceivable 
when  i  Chron.  was  readily  accessible. 

247.  M.   How  can  you  bring  an  accusation  of 
cruelty  against   Muhammad  for  his  treatment  of 
the  Jews,  when  the  Emperor  Heraclius  acted  so 
ruthlessly  towards  them  when  he  recaptured  Jeru 
salem  from  the   Persians,  and  that  too  with  the 
approval  of  the  leading  Christian  teachers  of  the 
time? 

C.  As  one  of  our  Church  historians  well  says, 
such  conduct  on  Heraclius's  part  "resulted2  from 

1  Rev.  Dr.  Hooper.         2  Mosheim,  Cent.  VII.  Pt.  I,  cap.  I. 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  223 

the  barbarism  of  the  age  and  from  ignorance  of  the 
true  principles  of  Christianity."  We  condemn  it 
very  severely.  But  Heraclius  did  not  claim  to  be 
a  prophet,  as  Muhammad  did.  The  SunnaJi  records 
Muhammad's  deeds  for  the  most  part  as  examples 
to  be  followed,  as  far  as  circumstances  permit,  by 
all  true  Muslims:  hence  evil  conduct  on  his  part 
produces  like  deeds  on  that  of  his  disciples.  This 
renders  him  doubly  guilty. 

248.  M.  How  can  the  Gospels  be  inspired  when 
they  do  not  always  agree  in  actual  details'?  For 
example,  Matthew  (xxvii.  51)  says  that  the  veil  of 
the  Temple  was  rent  at  the  Crucifixion,  while  John 
does  not  mention  the  fact. 

C.  How  does  your  objection  apply  to  the  various 
Surahs  of  the  Qur'an?  For  example,  portions  of 
the  story  of  Abraham  are  told  in  many  different 
Surahs,  but  many  incidents  mentioned  in  one 
Surah  are  omitted  in  another  when  dealing  with 
the  same  narrative.  But  you  must  see  that  it 
would  be  absurd  to  found  an  objection  upon  this 
fact.  The  answer  to  what  you  urge  is  really  this, 
that  our  doctrine  of  Inspiration  does  not  coincide 
with  yours  (vide  §  79).  According  to  our  view, 
there  was  no  need  whatever  that  the  Gospels  should 
each  relate  every  single  detail  of  an  occurrence. 
If  they  did,  there  would  be  much  useless  repetition. 
Moreover,  we  should  thus  lose  the  important 
evidence  in  support  of  the  truth  of  the  fact*  upon 
which  our  faith  is  based  which  we  now  have  in 


224  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

the  independent  testimony  of  several  different 
witnesses.  The  circumstance  that  they  agree  in 
the  main  though  sometimes  differing  in  details  is 
a  proof  that  there  was  no  collusion  between  them 
(vide  §  47). 

249.  M.  How  can  Jesus  be  "  the  Prince  of  Peace  " 
(Isa.  ix.  6)  when  He  acted  as  mentioned  in  Matt, 
xxi.  12  (Mark  xi.  15 :  John  ii.  15),  and  spoke  as  in 
Luke  xii.  51  (Matt.  x.  34)  and  Luke  xxii.  36? 

C.  He  is  the  Prince  of  Peace  because  He  reconciles 
men  to  God  and  gives  spiritual  peace  to  His  people 
(John  xiv.  27 :  Phil.  iv.  7 :  Col.  iii.  15).  He  was 
supporting  God's  law  in  putting  an  end  to  the 
desecration  of  the  Temple  (Matt.  xxi.  13 :  cf.  Isa. 
Ivi.  7).  He  warned  His  disciples  that  they  would 
be  persecuted  by  their  enemies,  but  even  then 
assured  them  of  the  spiritual  peace  which  He  would 
give  them  (John  xvi.  33).  That  He  did  not  wish 
them  to  take  up  the  sword  in  their  own  defence  is 
clear  from  Matt.  xxvi.  52  (cf.  Luke  ix.  54-6). 

250.  M.  If  Jesus  had   been   divine,  He  would 
have  known  that  but  few  would  believe  in  Him, 
and  then  He  would  not  have  died  for  so  few. 

C.  He  did  know,  for  He  said,  "  Many  are  called, 
but  few  chosen"  (Matt.  xx.  16;  xxii.  14:  cf.  vii. 
14).  Moreover,  your  argument  answers  itself,  if 
we  apply  it  in  another  way.  God  must  have 
known  when  He  created  the  world  that  many 
would  be  idolaters.  Do  you  therefore  deny  creation, 
or  God's  omniscience  ? 


MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS.  225 

251.  J/.  Idolatry  is  practised  in  the  Greek, 
Roman,  Armenian,  Syrian,  and  other  Churches,  and 
even  in  some  parts  of  the  Church  of  England. 
How  can  we  Muslims  be  expected  to  become 
Christians  when  Christians  are  idolaters  ?  We 
deem  the  association  (d^)  of  partners  with  God  to 
be  the  unpardonable  sin  (Surah  IV.,  An  Nisa',  51, 
1 1 6). 

[The  subjoined  answer  is  suggested  in  addition 
to  any  further  answer  which  might  be  given  by 
individual  Missionaries  by  way  of  a  challenge  to 
the  facts  alleged  by  the  Muhammadans1.] 

C.  Even  if  what  you  say  is  quite  true,  yet  this 
sin  is  condemned  in  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testament  (e.g.  Rev.  »xxi.  8;  xxii.  15)  in  very 
terrible  language.  Many  Muslims  in  Bengal  and 
elsewhere  worship2  certain  Hindi!  deities,  and  in 
other  places  the  honour  paid  to  saints  is  just  what 
the  Qur'an  condemned  in  Muhammad's  day  among 
the  heathen  Arabs,  who,  along  with  God  Most 
High,  worshipped  certain  inferior  deities.  But 
neither  Islam  nor  Christianity  is  responsible  for 
this  heathenism,  which  is  equally  opposed  to  tin  MM 

1  This  sentence  is  inserted  by  desire  of  the  C.M.S.  Secrt'tari.  -, 
at  the  request  of  the  S.P.C.K.  Committee.     The  introductory 
word-,  oHlm  following  answer  have  al.-o  ln-ni  modified  for  tin- 

. 

