MAHOMED‟S PLACE IN THE CHURCH

INTRODUCTION. By ERNEST DE BUNSEN JANUARY— APRIL, 1889.

Pages 259-289 Asiatic Quarterly Review Vol.7

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.104588/2015.104588.Asiatic
-Quarterly-Review-Vol7_djvu.txt

Mahomed did not recognize Paul as an apostle. In the Koran he is never

mentioned, and every one of his peculiar doctrines has been
systematically excluded. Yet- Jesus is therein recognized as a Divine
messenger and even as more than all other apo.stles, as being the
Messiah announced by Hebrew prophets. Mahomed must therefore have
believed that the doctrines of Paul were contrary to those of Jesus. If this
doctrinal difference can be proved, the Koran will be found to approach
much more closely the doctrines of Jesus than could hitherto be asserted.

It will here be assumed as a sufficiently established fact, that at all times

in the history of Israel a recognized and also a not recognized tradition
existed, that to the Massora of Sadducees and Pharisees was opposed the
Merkaba, the tradition of Jewish Dissenters, the Essenes, This third party
in Israel, established as an order at least one hundred and fifty years
before the Christian era, stood in connection with the doctrines of
Buddhists, whose presence in Egypt, Syria, and other countries of the
West, in the third century before Christ, is proved by the stone
inscriptions of the Indian king Asoka, who reigned since 259 B.C., or 218
years after Buddha‟s death. In the Greek version of Jewish Scriptures, in
the Septuagint, the fourth year after Buddha‟s death, that is b.€. 473, is
substituted for the fourth year after Solomon‟s accession, when the
foundation of the Temple took place. The now well established year of
Buddha‟s death, 477 b.c., is thus confirmed by the Seventy whom
Ptolemy assembled at Alexandria, and the earliest part of whose version
was published in 280 B.C.

The doctrines of these Jewish Dissenters were represented by Stephen,

who first applied to Jesus the doctrine of the Angel Messiah, thus
introducing the doctrine of Jesus as an incarnate Angel. After the death of
Stephen, Saul the Pharisee became converted to the doctrines of the man
over whose execution he had presided. These doctrines were never
sanctioned by Jesus or the twelve apostles. By passing over in silence the
peculiar doctrines of Paul, the Koran paves the way to aboriginal
Christianity.

Page 1 of 24
 MAHOMED AND THE MESSIAH.

We cannot accept the vague and contradictory' traditions about Mahomed

having been instructed by a Christian monk Bahira-Sergius-Georgius-
Nestor, nor by a slave Jabr.1 It is certain that Mahomed had no access to
the Greek Testament, and it may be doubted whether an Arabic version
then existed, though it cannot be asserted that the exclusive language of
the Christians in his day was Syriac. He seems to have received many
suggestions from Christian friends, and it is possible that his cousin
Waraqah early belonged to a Christian community. Every kind of Christian
sect was then represented in Arabia, from the Arians to the Ebionites,
from the Marianites who made Mary the third person in the Trinity, to the
sColyridians (from colyris, “cakes ”) who offered cakes to Mary and
worshipped her, though denying her enduring virginity.2 The most
numerous Christian sect in Arabia Avas that of the Ebionites or “the poor”,
possibly so called because Jesus had taught the gospel “to the poor”.
These Jewish Christians, like the aboriginal Christians, the Nazarenes,
possessed and recognized but one gospel, called “after Matthew”,or “after
the Hebrews”, which in the fourth century the Nazarenes still had in its
primitive Hebrew form. We know of the Ebionites and of those who, like
the Nazarenes and Cerinthus, represented a cognate Christianity, that
they repudiated the Apostle Paul, “maintaining that he was an apostle
from the law”, and that they rejected his Epistles and the Acts. They also
possessed a secret scripture, “the preaching of Paul”, which protested
against his doctrines.3 These Ebionite Scriptures and secret traditions
seem to have been the principal sources from which Mahomed derived his
knowledge through competent persons. Eor it is a generally known fact
that all the peculiar doctrines of Paul have been excluded from the Koran.

To make in every case the right selection among the sources of

knowledge open to Mahomed, would have been impossible for him as for
the men of all times. In so far as Mahomed succeeded in this task, it must
be attributed to the trustworthiness of Ebionite tradition and to Divine
guidance. Because he tried to understand and to propagate the non-
Paulinic Christianity of the Ebionites, the doctrines of Mahomed went

1
These tales originated in the passage of the Koran (xvi. 105) where his enemies are
recorded to have said, “It is only some mortal who teaches him. . . . The tongue of him
they lean towards is barbarous, and this is plain Arabic”.
2
“Epiph. contra octoginta haereses”,cap. 79.
3
Iren. “Haer”. i. 262; Hilgenfeld, L c. 39-42 f.; on the “Evan gelium Pauperum
Essenorum”, p. 201.

Page 2 of 24
back, as far as it was possible in his time, to aboriginal or pre-Paulinic
Christianity; they nearly approached Christ‟s doctrine of the Holy Spirit‟s
presence in mankind, which is here assumed.

The system of Paul‟s doctrine is based on the assumption that, in

consequence of the fall of Adam and Eve, the Spirit which God had
breathed into the nostrils of Adam was withdrawn. For obvious reasons
the doctrine of the Divine Sonship could not be taught by Mahomed. He
knew from the Scriptures that in the beginning God breathed His Spirit
into man, and not a word in the Koran refers to a withdrawal of the same,
which has been perhaps indicated in Genesis.4 It can therefore be
asserted that the doctrine of Mahomed harmonizes with that of Jesus on
the presence of the Spirit of God in mankind — the doctrine of the soul-
saving, ingrafted or inborn Word. But the consciousness of this presence
of the Spirit had to be renewed. Therefore Mahomed taught that “in
suitable intervals “God sent “apostles with revelations”. As one of these
messengers, according to his belief, the last of those who had been
announced, the last of the prophets, he declared that “the guidance of
humanity “was assigned to Islam.5

Instead of following the Alexandrian and Buddhistic doctrine of successive

incarnations of angels, which doctrine Philo in the Book of Wisdom had
applied to Israel‟s history, Mahomed distinguishes only in so far the
prophets and apostles from their contemporaries, that the former
possessed the Spirit in a renewed and higher power. He states that Jesus
also had been “strengthened” with the Holy Spirit, a passage which points
to the words of the Eightieth Psalm on the Son of Man whom God
strengthened unto Himself. Repeatedly in the Koran incarnations of angels
are excluded.6

“If we please we can make of you angels in the earth to succeed you. And
verily He (Jesus) is a sign; doubt not, then, concerning it, but follow this
right way, and let not the devil turn you away; verily he is to you an open
foe. Were there angels on the earth, walking in quiet, we had surely sent
them”.“God does not bid you take the angels and the prophets for your
lords”. Mahomed insisted that he himself was “none other than a man
sent as an apostle”. Say, “We believe in God and that which has been
sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Jacob and the tribes, and that
which was given over to Moses and Jesus and the prophets by their Lord;

4
Sur. xxxviii. 70, Gen. vi. 3.
5
Sur. xcii. (Sale).
6
We follow the translation in Palmer‟s „Quran‟ (Sacred Books of the East, vol. iv., ix.,
edited by Max Muller).

