46 |
THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY
|
|
promise respecting Ishmael, that he should dwell in the presence of all his
brethren"; the former, it is contended, was fulfilled in
Christianity, the latter, in Mohammedanism. There is no "responding
feature" here; Mohammedanism may be the accomplishment of a
prophecy, but that is a very different thing from the fulfilment of a promise.
Forster would make circumcision to "be equally at the root of both parts
of the original covenant, and to be the common bond of a certain spiritual
relation, 'to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee'; and we can
only tell of the force of this application to Ishmael by an investigation of
RESULTS." This argument, however, proves a great deal too much, as it
would extend to the whole of Abraham's seed, including the children of Ketura,
to whom no special spiritual blessing was accorded. "Isaac becomes the
father of the true faith; Ishmael, of a spurious imitation of it." But
a "spurious imitation" is no fulfilment; and if Islam is actually
the fulfilment of the promise, it cannot be spurious, but must be acknowledged
a divine faith. The fabric is based upon a contradiction.
|
It frequently falls in with
Forster's views to prove Islam a blessing, and then it is curious to observe
how he avoids comparing it with the Gospel. Thus he says that when we
"submit Mohammedanism to a comparison with Christianity, exclusively of
Judaism, we are not trying it by the proper and equitable standard; . . . for
it is no more than the barest justice, that the parts of it derived from the
law of Moses should be tried by that law, instead of being condemned without
reserve or discrimination, by another rule, the infinitely perfect law of
Christ." But surely there can be no reason why his creed should not be
tried and condemned by that faith which its founder supplanted, and in room of
which he substituted his own. Again, "some of the most objectionable
features of his moral law, instead of being, as heretofore; tried and
condemned by the perfect rule of the Gospel, would seem entitled to be judged
by reference to the source whence, it is derived, and the standard
to which it appeals." The source from whence he professes to derive
his law is God Himself: why then adopt a lower standard than His word?
|