2  "  In  the  Hazara  district  I  have  seen  a  grave  called  Klmi, 
Qabr,  and  have  been  told  tb;it    it    K  a^  it-,  nanir  su^csts,  tin- 
grave  of  an  ass,  and  that  it  is  In  Id   in  \.TV  -n  at  ruvorence  by 
Musalmans."       Kov.  T.  Grahamo  Bailey.) 

P 


226  MISCELLANEOUS    OBJECTIONS. 

both.  It  would  not  be  fair  to  say  that  when  you 
invite  us  to  become  Muslims  you  wish  to  make  us 
idolaters.  Neither  is  it  fair  of  you  to  bring  the 
same  accusation  against  us.  In  whatever  else 
they  differ,  Islam  and  true  Christianity  are  agreed 
in  opposition  to  idolatry. 


227 


APPENDIX  A. 

SOME  USEFUL  BOOKS  ON  ISLAM:  IN  EUROPEAN 
LANGUAGES. 

'Abd  'fsd'  (vide  Koelle,  Rev.  Dr.). 

Ahmad,  Sir  Sayyid,  Essays  on  tJie  Life  of  Mohammed-. 

London,  Triibner,  1890. 
'Ali,  Mir  Hasan,  Observations  on  the  Musalmdns  of  India. 

London,  Allen,  1832.     £i  is. 
Al  Kindi,  The  Apology  of.     Translated  from  the  Arabic 

by  Sir  W.  Muir.     Loncfon,  S.  P.  C.  K.     is.  6d. 
Arnold,    J.    M.,    Ishmael.       London,    Rivington,    1859. 

105.  6d. 
Arnold,  Dr.  M.,  The  Natural  History  of  Isldm. 

Isldm  and  Christianity. 

Barth,  The  Religions  of  India.     London,  Triibner,  1891. 
2nd  ed.     i6s. 

Muhammad,  /ht</<l/«r,  and  Christ. 

Barthelemy  de  St-Hilaire,  Mahomet  et  le  Coran. 

Beacon  of  Truth.     Translated  from   the  Arabic   by  Sir 

W.  Muir.     London,  K.  T.  S.     28.  6d. 

Bosworth-Smith,  Mohammed  and  MoJiammedanism.    Lon 
don,  Smith  &  Elder,  1889.     7*.  6d. 

Daumer,  Mohammed  und  sein  Werk.     Hamburg,  1848. 

Derenbourg,  H.,  La  Science  des  Religions  et  I'  Islamisme. 
Paris,  1886.     2-60  fr. 

P  2 


228  APPENDIX    A. 


Deutsch,  E.  0.  M.,  Isldm  (Literary  Remains).     London, 

Murray,  1874.      125. 
Dods,  Marcus,  Mohammed,  Buddha,  and  Christ.    London, 

Hodder  &  Stoughton,  1886.     28.  6d. 
Easton,  Rev.  P.  Z.,  Article  on  "Persia"  in  Schaff-Herzoy 

Encyclopaedia. 
Garcin  de  Tassy,  L'Islamisme  d'apres  le  Goran.     Paris, 

1874. 
Geiger,  A.  (Rabbi),  Was  hat  Mohammed  aus  dem  Juden- 

thume   auftjenommen  ?     Bonn,   1833.      (Translated  by 

Lady   Young   under   the    title   Judaism    and  Isldm. 

London,  Simpkin,  Marshall  &  Co.) 
Haines,  C.  R.,  Isldm  as  a  Missionary  Religion.     London, 

S.  P.  C.  K.   (Non-Christian   Religious   Systems   Series), 

1889.     2s. 
Hardwick,  Rev.  C.,  Christ  anal  other  Masters.     London 

and  New  York,  Macmillan,  1873.     $3.00. 
Hauri,  J.,  Der  Islam  in  seinem  Einjluss.     Leiden,  1882. 

6  inks. 
Hooper,  Rev.  Dr.,  The  Doctrine  of  Salvation  in  Christianity, 

Hinduism,  and  Islam  (English  original,  Urdu  transla 
tion). 
Hughes,  Rev.  T.  P.,  Notes  on  Muhammedanism.    London, 

Allen,  1878.     65. 

—  Dictionary  of  Isldm.     London,  Allen,  1885.    £225. 
Hunter,  W.  W.,  Sir,  Indian  Musalmdns.  London,  Triibner, 

1876.        I2S. 

Isldm  and  Christianity.     American  Tract  Society. 
Kcelle,  Rev.  Dr.,  Food  for  Refaction  (English  original  ; 

French  version,  Etudes  Critiques ;  also  Turkish  version). 

C.  M.  S. 


APPENDIX    A.  229 


Kulle,  Rev.  Dr.,  Tlie  Death  of  Christ  upon  the  Cross 
(Turkish  original ;  English  version).  C.  M.  S. 

MoJiammed  and  Mohammedanism.    London,  Riving- 

ton,  1889.      15*. 

Kivhl,  L.,  Das  Leben  und  die  Lehre  des  Mohammed. 
Leipzig,  1884.  6-50  mks. 

Kremer,  A.  von,  Geschichte  der  herrschenden  Ideen  des 
Islams.  Leipzig,  1868.  i  th.  15  sgr. 

Lake,  J.  J.,  Isldm :  its  Origin ,  Genius,  and  Mission. 
London,  1878.  53. 