Page 3 of 24
we make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we are
resigned”. “God is the patron of them who believe; He brings them forth
from darkness into light”. In so far as God, through His Spirit, spoke to all
His apostles, therefore as regards their direct communion with Him there
was no distinction between any of them. But Jesus, “the Apostle of God to
the children of Israel”, though “no other than a servant”, whom God
“favoured with the gift of prophecy”, was the announced Messiah;
according to the doctrine of Mahomed, God set Him up for “an example
for the children of Israel”. Therefore Jesus was something more than the
other mortal apostles, much more than a prophet, in the opinion of
Mahomed.7

From the Koran it can be assumed that Mahomed regarded Jesus as an

exceptional, perhaps even as the perfect, instrument of the Holy Spirit.
For whilst, in the Koran, Adam is called “the chosen of God”(Safiyu‟ llahi),
Noah ' ”the prophet of God “(Nabiyu‟ llahi), Abraham “the friend of God
“(Khalilu‟ llahi), Jesus is called “the Spirit of God”(Ruhu‟ llahi), and
Mahomed “the apostle of God” (Rasiilu‟ llahi). According to the Koran, God
has spoken with Moses because he “preferred” him before other prophets,
and therefore he is called Kalimu‟ llahi, “he with whom God spoke”. But
Jesus was announced to Mary as “a holy Son “(or “pure boy”), and to the
Son of Mary “evident signs “were given, and God “strengthened Him with
the Holy Spirit”. John was to confirm the Word from God, “that is Jesus,
who was announced by the angel as “the Word from God”.“His name shall
be the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, respected in this world and In the
next, and one of those who are near to God”. Yet “the Messiah- Jesus, the
Son of Mary, is only the Apostle of God and His Word, which He cast in
Mary, and (that is) a Spirit from Him”.“And we have continued in the
footsteps of those prophets with Jesus the Son of Mary, confirming that
which was before Him and the law, and we brought to Him the Gospel,
wherein there is guidance and light by verifying what was before Him of
the Law, and a guidance and admonition for those who fear”. The people
had “but little knowledge “of the Spirit coming at the bidding of God.8

Gabriel was sent as a messenger of the Lord, in order to give Mary a holy
son. The angel said, “Oh, Mary, verily God giveth thee glad tidings of a
Word from Him, His name shall be the Messiah -Jesus, the Son of Mary,
regarded in this world and the next, and of those whose place is nigh to
God. ... I am only a messenger of thy Lord, to bestow on thee a pure boy
(a holy son). Said she: How can I have a boy . . . . He said: Thus says thy

7
Sur. ii. xliii., 60 f.; xvii. 96, 98, 7; ii. 130, 259; xlii. 57 f.
8
Sur. ii. 254; xix. 16-21; iii. 40; vi. 169, 170; y . 50; xvii. 87.

Page 4 of 24
Lord, It is easy for me. ... So she conceived him, and she retired with him
into a remote place. And the labour pains came upon her at the trunk of a
palm-tree”.

The trait in the legend of Mary which has been inserted in the Koran,
though not in the Gospels, according to which the Holy Son of Marj' was
born near the trunk of a palm-tree, cannot be separated from the Buddha
legend. For Buddha, the “holy son” of the virgin Maya, “the celestial
woman”, Is said to have been born under two golden trees — under the
Bodhi-tree, the tree of knowledge (originally Palasa, that is, the fig-tree,
later the acacia); and secondly, under the Asoka-tree, the tree of life,
which the Egyptians symbolized in pre- Mosaic times by a palm. Those
two trees of the legend on the terrestrial Paradise are united to one tree
in the Book of Genesis, and it was natural that the Mahomedan legend
followed this tradition.

The legend of the Messiah as son of a virgin transferred to the Koran from
the Gospel, and the tradition on which it is based, has originated in star-
symbolism. We believe to have proved this beyond the possibility of
justifiable doubt. According to this star-symbolism, which we know from
the Zodiac, the yearly renewal of the apparent circuit of the sun round the
earth takes place at the time of his entering the winter solstice, when the
sign of Virgo appears on the Eastern horizon. The virgin of the Zodiac was
represented already by the ancient Egyptians as Isis- Ceres holding in her
arms the new-born sun-god Horus, and following the sun to the hidden
sphere, as I star- Venus was said to follow Tamsi-Adonis.9 The virgin
legend can be traced to Genesis and to the Apocalypse, and connected
with similar traditions on the birth of Buddha, Sraosha, and other heroes
of light.10 This could not have been known to Mahomed or to the
compilers of the Koran, though it must be assumed that those knew that
connection who first applied this astronomical and astrological symbolism
to the Messiah. Mahomed regarded the twelve signs “of the Zodiac, and
apparently also the “figures” connected with them, as set up and guarded
by God.11

In the Koran the highest of all apostles, Jesus the Messiah, is brought into
connection with the apostles whom God sent to other nations. According

9
Comp. Matt. ii. i, 2, about the “star-seers from the East” inquiring after the new-born
King of the Jews, whose star they had seen.
10
See “Christianity and Islam”, by E. de Bunsen.
11
Sur. XV. 18. In the time of Origen some Ebionites believed in the virgin-born Messiah.
To these must have belonged Mahomed‟s informants.

Page 5 of 24
to the Koran, a human delegate has by God been sent to every nation.12
According to tradition, the apostle Hud was sent to the Arabian tribe of
the Ad, the apostle Saleh to the Thamud, Abraham to Babel, Lot to
Sodom, and Shonib to Midian. Mahomed recognized only seven great
prophets — Adam, Abraham, Ishmael, Isaak, Jacob, Moses, and Jesus —
of whom the last, as the Messiah, was the greatest. All these were held to
be human organs of the Holy Spirit, and in no wise dependent on one or
more angels for their guidance. Yet Gabriel was sent to Mary, according to
the .Gospel and the Koran, and so was he sent to Mahomed to announce
to him his apostleship. It is important to distinguish the position assigned
to Gabriel in the Gospel, and that given him in the Koran. The Gospel
after Luke describes him as the angel standing “before God”,13 and thus
as identical with the angeJ by God‟s throne, or Metatron, whom the
Targum had described as the angel who was with Israel in the wilderness,
and whom Paul had called the spiritual rock, or Christ. Only in the Paulinic
Gospel is Gabriel mentioned and the position there assigned to him is
identical with that given to the Angel-Messiah whom Paul preached. This
doctrine of the Angel-Messiah we found to have belonged to the tradition
of Jewish Dissenters, the Essenes, and distinguished from the Messianic
conceptions of Jesus and the recognized tradition at Jerusalem.

