34

THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY

sufficient to prove a doctrine which their Master Himself is alleged not to have held. When particularly hard pressed, an easy refuge is obtained behind the charge of corruption, of which the smallest apparent discrepancy is regarded as full and satisfactory proof. The controversy then branches out into the general subject,embracing the claim of the Apostles to inspiration; the Divinity of Christ; the prophecies applied by Mohammedans to their Prophet, etc. But Kzim Ali's perversity surpasses that of the most of his brethren: he assumes the most fanciful interpretations, and insists that they can be the only correct ones, however absurd and obstinately perverted they may have been proved.1 In the same spirit the plainest interpretations are constantly ascribed with irony to Pfander's extraordinary acuteness, and characterised as phantoms of his imagination. Pfander soon perceived what a bully he had to deal with, and in his second and third letters threatened to close the controversy if more impartiality were not shown by his antagonists. Kzim Ali's fourth letter exceeded its predecessors in irrational bigotry, and its style began to descend to petulant and offensive remarks. Pfander accordingly carried his threat into execution, and refused to reply unless umpires were selected to decide whether certain points had not been satisfactorily proved; to this Kzim Ali would not accede, and here the matter ended. The Mohammedan argument is conducted with some ability and much subtilty; and a surprising

1 For instance, "Out of Zion shall go forth the Law and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem," the law left Jerusalem, and where else can it be pretended to have migrated but to Mecca? The passage, " He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be beard in the street," refers to Mahommed, and it cannot apply to Christ, who "cried" on the cross. In endeavouring to prove the corruption of the Scriptures, he says, "You ask, what object had the Christians in corrupting the notices of Mohammed? What! is it no object to eat pork and drink wine; to avoid praying five times a day, and fast for a month in the year?"  Shortly after he says, "I do not mean to affirm that the Scriptures were corrupted in later ages when Christians were numerous and copies multiplied; no, it was in the early ages of the Apostles when there were but few to detect the change": he forgets that the time he alludes to was more than 500 years prior to the existence of the motives and actions he had before supposed.