Lee,  Rev.  Dr.  S.,  Controversial  Tracts,  C.  M.  S. 

Lees,  J.  C.,  MoJuimmadanism  (St.  Giles'  Lectures). 
Edinburgh,  1882. 

Lees,  W.  N.,  Indian  Mussulmans.  London,  Williams  & 
Norgate,  1872.  28. 

Macdonald,  Theology,  Jurisprudence,  and  Constitutional 
Theory.  New  York,  Chas.  Scribner  &  Sons,  1903. 

Monro,  J.,  Teaching  of  the  Maulavts  as  to  the  Sinlessness 
of  Muhammad;  The  Teaching  of  the  Christian  Scriptures 
on  Sin  and  Salvation  ;  How  does  the  Qurdn  confirm  and 
guard  the  Christian  Scriptures  ?  (English  original, 
Bengali  version.)  London,  Christian  Literature  for 
India  Society.  (Some  of  Mr.  Monro's  Tracts  are  also 
published  in  Urdu  and  Arabic.) 

Muhammad,  Lives  of,  by: 

Green,  S.     London,  Tegg,  1877.     3$.  6c/. 

Jiving,  Washington.    London,  Murray,  1850.    2  vols. 

Xi  is. 
Lamairisse  et  Dujarrac.     Paris,  1897,  Luzac  (vol.  i, 

5  fr.)- 
M( Trick.     London,  Chapman,  1850.     ics.  <>'/. 


230  APPENDIX    A. 


Muhammad,  Lives  of,  by  : 

Muir,    Sir    William.      London,    Smith    &    Elder. 
3rd  ed.     165. 
—  (Abridged),  1877.     143. 

Mahomet   and  Islam.      New  York,   Nelsons, 

1884.     $1.75.     3rd  ed.;  London,  R.  T.  S.,  1895. 
2s.  6d. 
Noldeke,  Das  Leben  Muhammads.     Hanover,  1863. 

2  mks. 

Prideaux,  H.     London,  1798. 
Sprenger.     Berlin,  1861-5.     3  vols.     12  mks. 
Summers,  J.  0.     Nashville,  1875.     50  cts. 
Weil,  Muhammad  der  Prophet. 

Muir,  Sir  W.,  The  Rise  and  Decline  of  Isldm.     London, 
R.  T.  S.     4d. 

The  Caliphate.     London,  "Smith  &  Elder,  3rd  ed., 

1898.      i6s. 

Annals  of  the  Early  Caliphate.     Do.,  do.,  1883. 

-    The    Mameluke    Dynasty    of   Egypt.      Do.,    do., 
1896. 

The  Mohammedan  Controversy.    Edinburgh,  T.  &  T. 


Clark,  1897.     75.  6d. 

The  Goran :  Its  Composition  and  Teaching.  S.P.C.K. 

2s.  6d. 

The   Sources   of  Isldm  (epitomized   translation  of 

Yandbiu'l  Isldm).     Edinburgh,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  1901. 
i*.  6d. 

Sweet  Firstfruils  (translated  from  Arabic).  *  London, 

R.T.S,     28.  6d. 

Beacon  of  Truth  (translated  from  Arabic).    Do.,  do. 

2s.  6d. 


APPENDIX    A.  231 


Muir,  Sir  W.,  Apology  of  A I  Kindi  (translated  from  Arabic). 

S.P.C.  K.,  2nd  ed.,  1887. 
Muller,  A.,  Der  Isldm  im  Morgtn-  und  Abendland.    Berlin, 

1885. 
Murray-Mitchell,  liev.,  Letters  to  Indian  Youth  (English 

and  Urdu). 

Noldeke,  Geschichte  des  Qorans.     Gottingeu,  1860. 
Osboru,  Major  11.  D.,  Isldm  under  the  Arabs.     London, 
Longmans,  1876.      12s. 

Isldm  under   the  Khali/8   of  Baghdad.      London, 

Seeley,  1880.     los.  6d. 
Pfander,  ilev.  Dr.,  Balance  of  Truth,  \  English,  Persian, 

Key  of  Mysteries,  j  Urdu,  Arabic:  C.M.S. 

Remarks  on  the  Mature  of  Muhammadan  Traditions. 

London,  C.M.S.,  1858. 
Pischon,  C.  N.,  Der  Eivjluss  des  Islam.     Leipzig,  1881. 

3  mks. 
Qur'an,  Translations  of:  — 

English:    Lane,   E.    W.   (Selections    from).      London, 

Trubner,   1879.     gs. 
Palmer    (Sacred   Books   of  East,  vols.   vi   and   ix). 

Oxford,   Clarendon  Press,    1882.     £i    is. 
Rod  well,  J.  M.     London,  Quai  itch,  1876.     125. 
Sale,  G.  (Dr.  Wherry's  ed.).    London,  Trubnur,  1882. 
I  )r.  Murdoch  (Selections  from).     Madras,  Ch.Lit.  Soc. 
French:  Fd(imah  Z<n<l«h.     Lisbon,  1861. 

Kasimirski.     Paris,  1884. 
Danish:  Tornberg,  Lund,  1874. 

[An  Urdu  version  by  Rev.  Dr.  'Iinadu'ddin  :  a  Koman- 
Urdu  edition  with  Preface  by  Kev.  J.  P.  Hughes, 
Mission  Prefcs,  Ludhiaua.] 


232  APPENDIX    A. 


[The  best  Arabic  Text  of  the  Qur'an   is  by  Fluegel, 

Leipzig :    his  Concordantiae  in  Coranum  Arabice 

is   invaluable :    the  Dictionary  of  the  Koran  by 

Penrice  is  also  very  useful.] 

Robinson,  Rev.  C.  H.,  Mohammedanism  :    Has  it   any 

Futurel     London,  Gardner,  1897.     is. 
Rouse,  Rev.  Dr.,   Tracts    on  Muhammadanism  (Bengali 
Original :   Urdu,  Tamil,  Telugu,  Arabic,  and  English 
versions). 