Whilst in the Paulinic Gospel it is Christ Himself, the first among angels,
the Angel-Messiah who under the name of Gabriel announces His
incarnation, the Koran knows no Angel-Messiah with whom to identify
Gabriel. If through his friends Mahomed had a general knowledge of the
contents of the “Apocalypse of John”, he must have been struck by the
position assigned in this Essenic, though anti-Paulinic, Scripture to the
first of seven angels. That is exactly the same position which Gabriel
holds in the Koran. A mighty angel, near to Him who sat on the throne, is
in the Apocalypse described as holding in his hand a sealed book, then
the same book as opened by Jesus, and containing the accomplishment of
“the mystery of God”, the final revelation. Even to the seer of this vision
the understanding of it was impossible, and he was ordered not to write
down the symbolical references to the contents of this book. From
another vision in the Apocalypse, Mahomed could learn that an angel with
“an everlasting Gospel “appeared to the seer. By these two visions, about
a Book and a Gospel to be revealed, Mahomed would very naturally be led
to hope for communications which might be made to him by Gabriel.

12
Sur. X. 48— 50 j comp. Midrash Rabba, Talkud to Numb. xxii. 2.
13
Luke i 19.

Page 6 of 24
Why should the apostle not be enabled to read what the seer could not
read.? Such thoughts may have preceded the recorded apparition of the
angel to Mahomed when he called on him to read. According to traditioti,
the angel held in his hand a book bound in silk, covered with pearls of
paradise and gold, written on both sides, as the book was which the
Apocalypse describes. Though Mahomed could not read, he might hope to
receive an intuitive perception of the contents of the book in the angel s
hand. We would thus explain the words at the beginning of the second
Sura; „There‟ or „that‟ is the book. We can hardly consider it as doubtful
that this passage, with the words following, „in which there is no doubt‟,
was placed at the beginning of the Koran, in order to indicate thereby that
this book, though not composed till after Mahomed‟s death, contains a
continuous, infallible revelation, every alteration of the record of which, as
in the Apocalypse, is prohibited at God‟s command.

The Messianic doctrine in the Koran is certainly not an imitation of the

doctrine of the Double Messiah in the “Revelation of John”, which doctrine
we have found to agree in essential points with that of Cerinthus, as
transmitted by Irenaeus. According to the latter, the Jewish Gnostic
Cerinthus was by the apostle John called at Ephesus “an enemy of the
truth”; and in his Epistle, John designated as “a liar “that contemporary of
his who promulgated the anti-Christian doctrine, according to which Jesus
was distinguished from Christ, as in the Apocalypse, and also according to
the doctrine of Cerinthus. Of none other than of him the promulgation of
such a doctrine in the Apostolic age can be proved; so that, without the
confirmatory testimony of the presbyter Caius and of Bishop Dionysius,
Cerinthus must be regarded as the “John” of the Apocalypse.14 According
to the doctrine of the apostles at Jerusalem and of Mahomed, Jesus was
the Christ as the anointed man, not as the incarnate Angel- Messiah born
of a virgin, nor as the man united by the Holy Spirit with the celestial
Christ, with the first among the angels. This conception was not
recognized by the Massora, by Jesus, by the twelve apostles, or by
Mahomed.

In the Koran, Jesus the Messiah is distinguished from angels, not only
physically but spiritually. As Jesus is in the Gospel distinguished from the
angel Gabriel who announces Messiah‟s birth, so in the Koran Mahomed is
distinguished from the angel Gabriel who announces his apostleship. The
apostle was in no wise dependent on Gabriel or any other angel; he
received his guidance directly from God. Thus also, as we assert, the

14
“Der Doppel-Messias in der Johannes- Apocalypse”, in “Die Ueber lieferung”, ii. pp.
119-130.

Page 7 of 24
Apostle John in his Epistle opposes the implied Cerinthian conception of
the Angel-Messiah as the spiritual guide of the human Messiah. He refers
his readers to the “unction from Him who is holy”, as already received
directly, without any mediation of an angel. That unction which excludes
all other teachers, since it teaches all things, being truth and no lie, the
unction through which God anointed Jesus, is the innate Word which is
able to heal the soul, and through which a spiritual communion with God
can be established. In perfect harmony with this apostolic doctrine, it is
stated in the Koran that God Himself “aided” and “strengthened” Jesus
“with the Holy Spirit”. Had, Mahomed‟s Christian informants not been so
careful in following the pre-Paulinic doctrine, they might have been by the
Paulinic Gospel after Luke misled into the belief that an angel
“strengthened” Jesus on the Mount of Olives.15

Everything points to the conclusion that Mahomed‟s Ebionite informants

pursued the object to take their stand on the Massoretic secret tradition,
and on the aboriginal or non-Paulinic Christianity taught by Jesus. We find
in the Koran not the least reference to the Paulinic doctrines on the pre-
mundane personal existence of Christ, through whom are all things, on
His atoning sacrificial death by the blood of His cross, nor to the descent
of the Spirit of Promise, not till after this sacrificial death, and exclusively
for the believers in the same; nor to the resurrection of Jesus on the third
day according to the Scriptures, as the exact fulfilment of a prophecy by
Moses.

Because Paul had connected with the crucifixion of Jesus the doctrine of
His sacrificial death, that is, the reconciliation thereby effected between
God and humanity, for this reason Mahomed seems to have denied the
crucifixion of Jesus, as this was likewise done by other opposers of Paul.
Although the anti- Pauline author of the Apocalypse in one passage refers
to the crucifixion of “our Lord”, that is, of Jesus at Jerusalem, he brings
that event in no connection with the celestial Christ. This entirely agrees
with the doctrine of Cerinthus, according to which Christ was not crucified
with Jesus, but left Him before His suffering. The words in the Koran on
the crucifixion exclude every distinction between Jesus and Christ. God
said to Jesus, “I will make Thee die and take Thee up again to Me, and
will clear Thee of those who misbelieve; and I will make those who follow
Thee above those who misbelieve (Christians above Jews) at the day of
judgment; and then to Me is your return, and I will decide between You
concerning that wherein ye disagree”. In another passage the crucifixion

15
I.uke xxii. 43; i Joha ii. 20; comp. Isa. liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 31-34.

Page 8 of 24
of Jesus is absolutely denied. The unbelievers said, “Verily we have killed
the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, the Apostle of God; but they did not
kill Him, and they did not crucify Him, but a similitude was made for
them”.16

Like the Paulinian doctrine on the resurrection of Jesus as fulfilment of a

Mosaic prophecy — a supposition excluded by the first three Gospels —
the Paulinic doctrine on a personal return of Christ to the earth is not
recorded in Koran,17 f In it no reference is found to the words of Jesus
which seem to form the historical basis for the dogmatic enlargements
leading to the doctrine on His personal return in glory. Mahomed‟s friends
may, however, have communicated to him the words recorded in
Matthew‟s Gospel, according to which Jesus already would have gathered
together the children of Jerusalem if they had willed it; their house would
be left unto them desolate, and they would not see Him until they had
welcomed the time of Messianic fulfilment in the unexplained words of the
psalmist and seer, “Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord”.18
We assume that Jesus has referred these words of the 118th Psalm to the
promised prophet in the spirit and power of Elias, who should therefore
come in the name or Spirit of the Lord, to reconcile Jews and Christians.
If so, the time of Elias would be that to which Jesus referred when Israel
would (spiritually) see Him perhaps the time of the fulfilment of all
Messianic prophecies. The partial non-fulfilment of these, especially Elias
not having come, was the cause why the Jews did not as a nation
recognize Jesus to be the promised Messiah — that is, the bringer of the
promised new and spiritual covenant.

