61

THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY

Persons of that individuality which the Bible attributes, to them.

The Maulavi exults that his adversary has been driven for examples of the Trinity to the tenets of idolatrous nations and heathen philosophers, and quotes the proverb, "The drowning man clutches at every straw," to intimate that he could only have adopted so dangerous an expedient from the badness of his cause.1 He warns him that religion is a serious and a delicate subject, and that we are not here, as in worldly matters, to seek assistance from all by force or by fraud.2 These remarks show how totally he misunderstands Pfander's argument, which is to prove the consistency of a species of plurality in unity with human reason: now, the Grecian philosophers, for instance, had certainly, by nature as strong and sound a faculty of reason as our adversaries or we possess; and since it is upon reason, unaided by revelation, that the Mohammedan hangs his cause, it is surely reasonable in us to adduce the evidence of impartial reasoners, whose minds, unwarped by any of our supposed prejudices, directed the intensest thought towards the discovery of the mode in which the Divine Being exists: such deductions, surely we may safely oppose to the simple ipse dixit of our adversaries, without being suspected of any intention to countenance the doctrines themselves. The Sufies are abused by the Maulavi, as unbelievers still worse than ourselves, but he will not admit that their views in any degree assist us; because, first, they hold a greater variety of manifestations than mere intelligence and will, and the analogy, therefore, proves too much; and, secondly, their doctrines are not allowed by the orthodox Mussulmans. He likewise accuses Pfander of inconsistency in first representing these Sufie philosophers as believing in a trinity,


1 He throws the proverb in our teeth, "Idolatry and infidelity are but one religion," as implying that we and the idolaters are much alike in error.
2 He denies that the Hindoos hold plurality in unity regarding their deity; asserting that Brahma, Vishnu, and Mahesh represent the angels Asrafael, Michael, and Azrael, and are in fact only the ministers of the Deity; and he makes large extracts upon this subject from a Persian writer. He, accordingly, denies that they hold the incarnation of the Deity.