Sell,  Rev.  Canon,  The  Faith  of  Isldm.     London,  Triibner 
(Oriental  Series),  2nd  ed.,  1897.     I2S.  6d. 

The  Historical  Development  of  the  Qur'dn.    Madras, 

Rs.  2.     25.  6d. 

s—  The  New  Isldm.    Contemporary  Review,  Aug.  1893. 

Essays  on  Isldm.    London,  Simpkin,  1901.    45.  6d. 


Stobart,   J.   W.   H.,    Isldm   and*' its  Founder.      London, 

S.P.C.K.   (Non-Christian    Religious    Systems),    1877. 

2s.  6d. 
Sweet   First  fruits.     Translated   from  the  Arabic  by  Sir 

W.  Muir,  R.T.S.,  1893.     28.  6d. 
Tisdall,    Rev.   Dr.    W.    St.    Clair,    The   Religion   of  the 

Crescent.    London,  S.  P.  C.  K.  (Non-Christian  Religious 

Systems),  1895.     43. 

India  :    its  History,  Darkness,  and  Dawn.     Stud. 

Vol.  Miss.  Un.,  1901.     15. 

The  Original  Sources  of  the  Qur'dn. 

YandbTul   Isldm    (Persian    original :     Urdu    and 


Arabic  versions;    English  epitome  by  Sir  W.  Muir). 
S.P.C.K.,  1900. 

Vambery,  H.,  Der  Islam  im  igten  Jahrhundert.    Leipzig, 
1875.     6  mks. 


APPENDIX    A. 


233 


Vaughau,  Rev.  Jas.,   The  Trident,  the  Crescent,  and  tlw 

Cross.     London,  Longmans,  1876.     gs.  6d. 
Weil,  Biblische  Legenden  der  Musal/nanner. 
Wellhausen,  J.,  Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten.     Berlin,  1889. 

4  vols.     32  mks. 
Wherry,    Kev.    Dr.,    Comprehensive    Commentary   to    th<> 

Qurdn.     London,  Trubner.     4  vols.     £2  Ss. 
Xwemer,  Kev.  Dr.,  Arabia,  the  Cradle  of  Isldm.    London, 

Oliphant,  1900.     75.  6d. 
Muhammadan  Monotlieisni. 


234 


APPENDIX  B. 

SOME  IMPOKTANT  CHEISTIAN  WOEKS  IN  OEIENTAL  LAN 
GUAGES  ON  THE  MUHAMMADAN  CONTEOVEKSY. 

Kashful    Qurdn   (Urdu   version   of  Rev.  Canon    Sell's 

Historical  Development  of  the  Qurdn). 
Dawatul  Muslimin  (Urdu,  Arabic,  and  Persian  versions 

of  Sir  W.  Muir's  Muslims  invited  to  read  the  Bible). 
Misbdhu'l   Hudd\    Arabic,    Cairo :     anonymous    (trans 
lated   into  English    by    Sir  W.  Muir,   The    Torch  of 

Guidance], 
Mizdnu'l  ffaqq,  Rev.  Dr.  Pfander  (Persian,  Urdu,  Arabic, 

Turkish,  Bengali,  English.     Needs  revision). 
Tariqu'l  Haydt  (do.  do.). 
Miftdhu'l  Asrdr  (do.  do.). 
Ibhdthul  Mujtahidin,  Arabic,  Ghabril ;  Cairo. 
Al    Hiddyah,    Arabic ;    Cairo ;    4    vols.       (A    reply    to 

Muhammadan  attacks,  especially  to  Tzhdrul  Haqq.) 
Maqdlah  fi'l  Isldm,  Arabic  ;  Cairo. 
Ithbdtu  Salbi'l  Masih,  Arabic,  Rev.  Dr.  Koelle;    Cairo 

(also  in  English :  C.  M.  S.,  London). 
Burhdnu'l  JaUl,  Arabic ;   Cairo. 
Saldmatu'l  Injil,  Arabic ;  Cairo. 
Yandbiul   Isldm,    Rev.    Dr.    Tisdall   (Persian    original, 


APPENDIX    B.  235 


Urdu  and  Arabic  versions,  English  epitome  by  Sir  W. 

Muir). 

Shud'/td-yi  Tdbandeh,  do.  (Friendly  Dialogues,  Persian). 
Murdsildt-i    Dint,    do.    (Letters    on    Babi    controversy, 

Persian). 

Hikmatud  Diydnati'l  Haqiqiyyah,  do.  (Christian  Philo 
sophy). 

Burhdn-i  Btttldn,  do.,  Persian. 
Niydzndmeh-yi  'Abdul  Afasih,  do.,  Persian. 
Al   Bdktiratu'sh   SJtahiyyah,   Arabic    (Sweet    Fir  st fruits : 

Urdu  and  Persian  versions,  English  epitome). 
Mandrul   Haqq,   Arabic    (Urdu   and   Persian   versions, 

English  epitome). 
tihahddatu'l   Qurdn,  Persian  version   of  Sir  W.  Muir's 

Testimony  borne  by  the  Qurdn.     Revised. 
Rasdlatul  Kindt,  AraWc  (Al   Kindt's  Apology:    Urdu, 

Persian,  and  English  versions). 
Isbdt-i   Ndtiq,    Urdu   version    of    Dr.    Piersou's   Many 

Infallible  Proofs. 
Maslh   Ibnu'Udh,   Urdu    version    of    What   Think   ye    of 

Christ  ?  by  Vaughan. 

AmMlu'l  Mu'minin,  Urdu,  Rev.  Ahmed  Sh.ih. 
.1  /  Ilaqq,  Urdu,  3  vols.,  do. 
Fjdzu'l  Qurdn,  Urdu,  Prof.  Ram  Chandra  Panjal. 