We venture to submit the following explanation of the words of Jesus on

Israel‟s future:

The gathering of united Jews and Christians in the promised land, to

which prophecies refer, wdll be contemporaneous with the “seeing “or
spiritual beholding, with the recognizing of Jesus as Messiah, as the
Sower who announced the future harvest. The centre of this brotherly

16
Sur. iii. 47, 48; iv. 156. A similar conception was promulgated by the earliest
Gnostics, Cerinthus, Basilides (lien. par. L 4), Carpocrates, and others.
17
In the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, excepting two doubtful passages in “The
Epistles of Ignatius”(Magn. xi.; Smym. iii.), of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, there is
no reference to a second coming of Christ, which Justin assumes by figurative
explanations, not by words of Christ or His apostles. The Fourth Gospel knows no
distinction between a coming of Christ in lowliness and in glory.
18
Matt xxiii. 37-39; Psa. cxviiL 22-26. We refer verses 22 and 23 to the first and
personal, verse 26 to the second and spiritual coming of Christ in the time of Elias.

Page 9 of 24
union of Jews and Christians in the time of Elias will be formed by Jews
and Mahomedans,- by Jewish Christians.

Even if Mahomed should have known these words of Jesus referring to

Israel‟s future, he could, hardly have devolved from them the above-
indicated conclusions. But had he wished to hasten the time to which
these words point, it would have been necessary to return to pre-Paulinic
Christianity. For the future event marked by Jesus, His being seen or
recognized by Israel, whom God did not cast off, had by Paul been
brought into connection with an apparition of Christ on a cloud, for the
gathering of those who believed in Him, which visible return of Christ Paul
had announced to take place before his death.19

It is possible that Mahomed had some mysterious conception of a

personal return of Jesus as Messiah in glory, but such a conception must
have been absolutely different from that which Paul entertained. At all
events, a tradition connects Mahomed with Christ returned to the earth.
'In the Hujra at Medina, Where Mahomed lies buried, there is an empty
grave, which Mahomedans explain as that of the returned Jesus Christ. He
is called Syiduna Isa‟ bnu Maryama; that is, “Our Lord Jesus, Son of
Mary”.

On the supposition that Mahomed knew the abovecited words of Jesus,

however those words be interpreted, the Apostle of Arabia could not have
referred to so mysterious a prophecy, because a great majority of the
Christians in his time had been misled by Paul‟s doctrine of Christ‟s
personal return on a cloud. After the death of Paul, when this expectation
had by the inexorable facts of history been judged as a false one, it was
kept up by recording in the Acts the asserted visible ascension on a cloud,
and the announcement, by two mysterious men in white apparel, of
Christ‟s return in like manner as He had been seen go into heaven; that
is, personally and on a cloud. So unhistorical was this record, that whilst
Luke in his Gospel is said to have referred the ascension to the day of
Christ‟s resurrection, the same Luke in the Acts is declared to have
testified to the ascension on the fortieth day after the resurrection.20

The object of inserting sooner or later in the Acts this account of a visible
lifting up of Jesus, and His personal return on a cloud, seems to us to

19
Did Paul regard himself as the prophet of Elias, who was to come “in the name of the
Lord”? The confident expectation that in his lifetime Christ would be seen may have
originated in such an application to himself of the words of Jesus on his being in future
seen by Israel.
20
Luke xxiv. i, 50-52; Acts i. 9-11.

Page 10 of 24
have been the intention to confirm Paul‟s solemn announcement of such
an event. “For this we say unto you as a word of the Lord, that we which
are alive and remain unto the coming shall not go before them which are
asleep. For He Himself, the Lord, shall descend from heaven with a shout,
and the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead
in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be
caught up together in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, and shall for
ever be with the Lord”. According to the so-called Second Epistle of Peter,
on the day of the Lord “the heavens shall pass away with a great noise,
and the earth shall melt with heat, and the earth and the works on the
same shall be burnt up”. According to the Apocalypse, Christ is to rule
over the earth a thousand years, and the coming of Christ was then
expected soon to take place.21 The true followers of Jesus can but be
grateful to Mahomed and his counsellors that the Koran takes no
cognizance of such expectation.

It is true that the doctrine of three Divine persons in Unity has not in this
form originated with Paul; yet the position which he, and Philo and the
Targum before him, had assigned to the pre-mundane Messiah, laid the
basis to this doctrine. The Koran opposes to the Trinitarian doctrine,
which the Church introduced in the second century, the fundamental
doctrines of the faith promulgated by Mahomed, that there is no God but
God, and that Mahomed, like Jesus the Messiah and others, is His apostle.
“The Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary, is but the Apostle of God, and His
word which He cast (in-grafted) into Mary, and (that is) a spirit going
forth from Him. Believe, then, in God and His Apostles, and say not
Three. Have done ! It were better for you. God is only one God”.“The
Messiah does surely not disdain to be a servant of God, nor do the angels
who are nigh to Him”. “They misbelieve who say. Verily God is the
Messiah, the Son of Mary” or “Verily God is the third of Three”. “Oh!
Jesus, the Son of Mary, is it Thou who didst say to men, Take Me and My
mother for two Gods beside God”?22

“When the Son of Mary was set forth as a parable, behold the people
turned away from Him and said. Are our Gods (the Elohim) better, or is
He? He is but a servant to whom We have been gracious, and We have
made Him an example for the children of Israel. . . .

21
1. Thess. iv. 15-17; 2 Pet. iii. lo; Rev. xx. 1-6. The “word of the Lord” is that recorded
in Matt. xiii 37-39- The “sign of the of man in heaven” will be explained by the future
(Matt. xxiv. 30).
22
Sur. iv. 168-170;19; v. 76, 77, 116.

Page 11 of 24
When Jesus came with manifest signs, He said, I am come to You with
wisdom, and I will explain to You something of that wherein Ye did
dispute: then fear God, obey me: verily God He is my Lord, and your
Lord. Serve Him, then: this is the right way”. “He is the First and the
Last”. “God does not bid you take the angels and the prophets for your
lords”. “On the day of judgment God will say to the angels: „Are these
those who used to worship You”?23

The words “The First and the Last “are as certainly taken from the
Apocalypse as “My Lord and your Lord” from the Gospel after John. From
the Old Testament one passage only is literally translated in the Koran:
“The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever”.24

If it had been possible at the time of Mahomed to explain the doctrinal

development in the Gospels, particularly the relation of the Fourth Gospel
to the first three, Mahomed might have been preserved from the error of
applying to himself and his mission what had been published in the
second century about the so-called promise of Jesus, that He would send
from the Father another Advocate or Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth leading
into all truth. “Jesus the Son of Mary said. Oh, Children of Israel, verily I
am the Apostle of God to you, verifying: the law that was before Me, and
giving you glad tidings of a prophet who shall come after Me, whose name
shall be Achmed; but when He did come, they said. This is manifest
sorcery”. Mahomed cannot have imagined that this so-called prophecy of
Jesus, wrongly translated in the Koran, was invented in order to claim for
the peculiar Paulinic doctrine the authority of Jesus, and also to lay a
foundation for the doctrine of the Divine Trinity, which seems to have
been introduced by the Montanists.

