95

THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY

narrow ground; it seemed, therefore, sufficient to reply only to them" (pp. 605-607).

Ali Hassan does not treat the Dîn Haqq with so much respect even as the Mîzân-ul-Haqq.

Know, says he, that whatever grounds of reasonable dispute,—such as they are,—the Christians have against the Moslems, are (along with much unreasonable matter) contained in the Mîzân-ul-Haqq. Now, as to the other treatise,—the Dîn Haqq ki tahqîq, wherever in some little measure it is the shadow of certain portions of the Mîzân-ul-Haqq, it is upon the whole reasonable. But the remaining, and by far the greatest, portion is much more unreasonable than the unreasonable portions of this Mizân.

A single instance will suffice. The Dîn Haqq, after quoting the Prophets, and also secular writers, Jewish Christian and Roman, in respect of Christ's death, proceeds to say that if Mohammed had possessed the slightest acquaintance with history, he would never have written of the crucifixion as in the Coran he has. The Maulvi denies the prophecies, and then proceeds:—

The Padre does not perceive that the Coran itself admits, nay expressly asserts, the fact that both Jews and Christians hold the crucifixion of Jesus; and yet he writes, that the author of the Coran was unacquainted with this historical fact! Such a babbler shall have his answer from the Lord. Reflect for a moment, and hide thy face with confusion. Say;—What advantage could he who gave forth the Coran have had in view when he asserted in opposition to vast and influential multitudes that Jesus was not slain, but had ascended to heaven in his mortal body! Had he made his assertion to accord with the views of these immense multitudes, then indeed he had gained an object, viz., the lessening of their opposition, and he had obtained likewise an argument to strengthen his opposition to the Divinity of Christ, that, namely, drawn from the fact of his mortality (p. 637).

He then goes on to say that the Gospel is perfectly correct, because the semblance of Christ was actually taken and crucified; "but there is no replying, to the argument you bring against us, viz., that where we agree with the Bible, it is plagiarism—where we disagree, it is false!"1 No less than eighteen pages are devoted

1 It is curious to observe in what light this Maulvi regards the practice of dancing. He turns the tables against the Dîn Haqq in which certain indelicate passages in the Coran are censured, by asserting that use are in the habit of justifying indelicate practices by the authority of the Bible. "Miriam's dancing with cymbals is adduced by Christians as proving the innocency of any kind of dancing: and supported by this and other instances in the Bible, your countrymen take their wives, daughters, and sisters to dancing parties, and regard the custom as one approved by religion: nay, you look upon the kissing of the grown-up daughters, sisters and wives of other people, and passing the hand round their waists, pretty much in the same light as we do for men to shake hands with each other, or to fondle little children;—i.e., as right and proper. If it be really thus as I have heard, and such things are, in truth, not held by you to be forbidden by the Divine law, then it is deep disgrace to you" (p. 622).
  This passage (of which from necessity we have softened and modified some of the expressions) shows that either the Maulvi's informants or his own bigotry have greatly misrepresented our social practices; still it is matter for reflection whether there may not be some of our practices offering to the Mussulmans a vulnerable point of which they are not slow to avail themselves in their attacks upon our faith, and self-conceit with their own.