Hiddyatal  Muslinun,  Urdu  Rev.  Dr. 'Imadu'ddin 

Ta'Um-i  Muhammadl        „  „  „ 

Tawdrikh-i  Muhammadl  ,,  „  „ 

Tanqidu'l  Qurdn              ,,  ,,  „ 

Tanqldu'l  Khiydldt,  4  parts  „  „ 

Tahqlqu'l  Imdn  „  „ 

Version  of  the  Qurdn  into  Urdu  ,,  „ 


ReL 

Book 


Anar- 
kali, 
La 
hore. 


236  APPENDIX    B. 


Islam,  Bengali,  Philip  Biswas. 
Muhammad,  Bengali,  P.  Biswas. 
Isldm  Darshan,  Bengali,  Jacob  Biswas. 
Sachchd  Diner  Rdhd,  Bengali,  Sir  W.  Muir. 
Muhammadi  Diner  Imtihdn,  Bengali  and  English  (Rev. 

Dr.  Rouse's  Tracts  on  Islam). 
The  Claims  of  Muhammad,  Bengali. 


237 


APPENDIX  C. 

A  FEW  LEADING  MUHAMMADAN  WOHK>  AGAINST 
CHRISTIANITY. 

Mizdnu'l  Mawdzin,  Persian.     (An  answer  to  the  Mizdnu'l 

Haqq  :  published  at  Constantinople.) 
Tuhfatul  Arlbfi'r  raddi  \ila  Ahli  s  JSaltb,  Arabic,  A.  H. 

1290.     (Work  of  a  R.  C.  apostate.) 
Anlsu'l  A'ldmfinusratil  Isldm,  Persian  (bv  Fukhru'ddin, 

a  Syrian  apostate  at  Tehran). 
Burhdnu'l  Aluslimin,  do. 
Izhdrul  Haqq,  Arabic ;  Cairo. 
Kashful  Astdr,  Urdu. 
Kitdbul  Istifsdr,  Urdu. 
Radd-i  Khristiydn,  1 !« •  1 1 ^  ;il  i . 
Khristiydn  Dharmer  Asdratd,  Bengali. 
Dharma-Yuddha,  Bengali. 


238 


APPENDIX  D. 

THE  RECEIVED  COLLECTIONS  OF  ARABIC  TRADITIONS 
(AHADITH). 

(a)  Acknowledged  by  the  Sunnis. 

1.  The  Muwattd  of  Malik  ibn  Ans. 

2.  The  Sahih  (Al  Jdmius  Sahih)  of  Bukhari. 

3.  The  Sahih  of  Muslim. 

4.  The  Sunan  of  Abu  Baud  Sulaiman. 

5.  The  Jdmi  of  Tirmidhi. 

6.  The  Kitdbus  Sunan   of  Muhammad   ibn  Yazid  ibn 
Majahi'l  Qazwinl. 

(The   most   important   are    collected   in    the   MisTikAtul 
Masdbih.) 

(b)  Acknowledged  by  the  Shi  ties. 

1.  The  Kdfi  of  Abu  Ja'far  Muhammad. 

2.  The  Man  la  yastahzirahul  Faqih  of  Shaikh  €Ali. 

3.  The  Talidhib  of  Shaikh  Abu  Ja'far  Muhammad. 

4.  The  Istibsdr  of  „  „  „ 

5.  The  Nahjul  Baldghah  of  Sayyid  Razi. 


239 


APPENDIX  E. 

SOME  LEADING  MUHAMMADAN  COMMENTATORS. 

Baizdwi  (ed.  Fleischer,  Leipzig,  2  vols.,  also  Cairo 
edition). 

Bukhdrl  (Imdtn  Muhammad  Ismd'U). 

Rdzi  (Imdm  FakTiru'ddin). 

Jaldlain  (  =  the  two  Jaldls). 

'Abbdsi.  (This  and  the  preceding  Commentary  are  often 
printed  in  the  margin  of  Qur'ans  published  in  India.) 

ZamaJcshari.  (His  Commentary  is  entitled  KasJislidfu'l 
Haqdiqi't  Tanzil:  ed.  by  Lees  with  Qur'an,  2  vols., 
royal  4to,  Calcutta,  1856-61.  It  is  held  to  belong  to 
the  Ttizdl  school  and  therefore  to  be  unorthodox.) 

Muhiyyu 'ddtn.  (Gives  the  mystical  explanation  of  the 
Qur'jin.) 

Xisdl]  Yahya' ;  Jaldluddin. 

Shdh  Wallulldh  (Urdu  commentator). 


OXFORD  :    HORACE   HART 
PRINTER  TO   THE    UNIVERSITY 


EVIDENTIAL   PUBLICATIONS 

of  the 

Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge, 


AB    INFERIS. 

Notes  on  Science  and  Religion.  By  M.  E.  DowsON.  With  a 
Preface  by  the  Rev.  J.  R.  ILLINGWORTH,  M.A.  Imp.  32010, 
cloth  boards,  6</. 

AGNOSTICISM. 

By  the  Rev.  I.  GREGORY  SMITH.  Small  post  8vo,  paper 
cover,  id.  [//  discusses  this  question  from  a  point  of  view  which 
Agnostics  wight  overlook.} 

AGNOSTICISM,  ON. 

Replies  to  the  late  Professor  Huxley,  F.R.S.,  by  the  Very  Rev. 
II.  WACE,  D.D.,  DearijOf  Canterbury.  Medium  8vo,  paper 
cover,  6</. 

AGNOSTICISM,  ON. 