The Koran knows nothing of the Paulinian doctrine on hereditary sin. It

lies in the nature of man to sin, and sin consists in making a wrong use of
his free will. Though the Koran does not state what sin is, the above
explanation of sin is therein clearly indicated. Mahomed did not believe in
the doctrine of righteousness by faith, or in any doctrines which Paul had
introduced into Christianity. Also he appears to have regarded the law of
Moses in so far only as binding on his conscience as it had been explained
by prophets. Mahomed demanded from his followers that they should
believe in him as the last of the prophets or apostles, and in this being

23
Sur. xliii. 57-64; Ivii. 3; iii. 74; xxxiv. 39; xliii. 65. “Ambiguous verses”, which God
alone can explain (iii. 5). Jesus, as “the wisdom of God” who spoke in parables, could be
called “a parable‟‟, since His doctrine admitted of a double explanation. The Koran is “a
perspicuous book” (iv. 19).
24
Sur. xxi. 104, 105; Psa. xsxvii. 29.

Page 12 of 24
the right way to receive God's direction. Mahomed attached great
importance to prayer, for which he fixed regular times. “Be ye steadfast in
prayer, and give alms; and whatsoever good ye send before your own
souls, ye shall find it with God, for God in all ye do doth see”. Also “God
and His Angels “pray for men “to bring them forth out of darkness into
light”,25 The spiritual union in the Universe is thus testified in the Koran.

Islam or “resignation”, according to Mahomed‟s doctrine, means the

patient but not passive waiting of man for the “guidance “from above, for
“God‟s guidance” which is the (good) guidance”,26 which will enable him
to know and to do God‟s will. The word “Salm” implies not in the first
place or exclusively submission to God‟s will, but means, on the contrary,
one who strives after righteousness with all his strength.27 The true
followers of Islam will believe and confirm what has been taught by the
messengers of God, and they will try rightly to explain the doctrinal
development in the scriptures. The Koran acknowledges the free-will of
God, and the free-will of man, who is regarded as a co-operator in his
salvation. Yet the apparent discordance in the Koran on the subject of
free-will very naturally called forth feuds between Muslims and Christians
on this question. It seems to be a contradiction that whilst sin is said to
be the disobeying of God‟s will, the latter is only from time to time made
known to succeeding prophets, and through them to all men, with
increasing fullness. But this is not a denial of man‟s free-will, since man
has but to be willing to weigh and to follow the precepts of the Apostle, in
order to be assured of the Divine guidance. “God sends down of His grace
on whomsoever of His servants He wills”. “Wherefore did ye kill God‟s
prophets of yore, if ye were true believers”?28 Timely repentance is
recommended, as also the offering of “sacrifices” to God; but these are
designated as only then “valuable” when they “go forth from the piety of
human hearts”. Hereby it is clearly indicated, that the sacrifices of self-
will, the “resignation” in the Divine will, to which the Koran so often
refers, is the only sacrifice well-pleasing to God. Faith in Divine guidance,
good works and humility lead to a blessing.

A Muslim or “righteous one” must be willing to follow the will of God, to

strive for the better knowledge of it and to do the same. If Mahomed had
not recognized free-will, he could not have announced the doctrine of
rewards and punishments. “Verily, when one of you commits a good

25
Sur. ii. 104, 278: comp, .xxii, 78; lxiii. 22; xxxiii. 42.
26
Sur. ii. 114.
27
Syed Ameer Ali, “The Life and Teachings of Mahomed”, p. 159.
28
Sur. ii. 84, 85.

Page 13 of 24
deed, God will reward it in His eyes with great reward; who does evil and
is surrounded by misdeeds, they will become associates of hell fire”.

“Righteousness is not that ye turn your faces (in prayer) towards the East
or West; and righteousness is of him who believes in God and the last day
and the angels and the book and prophets; who gives wealth for the sake
of God to his kindred and, orphans and poor, and the son of the road (the
wayfarer) and those in captivity: and who is steadfast in prayer and gives
alms, and those who are sure of their covenant when they make a
covenant, and the patient in poverty and distress and in time of violence;
these are those who are true, and these are those who fear (God)”.

The Muslim must believe and do good -work and humble himself before
the Lord, knowing that “God steps in between a man and his heart”. He
knows that “the abode of future life is better for those who fear”.

“If I knew the unseen, I should surely have much that is good, nor would
evil touch me”.29 No good works in themselves, no self-righteousness
suffices for winning Paradise. Even in the last moments of his conscious
life Mahomed prayed for “forgiveness”, and he thought of “the glorious
associates on high”. It is not Mahomed‟s fault if his followers entertain
fatalistic and materialistic views on the future.

We can now answer the question, in what sense according to the Koran a
Redeemer is necessary. God Himself will atone and forgive sin. There is
no need for a vicariate sacrifice to bring about a reconciliation between
God and humanity. “The camels (for sacrifice) We have made for you the
symbols of God; so mention the name of God over them as they stand in
a row (to be sacrificed). Their meat will never reach God, nor yet their
blood, but the piety from you will reach to Him”. “Lord, make us not to
carry what we have not strength for, but forgive us and pardon us and
have mercy on us”. “God will cover for you your offences, and will forgave
you, for God is Lord of mighty grace”. God has been “gracious” to His
“servant” Jesus. “The Spirit comes of the bidding of the Lord”.30 It is “with
the permission of God” that the first among angels, Gabriel, the revealer
of the Word of God, from time to time became the mediator of spiritual
communications. Angels are messengers of God who do His pleasure, but
they have never walked on earth.

Mahomed has in no wise brought the birth of Jesus into connection with
the Paulinic-Essenic doctrine of an Angel- Messiah, which points back to

29
Sur. vii. 169, 188.
30
Sur. xxii. 37; ii. 285 f.; viii. 29; xliii. 47-51; xyii. 87.

Page 14 of 24
Buddhism. Jesus and Mahomed have opposed this doctrine. It does not
appear that Mahomed has called Jesus “the Son of Man”, which
Messianically interpreted title, referred to in the Eightieth Psalm and the
Danielic vision, Jesus applied to Himself, as pointing, like the 118th
Psalm, to the Messianic Kingdom which began with His preaching.
Mahomed‟s conception of Jesus as the Messiah agrees with that recorded
in the Eightieth Psalm, and Daniel‟s vision where the Son of Man is
described as raised from earth to heaven, not as come down from heaven
to earth.

It is the crown of Islam that its author associated

himself with the original, not with Paulinic Christianity.

THE FUTURE OF ISLAM.

