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 Atonement 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 1, 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
[Footnote continued onto next page]

difficult to convince a Muhammadan that Christianity 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 their 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

[Footnote continued from previous page]
that much belauded book, and thus to compare it with the Gospel.

Muhammadan ignorance and credulity are well illustrated by what Mirza Riza writes in his answer to Henry Martyn: "It is told of Plato (!) 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 one 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 me by a Persian prince a few years ago.