By  the  Very  Rev.  II.  \V,\CK,  D.D.    Fcap.  8vo,  paper  cover,  2d. 
ANALOGY   OF   RELIGION, 

Natural  and  Revealed,  to  the  Constitution  and  Course  of 
Nature  :  to  which  are  added,  Two  Brief  Dissertations.  I.  Of 
Personal  Identity.  II.  Of  the  Nature  of  Virtue.  By  BISHOP 
BUTI.KR.  8vo,  cloth  boards,  2s.  (yd. 

ANALOGY    OF   RELIGION,  THE. 

By  the  Rev.  II.  R.  HI.TKIN,  M.A.  Post  8vo,  cloth  boards, 
3.5-.  [Butler  re-cast  in  the  form  of  Dialogues :  for  Ordinary 

J\,  adcrs.  ] 

ARGUMENT   FROM   PROPHECY,  THE. 

By  the  late  Rev.  BROWN  i.o\v  MAITLAND,  M.A.  Post  8vo, 
cloth,  is.  6d.  [Deals  in  a  lucid  inann,  >•  and  from  a  somewhat 
novel  standpoint  with  the  Evidential  I'ti/itt'  of  Prophecy.] 

AUTHENTICITY    OF    THE   GOSPEL  OF  St.  LUKE, 
THE. 

Its  bearing  upon  the  Evidences  of  the  Truth  of  Christianity. 
Five  Lectures,  by  the  late  Lord  A.  C.  HKKVKY,  D.I).,  Hishop 
of  Bath  and  Wells.  Small  post  Svo,  cloth  boards,  is.  6</. 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  S.P.C.K. 


BABYLONIAN  EXCAVATIONS  (THE)  AND  EARLY 
BIBLE   HISTORY. 

By  PROFESSOR  KITTEL,  of  Leipzig.  Translated  from  the 
German  by  EDMUND  McCLURE,  M.A.  Edited,  with  Preface, 
by  H.  WAGE,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury.  Small  post  8vo, 
paper  cover,  6d. 

BATTLE    OF   BELIEF,  THE. 

A  Review  of  the  present  aspects  of  the  Conflict,  by  the  Rev. 
NEVISON  LORAINE.  Introduction  by  the  BISHOP  OF  LONDON. 
Third  Edition.  Crown  8vo,  cloth  boards,  2s.  6d. 

BEING   OF   GOD,  SIX   ADDRESSES   ON    THE. 

By  C.  J.  ELLICOTT,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Gloucester.  Small  post 
8vo,  cloth,  is.  6d.  [for  the  Clergy  and  Candidates  for  Holy 
Orders.} 

BIBLE   AND   MODERN   INVESTIGATION,   THE. 

Three  Lectures  delivered  to  Clergy  at  Norwich,  at  the  request 
of  the  Bishop,  with  an  Address  on  The  Authority  of  Holy 
Scripture.  By  H.  WAGE,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury.  Small 
post  8vo,  cloth,  is.  6d. 

BIBLE   IN   THE   LIGHT   OF   TO-DAY,  THE. 

By  the  Rev.  C.  CROSLEGH,  D.D.'   DemySvo,  cloth  boards,  6s. 

BUTLER'S  ANALOGY  AND  MODERN  THOUGHT. 

By  Rev.  A.  R.  EAGAR,  D.D.  Small  post  8vo,  cloth,  3.5-.  6d. 
[This  is  a  thought/id  endeavour  to  bring  Butler  rip  to  date.  It 
re-states  most  of  the  positions  in  the  light  thrown  by  Darwin  and 
Weissmann  and  other  recent  investigators.  ] 

CHRISTIAN    FAITH,    HELPS    TOWARD    BELIEF 
IN    THE. 

By  the  Rev.  C.  G.  GRIFFINHOOFE,  M.A.  With  a  Preface  by 
the  most  Rev.  the  LORD  ARCHBISHOP  OF  ARMAGH.  Crown 
8vo,  cloth  boards,  3^.  \_Deals  with  some  current  difficulties  in 
a  convincing  manner .] 

CHRISTIANITY  JUDGED   BY  ITS  FRUITS. 

By  the  Rev.   C.   CROSLEGH,   D.D.       Post  8vo,  cloth  boards, 

is.  6d.  [An  Appeal  to  the  Evidence  of  History  :  for  Intelligent 
Readers.} 

CHRISTUS   COMPROBATOR  ;  or,  The  Testimony  of 

Christ  to  the  Old  Testament. 

By  C.  J.  ELLICOTT,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  Gloucester.  Small  post 
Svo,  cloth  boards,  2s. 


PUBLICATIONS   OF  THE  S.P.C.K. 


CHRONICLES  (THE  BOOKS  OF)  in  Relation  to  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  "  Higher  Criticism." 

By  the  late  LORD  A.  (\   HKRVI'Y,  D.I>.      l'"-t  Svo,  cloth.  J  . 

CREATION,  THE    SCRIPTURE   DOCTRINE    OF, 

With  reference  to  Religious  Nihilism  and  Modern  Theories  of 
Development.  By  Rev.  T.  R.  BIKKS.  Post  Svo,  cloth,  I*.  6d. 

CREATION,   THE    STORY    OF, 

As  told  by  Theology  and  Science.  By  the  Rev.  T.  S. 
ACKLAND.  I'ost  Svo,  clotli  boards,  15-.  6</, 

DOUBT   AND   ITS   REMEDY. 

Being  a  Charge  delivered  to  the  Archdcanery  of  Gloucester  in 
October,  1903,  by  C.  J.  ELUCOTT,  1  >.  I;. ,  Bishop  of  Glow- 
Demy  Svo,  paper  cover,  ^d.  [7/'v  ripe  experience  of  a  father 
in  dod  who  Jus  >ccn  many  vicissitudes  in  the  Church  and  the 
world,  and  whs  finds  in  Cod's  revelation  of  Himself  the  irre 
fragable  foundation  of  faith.} 

ECCE   HOMO,  ECCE   REX. 

s  from  the  story  of  the   Moral  Conquests  of  Christianity. 

