59

THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY

translations. This may for a time acquire for him some credit with his unlearned brethren, but as soon as the untenableness of his positions become generally known, it will end only in confusion. We recommend the Maulavi to become a student of Greek and Hebrew at the Lucknow Martiniere, and to make himself thoroughly master of those languages, before, he again ventures to call in question the renderings of competent persons.

The proofs from the Old Testament he treats with still less fairness. Some of the most important passages are passed over, and many others are advanced on the ground that they apply to Mohammed.1 He then produces what he considers two irrefragable arguments in substantiation of his Prophet's mission. The first, the perfection of his religion as a code of morals and devotion; the second, that Mohammed must have been either a true prophet or a madman. He proves by his many virtues and talents that he was not the latter, and triumphantly asserts that he must have been the former.2 He forgets that the same argument would apply with even greater weight to the apostles; for

1 Like Kâzim Ali, he applies the glorious promises of Isaiah to Mohammed; though with greater candour he allows that the introductory verses, "He shall not cry," etc., refer to Jesus. He holds that part of the second psalm applies to Jesus, and part to Mohammed; but does not show how to distinguish between the two. He denies that the 53rd of Isaiah can refer to Christ, because it is said, "He shall see his seed"; on the contrary, he holds that the promise of "a portion with the great and spoil with the strong," is an evident token of Mohammed, forgetting the remarkable words that follow, "because he hath poured out his soul unto death," etc. The commencement of the chapter could not designate Christ, because the Prophet speaks in the past tense, "he was despised, and we esteemed him not"; it can, therefore, only mean that " we despised and rejected Ishmael," and, by a common figure of speech, his descendant Mohammed in him. The "root out of a dry ground" is a reference to Hagar, who, to worldly appearance, was an unlikely source for a prophet;—or more probably to the arid plains of Mecca, noted for their dryness and sterility.
2 The learned Hindoo of Lucknow, before referred to, attacks the Maulavi on this point; he asserts that he has omitted a much more likely supposition, namely, that of having been a false prophet and imposter. It is pleasing to see the subject so soon attract the notice of the Hindoos and elicit so very pertinent a criticism.