I have thus tried to indicate in general outlines the place of Mahomed in

the Church. I have done so without prejudice, according to the principles
of criticism which science has now established, and with an eye to peace
and good-will among the religions of mankind. In conclusion, I ask
whether the place which Mahomedan states take in the civilized world is
that which seems to be due to their high conception of the unity of God.
In general terms, the answer must be that the place ought to be a very
much higher one than that which any of these states have occupied or
now occupy. I will first point out the chief hindrances which stand in the
way of that intellectual and social progress without which Islam cannot
fulfil its high destiny.

Above all, the followers of Mahomed do not follow his command to believe
what prophets before him have said, and what he had come to confirm.
The highest among these messengers of God, the Prophet among all
prophets, the Apostle above all apostles, according to the doctrine of the
Koran, was Jesus, the promised Messiah or Christ. If it had been possible
in the time of Mahomed, to draw a distinct line of demarcation between
what Jesus really said, and that which had been wrongly attributed to Him
in the New Testament, Mahomed would have conveyed this inestimable
truth, not only to the Arabs, but to the whole world. He has not clearly
stated, and indeed could not have done so, not himself having known the
Bible, in what part of the Scriptures the most faithful record of words of
Jesus is contained; yet we find, as already stated, a clear indication in the

Page 15 of 24
Koran, that the peculiar doctrinal principles announced by Paul and
adapted to Jesus, were by Mahomed believed not to harmonize with the
doctrines of the Messiah, but to be in essential points directly opposed to
the same. It may perhaps be assumed, not contrary to anything
contained in the Koran, that according to the conviction at which
Mahomed had arrived, gradually and not without serious inquiry, the
Sermon on the Mount, the parables about the Kingdom of Heaven, the
prayer which Jesus taught H is disciples, and the words which He
addressed to them in secret — perhaps partly recorded in the Fourth
Gospel — contain the most genuine and the most important sayings of
Jesus. In none of these is there the slightest reference to those doctrines
which, by his influence on Essenic Christians, Paul has been able to
introduce into the Christian community.

The scientific inquiry into the truths of the Bible points with irresistible
force to this result. The general harmony of the doctrines recorded or
indicated in the Koran with the results of scientific Biblical investigation,
cannot be regarded as a chance-coincidence. If this agreement could be
explained by human design, not by the trustworthiness of the tradition
transmitted by Ebionitic Christians, the Koran would point to those results
of Biblical criticism, unknown even two centuries ago, without which the
Bible would have remained for all, what it is still for millions, a sealed
Book. Only by the application of the principles of scientific inquiry has it
become possible to excavate the foundations of pre-Paulinic Christianity.
On these rests the doctrinal edifice of the Koran. The Koran was neither
written nor ordered to be composed by Mahomed. He would have
protested against it as a supposed for-ever-binding code of laws: and in a
much higher degree Jesus would protest against the Scriptures of the
New Testament. Moreover, Mahomed would not have composed a book
for religious use without frequent references to the best authenticated
sayings of Jesus, which form the very foundation of Mahomed‟s most
essential doctrines. If it were objected that some of the doctrines
conveyed by Jesus‟ Sermon on the Mount, as for instance the injunction
to love the enemy and to be peacemakers, have not been practised by
the followers of Mahomed, the same must be said of the followers of
Jesus.

The Muslim will be able, it is hoped, not only to read and explain the
Koran according to its “true reading”, as is here recommended, but also
to have a feeling heart for the incomparably sublime prayer which their
“Lord” Jesus addressed to the One God. The time will surely come when
they will teach that prayer in their schools, repeat it in their mosques, and

Page 16 of 24
at their private devotions. They will recognize it as a prayer for the Divine
“direction” of humanity through the Spirit: a prayer for the submission,
resignation or Islam of the human will to the will of God who is in heaven.
Mahomed must have feared that by the word “Father”, which in the Koran
is never applied to God, his followers might be misled into the belief that
in a literal and fleshly sense man can be a son of God. The Muslim will
remain in perfect accord with the doctrines of the Koran if they pray, with
Jesus the Messiah, “Our Father which art in Heaven”.

The “name” of God, which was “in” the Angel in the wilderness, means
the Spirit of God, whom Gabriel is said to have brought to Mary and to
Mahomed. The Muslim revere the name Allah as holy, and they believe in
the “holy‟ Son of Mary. Through the name or Spirit of God, Jesus and
other men have cast out devils “with the permission of God”, as the Koran
indicates. Therefore Mahomedans will but repeat an ancient prayer when
they say, with Jesus: “hallowed be Thy Name”. The Muslim believes that
he must be resigned to the will of God, and therefore he can give
expression to this ancestral faith by the words of the prayer, “Thy will be
done as in heaven, so on earth”. Mahomedans, Jews, and Christians — in
future all men — will pray to God for the daily bread, food for body and
soul. Like Jesus, Mahomed has taught that God forgives sin, and that men
are to forgive trespasses. With Jesus Mahomedans will pray, “Forgive us
our trespasses as we forgive them that trepass against us”. To pray for
the continuity of Divine guidance is to pray that man may never be
forsaken by the same, may not be tempted to follow his own will. This is
the meaning of the words, “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from evil”. The prayer of Jesus, which if Mahomed knew it, will have been
for him a guidance and a comfort, ends with the words, “Thine is the
kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever”. The same belief is
often expressed in the Koran.

If the first hindrance which stands in the way of Islam‟s progress consists
in the little regard which Mahomedans have for that which has been said
by apostles before Mahomed, especially by Jesus the Messiah, the second
hindrance lies in the want of a suitable education for the lower and middle
classes. A carefully composed extract from the Koran (also translated in
other languages) with annotations, pointing out its innermost germ, and a
“true reading”, ought to be published and promulgated. A popular
epitome of the world‟s history, the elements of the comparative science of
religions, the laws of Nature, love towards all men, kindness to animals,
love of truth, cleanliness and sanitary science, ought to be taught early to
the followers of Mahomed by the best attainable teachers, irrespectively

Page 17 of 24
of their nationality or creed. Thus enlightened, the people of Islam will
soon understand the necessity of not regarding the Koran as a
compendium of revelations. The real place of the Koran in universal
history will then be understood by them, and this book will be all the
more prized. If Mahomedans seek in the Koran the basis of a Divine plan,
together with results of human experience, practical wisdom for the
terrestrial and the super-terrestrial life, it will go with them as with the
Christians since they began to recognize in their Holy Scriptures the
wisdom of men enlightened by the Holy Spirit. They would observe how
the sublime doctrines of Jesus are approximated by those of Mahomed.
Another effect of a suitable general education will be the disappearance of
the legally secured inequality between different nationalities, between
persons of different ranks or creeds, above all between man and woman,
and finally the abolition of slavery'.

It has been argued, with the convincing power of truth, that whilst slavery
was not by aboriginal Christianity denounced as a curse of humanity,31
yet that, “by connecting the most onerous responsibilities with its
practice”, Mahomed‟s religion provided for itsgradual but absolute
extinction. Mahomed exhorted his followers to enfranchise slaves, “than
which there was not a more acceptable act to God”. He ruled “that for
certain sins of omission the penalty should be the manumission of slaves;
he ordered that a slave should be allowed to buy himself off by the wages
of his service; and that, in case the unfortunate beings had no present
means of gain, and wanted to earn in some other

employment enough to purchase their liberty, advances were to be made

to him from public funds. In certain contingencies it was provided that the
slave should become enfranchised without interference, and even against
the will of his master. The contract or agreement in which the least doubt
was discovered was constructed most favourably in the interests of the
slave, and the slightest promise on the part of the master was made
obligatory for the purposes of enfranchisement”.32

What in our days is not happily called “a crusade” against the slave-trade
has been connected with the assertion that “to reduce the negro to

31
According to Jewish Law, “He that stealeth a man (an Israelite?) and selleth him, or if
he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death” (Exod. xxi. i&; Deut. xxiv. 7).
But Paul urged that the slave in a Christian household, though he have the prospect of
being freed, is not to aim at his liberation (i Cor. vii. 20-22). Even the runaway slave
Onesimus, whom Paul had converted, was sent back to his master Philemon, who is to
receive him as a “beloved brother”, whereby the legal emancipation is not necessarily
included (Phil 10-19). But compare I Tim. i. 8-12.
32
Sur. xxiv. 23, & C. Syed Ameer Ali, 1. c. 254-256.

Page 18 of 24
slavery is a right, since it is on Mahomedan doctrines that it reposes. 33 +
This direct charge against the Koran has not been repeated on another
occasion, when, however, Cardinal Lavigerie challenged the Sheikh-ul-
Islam to declare that they consider the violent capture of an infidel and
his sale by the believer as contrary to natural and to Divine Law. He adds,
“I do not know in Africa a single independent Mahomedan state whose
sovereign does not permit, under the most atrocious conditions of
barbarism, the hunting and the sale of slaves”. We must admit this
evidence, but such practice is a violation of Mahomed‟s words: “The worst
of men is he who sells slaves”.34 As far as the Cardinal‟s words are
directed against Mahomedan governments, they are confirmed by the
African traveller Rohifs, who wrote; “At present Islam has triumphed, and
slavery, the inevitable consequence of Mahomedan government, is re-
established”.

These political influences, so contrary to the injunctions of the Koran, will

not forever be permitted to stand in the way of measures such as those
now being taken by united Powers to prevent in Africa the exportation of
slaves, and the importation of arms and ammunition. Even the conception
of a crusade against Islam would be impossible in our days of
enlightenment. If such an attack were anywhere attempted, it would call
forth the Jihad, or the utmost effort “for the protection of Mahomedanism
against assault”.

But even the Jihad so explained, what was later called “the holy war”, a
“righteous effort of waging war in self-defence against the grossest
outrage on one‟s religion”, is strictly limited by the Koran. “Permission is
granted unto those who take arms against the unbelievers, because they
have been unjustly persecuted by them, and have been turned out of
their habitations injuriously, and for no other reason than because they
say, „Our Lord is God‟. And if God did not repel the violence of some men
by others, verily monasteries and churches and synagogues and
mosques, wherein the name of God is frequently commemorated, would
be utterly demolished”.35

33
Cardinal Lavigerie at Sainte Gudule, August 15, 1888; compare “Independance
Beige”, August 16.
34
According to the second source of Mahomedan law, the authenticated tradition or
Hadis, accepted by Sunnis and Shiahs alike, and communicated by Jabir Ibn Abdullah
(Leitner, Diplomatic Fly-Sheets, August 14, 1885).
35
Sura, entitled “The Pilgrimage or Hajj”; Dr. Leitner, “Jihad‟‟, in Asiatic Quarterly
Review, October, 1886.

Page 19 of 24
Another serious hindrance, one of a political nature, to the progress of
Islam nations, is the present degradation of woman. It may perhaps be
assumed that unlimited polygamy prevailed among the Arabs prior to the
promulgation of Islam. But from this it does not follow that Mahomed did
provide efficient remedies against the accumulated evils of polygamy,
which would have been impossible. As to his own example, we are of
opinion that, had Khadija survived Mahomed, his faithfulness to her would
have made of his life a protest against polygamy. Respecting his
marriages after Khadija‟s death, they ought to be considered from the
most humane point of view, after duly weighing the then existing
circumstances.

Apart from the degradation of women caused by polygamy, her social

position is better than is generally acknowledged in Europe. Indeed,
Professor Leitner, who has lived the greater part of his life among
Mahomedans, and who has based his critical examination of Islamic
schools on about six thousand school reports, asserts that “nothing,
except perhaps the Hindu family-life in the higher castes, can exceed the
respect, tenderness, purity, and legitimate influence of woman in the
Mahomedan household”.“Mahomedan women are in possession of greater
legal rights than are possessed by English women, even since the Married
Women Property Act of 1882”.36 With regard to the veil, though it was not
introduced by Khadija, the traditions about her gave a special sanction to
it. She knew from Waraqah that an angel of light flees on beholding
unveiled woman; therefore when she saw an angel fly away whilst she
took off her veil, she felt convinced that it was Gabriel that had appeared
to Mahomed. It was believed that the veil prevents evil spirits from doing
harm.37

Another hindrance to Islam‟s progress and to the peaceful relations

between religions, is the want of knowledge respecting symbols,
particularly the symbol of the cross in its pre-Paulinic meaning. According
to the teaching of Jesus, the Cross continued to be the sign of Divine
enlightenment, as the Tau-cross, in the form of a yoke, had been
explained by the ancient Egyptians and Indians. These connected it
respectively with the sun — the Tau meaning ankh or “enduring life”—
and the Swastika-cross, perhaps originally in the form of a Tau, with the
two fire-sticks. Fire became the symbol of the Spirit. Because the Spirit is
in every man, Jesus taught that every man is to take upon him his own

36
Diplomatic Fly-Sheets, March 6, 1888, p. 250 f.
37
This superstitious idea may have stood in connection with the Rabbinical explanation
of Gen. vi.; comp, i Cor. xi. 10.

Page 20 of 24
cross, or the easy yoke of spiritual obedience, and to follow him. The
Cross is the symbol of Divine guidance, not of a sacrificial atonement. The
historical and deeply poetical symbol of the Crucified Jesus, whom God
anointed with the Holy Spirit, means that He followed the Divine
guidance, faithful unto the death of the Cross. The Cross ought to be set
up by Mahomedans on the tops of the mosques; they will do this when
they know what was the symbolical meaning of the Cross, according to
the meaning of Jesus the Messiah. For it is now proved, how rightly
Mahomed was guided in his protest against any kind of connection of the
Cross with Paul‟s new doctrine of a reconciliation between God and
mankind by the blood of Messiah‟s Cross. Those who by Paul are called
“the enemies of the Cross of Christ”, are now able to declare that this
statement is contrary to aboriginal Christianity. All true followers of Jesus
will set forth the true meaning of the Cross as the symbol of spiritual
guidance, of Divine enlightenment, and they will take upon themselves
their cross, bear the easy yoke of spiritual rule, and follow‟ Jesus.

Only a revision and partial reform will be required with reference to the
five foundations or pillars of practice in Islam. The recital of the Kalimah
or creed: “There is no Deity but God, and Mahomed is the Rasul or
Apostle of God”,will remain an unaltered institution, for the Koran
constantly connects Mahomed with the previous apostles, above all with
Jesus the Messiah. The Salat or Prayer will remain “the Pillar of Religion”.
The partial ablutions ordered to precede prayer will be explained as
symbols of the spiritual purity which the Muslim strives to attain.

The Ramazan, or month of fasting, stands in connection with similar

Jewish and Christian rites. The Zakat, literally “purification”, the legal
alms or poor-rate, is an admirable provision for the poor. The yearly
Mahomedan Pilgrimage, not obligatory, and undertaken only by those in
easy circumstances, if freed from all superstitions, will continue to be a
symbol of the brotherhood of mankind. Under the protection of efficient
arrangements, it will help to establish that progress, based on liberty,
equality, and fraternity, which was the most sacred aim of Mahomed‟s
mission. With regard to the House of God, the ideal of Mahomed was that
of Isaiah and Jesus, “a house of prayer for all people”.38 As a matter of
fact, the Mahomedan is not forbidden to worship in a Christian church, or
in a Jewish synagogue. The Apostle who destroyed idolatry wherever he
could do so, had it not in his power to remove all idolatrous practices at
the Kaaba or in other places. How could he have wished to prevent a

38
Sur. iii. go; Isa. IvL 73; xxii. 28; Mark. xi. 17.

Page 21 of 24
future development and reformation? The principles of Islamic reform as
broadly indicated above, are either expressed or implied in the Koran, and
by living tradition.

A reformation of Islam in the spirit of its founder, but beyond

what Mahomed could contemplate, is considered to be an
impossibility by a high, but not unprejudiced, authority. Sir
William Muir regards “the lower position of Islam in the scale of
civilization “as the necessary consequence of two causes. Islam’s
foimder meant it only “for Arabia, not for the world, for the Arabs
of the seventh century, not for the Arabs of all time; and being
such and nothing more, its claim of Divine origin renders change
or development impossible”. Regarding the first point, the writer
admits it to be doubtful whether Mahomed in his later days may
have contemplated the reformation of other religions beyond the
peninsula, or the further spread of his own. The second point is
the most important He observes that all the injunctions, “social
and ceremonial, as well as doctrinal and didactic”, are embodied
in the Koran, as part “of the Divine Law”, so that “defying as
sacrilege all human touch” the Koran stands unalterable forever.

“From the stiff and rigid shroud in which it is thus swathed, the religion of
Mahomed cannot emerge. It has no plastic power beyond that exercised
in its earliest days. Hardened now and inelastic, it can neither adapt itself,
nor yet shape its votaries, nor even suffer them to shape themselves, to
the varying circumstances, the wants and developments of mankind”.39

To the impartial reader we would suggest the following reply. What has
become of the many injunctions in the Old Testament, embodied with
every peculiarity of detail as part of the Divine Law? How is to be
explained the doctrinal development in the Bible? We are told in the New
Testament that since the most ancient times essential doctrines were
“kept in silence” till the mystery was “made known by prophets”. Thus
Jesus has declared that the doctrine of the Spirit of God in mankind, the
spiritual covenant, the kingdom of heaven, had been kept back and its
spreading hindered by the Law and the Prophets until John. Did Jesus
consider that this imposed silence was in accordance with a Divine
command, or did He therefore call Moses and the Prophets “thieves and
Robbers” because they had taken away “the key of knowledge” from the
people, because they had covered the Scriptures by a veil, for having
done what Paul implies to have been the falsifying of God‟s word? Who

39
Sir William Muir, “The Rise and Decline of Islam”, pp. 40, 41.

Page 22 of 24
were inspired — the original writers, or those who revised and developed
their doctrines? If the latter, then that which is recorded in the Bible as
part of the Divine Law, “defying as sacrilege all human touch”, was
nevertheless reformed with Divine sanction. If the Bible and its
interpretation has not stood “unalterable forever”, how can it be asserted
that a reformation of the Koran, in the spirit of the founder of Islam, is
impossible? In the words of Barthelemy St. Hilaire, “there is no more
reason to revolt against Islam than to despair of softening it”.40

The Apostle of Arabia aimed at the confirmation and general acceptance

of that which the greatest of apostles, Jesus the Messiah, had taught.
Difficult as it then was to acquire an exact knowledge of this doctrine,
Mahomed‟s rejection of Paul‟s doctrines shows that he had rightly
discerned the genuine doctrines of Jesus, and that he held them more
firmly than many Christians of his time. With the assistance of his friends
among the Ebionite Christians, who did not recognize the apostleship of
Paul, Mahomed learned the principal tenets of pre-Paulinic Christianity. He
regarded as his mission the renewed announcement of that truth which
had so long been kept in silence, and which, when proclaimed by J esus,
had been veiled over and corrupted by the new doctrines of Paul: the
truth, that the Divine guidance is open to every man. The new faith of
which Paul asserted that it had not been revealed before his time, had to
be separated from the Gospel of the Kingdom, which Jesus had
announced. The negative principles of the Koran, connected with its
positive contents, explain the incomparable success of Islam, and insure
to it a glorious future.

If the exigencies of our advancing time require a reform of Islam, the

question arises who shall give the first impulse to it; who shall take Ae
lead of the movement? Certainly not Christian missionaries, who —
without knowing it — undermine by their teaching the connection of Islam
with the doctrines of Jesus. Only the example of men of a higher, culture,
the avoiding of all attempts at conversion, the support of suitable
teachers in Mahomedan schools, will further the development of Islam.
The Sultan would have the power to carry through such a reform, for the
democratic theocracy of the Sunnis recognizes the in fact existing Khalifat
(Khilafat) of the Sultan for the time being. This is done without going
counter to the general expectation in the Mahomedan world of a spiritual
head or Imam, whom the Shiahs expect to be a Koreishi by descent, and

40
“Mahomet et le Coran,”p. ix.

Page 23 of 24
as the re-appearance of the twelfth and last Imam, Muhammad Mahdi,
who disappeared in A.H. 265, or A.D. 878-879.41

CONCLUSION.

In order to be able to mark the place of Mahomed in the Universal

Church, it must first be established, as far as possible, by what means he
succeeded to discover, to impart, and promulgate among Arabians the
genuine doctrine of Jesus the Messiah. In probable connection with
Ebionites or anti-Paulinian Christians, and under special Divine guidance,
Mahomed rejected the Essenic- Buddhistic doctrines which Paul had
applied to Jesus Christ.

The people of Islam, in a probably near future, will take a much

higher position in the civilized world than that which they at
present occupy, if that education is granted them which is
indirectly implied by the Koran, and without which no social,
political, or religious progress is possible.
Ernest de Bunsen.

41
*Dr. Leitner‟s Letter to The Times of Jan. 2, 1884.

Page 24 of 24