"  H'  hold  the  Man."     "  Behold  your  King."     By  the  late  Mrs. 

RI-NDI.K   CHAKI.KS.     Small   post  Svo,  cloth  boards,   3.5-.  6</.  ; 

buckram    boards,     red    edges,     4.?.        {Supplies    in     Christian 

a/i/n'  tfic  i/tflsf  practical  ii'iiicucc  of  Christianity.} 

EVOLUTION    AND    THE    HOLY    SCRIPTURES. 

Ilcing  Addresses  delivered  by  the  Ven.  JA.MKS  M.  \\';i.snx, 
!).!).,  Archdeacon  of  Manchester.  Medium  Svo,  paper  cover, 
C)ii.  [A  reprint  sf  papers  on  this  and  kindred  subjects.  It  has 
a  special  i»iporta>ice  at  the  present  time.} 

FAITH,    REASONS    FOR. 

L'Ttures  to  M.-n  by  A.  V .  WlNNINOTON-lNCKAM,  Bishop  of 
London.  Small  post  Svo,  cloth,  6d. 

GENESIS,  THE   BOOK. 

A  True  History.  The  Book  Genesis  shown  by  comparison 
\\iththeotherBooksofthe  Old  Testament  and  early  ancient 
reo  '  true  history  and  the  first,  book  of  the  Hebrew 

Revelation.      By  Rev.  F.  WATSON,  I  >.  I ).      l'<^t  Svo,  cloth,  3^. 

HEBREW   TRADITION  (THE  ANCIENT),  as  Illus 
trated  by  the  Monuments. 

A    protr  •  in    SeliDi.l    of    Did    Testament 

Criticism.       I'.-.  '    Ib>MMl.!,,    ProfeSSOF  of  the   Semitic 

Laognaget. in  the  University  of  Munich.     Transl:tte«l  from  the 

.  :nan     by     I-'.DM  <    LDRB,      M.A.,     and      I.i:<  ..\,\KI> 

CROs.ii.      "With  Maji.       :  I  Svo,  buckram   i 

[Deals  from  an  entirely  new  point  of  view  with  the  C,raf- 
hanscn p >;ition,  and  shows  that  it  is  utterly  -untenable.] 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  S.P.C.K. 


"  HIGHER  CRITICISM"  (THE),  and  The  Verdict  of 

the  Monuments. 

By  the  Rev.  A.  H.  SAYCE,  Professor  of  Assyriology,  Oxford. 
Fifth  Edition.  Demy  8vo,  buckram,  bevelled  boards,  JS.  6d. 
[Applies  to  the  so-called  ' '  Higher  Criticism "  of  the  Bible  the 
results  of  recent  archceological  research  :  for  the  General  Reader. ,] 

HOLY  EUCHARIST,  THE    EVIDENTIAL   VALUE 
OF   THE. 

By  the  late  Rev.  G.  F.  MACLEAR,  D.D.  Crown  8vo,  cloth 
boards,  qs.  [The  Eticharist  in  its  historical  aspect,  and  our 
Lord's  predictions  of  His  own  death,  are  made  to  yield,  without 
any  forcing,  strong  testimony  in  favour  of  the  truth  of 
Christian  ity.  ] 

HOUSE   OF  WISDOM  AND  LOVE,  THE. 

Notes  on  Man  and  Nature.  By  M.  E.  DOWSON,  with  an 
Introductory  Essay  by  Rev.  P.  N.  WAGGETT.  Cloth,  6d.  [A 
thoughtful  little  book,  suited  to  put  into  the  hands  of  those  who 
have  difficulty  in  accepting  Christianity,'} 

MIRACLES?   CAN   WE   BELIEVE   IN. 

By  G.  WARINGTON,  Esq.  Post  8vo,  cloth,  is.  6d.  [An  Exam 
ination  and  Refutation  of  certain^  Objections  to  Miracles.  Well 
adapted  for  Distribution  to  Sceptics,  and  no  less  useful  to  those 
who  may  come  in  contact  with  them.~\ 

MODERN   UNBELIEF:    Its   Principles  and    Charac 
teristics. 

By  the  LORD  BISHOP  OF  GLOUCESTER.  Post  8vo,  cloth 
boards,  is.  6d.  [A  series  of  Addresses  on  the  phases  of  Modern 
Unbelief,  and  the  best  Mode  of  meeting  them  :  for  the  Clergy  and 
Intelligent  Readers.] 

MYSTERY  OF   MIRACLES,  THE. 

A  scientific  and  philosophical  investigation,  by  the  late  Rev. 
Prebendary  J.  W.  REYNOLDS,  M.A.  Third  Edition.  Crown 
8vo,  cloth  boards,  4$.  [This  is  a  cheap  edition  of  the  late 
Prebendary  J.  W.  Reynolds'  work  on  miracles, ,] 

NATURAL  THEOLOGY  OF  NATURAL  BEAUTY, 
THE. 

By  the  late  Rev.  R.  ST.  JOHN  TYRWHITT,  M.A.  Post  8vo, 
cloth  boards,  is.  6d.  [An  Argument  in  favour  of  Religion, 
drawn  from  Natural  Beauty*  Original  in  conception  and 
execution.} 


PUBLICATIONS   OF  THE   S.P.C.K. 


NEW    TESTAMENT,  THE  MORAL  TEACHING  OF 

THE  ;    Viewed    as    Evidential  to  its  Historical 
Truth. 
By  the  Rev.  C.  A.  Row.     Post  8vo,  cloth  boards,  is.  6d. 

NEW    TESTAMENT    DIFFICULTIES. 

By  A.  F.  WiXMNdToN-lNCKAM.  Series  I.  and  II.  Small 
post  8vo,  cloth,  each  6</.  [Deals  with  the  alleged  objections  of 
ordinary  "  Frcct /tinkers."] 

