176 THE REV. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, M.A., ON ISLAM: 
It is unnecessary to say anything here with reference to 
the readiness with which the author accepts modern Rational- 
istic theories regarding the origin of some of the leading 
doctrines of Christianity, and how decidedly he manifests his 
opposition to the truth of the Deity of our Lord, and other 
cardinal doctrines of the Bible. No one would expect to find 
him an authority upon such matters as these. But he claims 
to be received as such when he treats of Islém. And yet 
anyone at all acquainted with the Qur’4n and the Traditions 
(Ahadith) may readily perceive that in reality the Sayyid 
represents orthodox Muhammadanism as it actually exists and 
has existed from the ‘ Prophet's” time to the present, about 
as fairly as Strauss, Baur, De Wette, and others of the same 
school, may be taken to represent the Christianity of the New 
Testament! Any Western student of Muhammadanism who 
trusts to “The Spirit of Islam” as an exponent of Muslim 
behef will find himself wofully mistaken. A careful reader 
may observe this for himself by reading between the lines. A 
few examples, however, of the gulf which separates Ameer Ali 
and the modern ‘“‘ reform” party in India from Muhammad’s | 
own teachings may be noted. The Gop of Muhammad is 
the Almighty Creator, Ameer Ali repeatedly professes 
Pantheism, or quotes with special approval Pantheistic 
passages (/ntrod., p. 664, &c.), Muhammad professed to 
receive the Qur’an directly from the Angel Gabriel by Divine 
inspiration, and taught that every word and letter was of 
Divine authority. Ameer Ali tellsus that Muhammad taught 
an eclectic faith, and confesses that he borrowed from the 
Docetism of Christian heretics (pp. 56-58), from Zeid the 
Hanif (p. 80, note), from Zoroastrianism (pp. 387, 394), and 
that his teaching shows a gradual development (pp. 398— 
400). In this I quite agree with him: but no orthodox 
Muslim would consider this other than gross blasphemy. 
The Sayyid has so far profited from Western thought that 
he is able to declare himself the foe of polygamy and slavery. 
But he demands too much from our credulity, or depends 
unduly on the crassness of our ignorance of the Qur’aén, when 
he ventures to tell us that Muhammad agreed with him in all 
this. His attempt to explain Muhammad’s many marriages 
as being formed only from motives of the purest and most 
unselfish charity (p. 331, sqq.), is admirable as an example of 
able casuistry. The method in which he strives to rescue 
his master’s memory from the stain of cruel and cowardly 
murder is ingenious in the extreme, if not ingenuous, but is 