OLD    TESTAMENT    DIFFICULTIES. 

By  A.  F.  \\  iNMNirroN-lNGRAM,  Bishop  of  London. 
Small  post  8vo,  cloth,  6d.  [Deals  with  those  difficulties  which 
Infidel  Lecturers  are  continually  bringing  up :  for  Working 
Men.] 

OLD  TESTAMENT  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  THE  HIS 
TORICAL  RECORDS  AND  LEGENDS  OF 
ASSYRIA  AND  BABYLONIA,  THE. 

By   TiiF.oi'iui.r.s    (',.     I'INVMKS,    LI,.  I).,    M.K.A.S.      Second 
Edition,  Revised,  with  Appendices  and  Notes.      With  several 
Illustrations      Lar^e  post  8vo,  cloth  boards,  "js.  6V/.     [Allies 
to  the  criticisms  of  the  Old  Testament  the  most  recent  disco: 
in  the  field  of  archeology.  ] 

OUR  LORD'S  VIRGIN  BIRTH  AND  THE  CRITI 
CISM  OF  TO-DAY. 

By  the  Rev.  K.  J.  K.\O\VI.INI;,  D.I).,  Trofessor  of  New  Testa 
ment  Exegesis  in  King's  College  and  Boyle  Lecturer.  Crown 
8vo,  cloth  boards,  is.  6d.  [A  timely  and  able  contribution  on 
this  subject.  ] 

PALEY'S     CHRISTIANITY:     A     VIEW     OF     THE 

EVIDENCES    OF. 

\Vith  Notes,  Appendix,  and  Preface  by  the  Rev.  E.  A. 
LITTON,  M.  A.  Post  8vo,  cloth  boards,  4^. 

PALEY'S  HOR^E  PAULINA;  or,  The  Truth  of  the 
Scripture  History  of  St.  Paul  evinced  bv  a 
Comparison  of  the  Epistles  which  r^itr  his 
name  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostlea,  and  with 
one  another. 

:,dix,  and  Preface  by  J.  S.   EiOWSON,   I  >.!>., 
I'  ,111  of  Clatter.      1'o.^t  Svo,  clotli  boards,  Ji. 

PALEY'S   NATURAL    THEOLOGY. 

Revised  to  lianir>i)iM-  \\ilh  Modem  Science  1-y  1  .  l.i  (JROS 
Cl.AKK,  F.K.S.  With  Illustrations.  1'cjst  Svo,  cloth,  j; 


PUBLICATIONS   OF  THE   S.P.C.K. 


PATRIARCHAL   PALESTINE. 

By  the  Rev.  A.  H.  SAYCE,  Professor  of  Assyriology,  Oxford. 
Crown  Svo,  with  Map,  buckram  boards,  45-.  {Gives  the  result 
of  recent  research  as  to  the  condition  of  Palestine  in  the  time  of 
the  Patriarchs.] 

POPULAR   OBJECTIONS   TO    CHRISTIANITY. 

By  A.  F.  WiNNiNGTON-lNGRAM,  Bishop  of  London.  Small 
post  Svo,  cloth,  6d.  {Deals  in  a  bright  and  convincing  way 
with  current  popular  objections.] 

RELIGION  AND   MORALITY. 

By  the  Rev.  R.  T.  SMITH,  B.D.,  Canon  of  St.  Patrick's, 
Dublin.  Post  Svo,  cloth  boards,  is.  6d.  {Dismisses  the  views 
on  this  subject  of  Professor  Clifford,  the  late  Mr.  Herbert 
Spencer,  and  the  late  J.  Stuart  Mill :  for  Intelligent  Readers.] 

SCEPTICISM  AND  FAITH  ;  Papers  on  the  Grounds 
of  Belief. 

By  the  late  Rev.  BROWNLOW  MAITLAND.  Post  Svo,  cloth 
boards,  is.  6d.  {These  Papers  treat  in  a  short  and  simple,  yet 
not  superficial,  manner  the  chief  points  at  issue  in  the  present 
conflict  between  Faith  and  Scepticism  :  for  Unlearned  Readers, 
Sceptics,  and  those  exposed  to  their  influence.] 

SUPERNATURAL   IN   NATURE,  THE. 

A  verification  by  free  use  of  science,  by  the  late  Rev.  Prebendary 
J.  W.  REYNOLDS,  M.A.  Second  Edition.  Demy  Svo,  cloth 
boards,  6s.  {This  is  a  cheap  edition  of  a  thoughtful  work  by 
the  late  Prebendary  J.  W.  Reynolds] 

THEISM  OR  AGNOSTICISM:  An  Essay  on  the 
Grounds  of  Belief  in  God. 

By  the  late  Rev.  BROWNLOW  MAITLAND,  M.A.  Post  Svo, 
cloth  boards,  15-.  6d. 

TO  WHOM   SHALL   WE   GO  ? 

An  Examination  of  some  difficulties  presented  by  unbelief.  By 
the  Rev.  C.  T.  OVENDEN,  D.D.  Small  post  Svo,  cloth  boards, 
2s.  6d.  {A  thoughtful  and  suggestive  work,  well  calculated  to 
inii,rc*t  Sceptics. ] 

WHAT  IS  NATURAL  THEOLOGY?  An  Attempt 
to  Estimate  the  Cumulative  Evidence  of  many 
Witnesses  to  God. 

By  the  Right  Rev.  ALFRED  BARRY,  D.D.  Post  Svo,  cloth 
boards,  2s.  6d.  {These  Lectures  treat  of  the  Cumulative 
Evidence  in  favour  of  Christianity  to  be  derived  from  the  several 
branches  of  Natural  Theology.] 


298 


CO 

55 

LO 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY