(1876.)
The _Christian World_ of the 1st inst. has another note on the article
on “Some Muslim Laws and Beliefs.” As Mr. Foote responded to the first
note on behalf of the _Secularist_, I, as the author of the obnoxious
article, which was mainly mere compilation from the work of a Christian
scholar and gentleman, may say a few words on my own behalf in reply to
the second, which is as follows:—
“A correspondent writes:—In your ‘Notes by the Way’ last week there is a
painful, though not unseasonable, quotation from a writer on ‘Muslim
Laws and Beliefs.’ This, as coming from a Secularist, is deplorable
enough. It is very much more so that the late Viscount Amberley, a son
of a veteran statesman, should in his ‘Analysis of Religious Belief,’
which might indeed more justly be termed ‘A Panegyric of all Heathen
Beliefs, and a Travesty of that of the Christian,’ have given a like
description of the paradise of the Koran, and should have sneeringly
told us that the Christian Scriptures, in their pictures of the heavenly
life, ‘_strangely overlook this enjoyment_’ of ‘ever virgins’ never
growing old, who are to ‘supply the faithful with the pleasure of love’
(vide Vol. II., p. 200). This is but a specimen of the disdainful and
derisive tone with which this writer, who at length leaves himself
stranded in a region of the dreariest Atheism, continually speaks of
that Book which what he terms ‘the illusions of our younger days’ might
have taught him o respect.”
I do not doubt that the quotation was painful to the Christian
correspondent, since it is always painful to have our lifelong
prejudices shocked by those who have never shared them, or who have
attained freedom from their yoke. One might give not a few quotations
from any number of the _Christian World_ which would be very painful to
a pious Muslim. Nor do I doubt that the quotation was not unseasonable,
for quotations from the _Secularist_ must always be seasonable in an
influential Christian periodical, when they tend to expand the Christian
narrowness, and show that there is much to be said in favor of other
beliefs. And I admit that, like many other things coming from a
Secularist, it must have been deplorable enough to a Christian suckled
on the Bible, and assured in his unreflecting ignorance that it is the
one true word of the three-in-one true god. But the correspondent finds
it very much more deplorable that a son of a veteran statesman should
agree with the Secularist—as if the sons of veteran statesmen were
naturally expected to be sunk deeper than other persons in the
prevailing superstition. The correspondent who, we may presume, has
always been taught, and has never doubted, that all heathen beliefs are
wholly devilish, and that the Christian belief is wholly divine, thinks
that Viscount Amberley’s book is a panegyric of the former and a
travesty of the latter. If the unfortunate correspondent had the courage
and intelligence to enter upon a real analysis of religious belief, he
would soon discover that he and his co-religionists have been all along
travestying every form of what they call heathenism. With amusing
simplicity he is astonished that Lord Amberley gives a like description
of the paradise of the Kur-ân to that which I gave in the _Secularist_,
as if he could have been accurate in giving any other, when mine was
drawn from one of the most careful and accurate of writers, the Oriental
Englishman, unequalled in his knowledge of Arabic literature and life!
Why, in the very week following the attack on the _Secularist_, the
_Christian World’s_ twin sister, the _Literary World_ (perhaps incited
thereto by its study of our vilified paper), showed that it had been
reading or dipping into Lane, by an article on him under the queer title
of “A Man of One Book,” he being distinguished for three—“The Manners
and Customs of the Modem Egyptians,” the translation of the “Arabian
Nights,” with its peerless notes, and the monumental “Arabic Lexicon”;
and the said queerly-named article echoed the general praise of his
thoroughness and accuracy, and repeated the statement of those who knew
him, that he was a deeply pious man. I am not concerned with the defence
of Lord Amberley, and shall therefore not follow further the
correspondent’s remarks on his book, save to note that a man who says
that any such writer “leaves himself stranded in a region of the
dreariest Atheism,” proves himself by this one phrase utterly
incompetent to study that word or understand its subject matter; and, as
ignorant and incapable, had better confine himself to the Sunday-school,
the Young Men’s Christian Association, the religious tea-meeting, and
street-corner raving.
It may be as well to say something on my own account, in addition to the
vigorous remarks of Mr. Foote, in reply to the first note of the
_Christian World_, and vindication of the passage it impugned. And
first, as to the Book of Revelation, which claims to be prophetic, and
stands in our Bible as the work of St. John the Divine. Luther, indeed,
who was not afraid to pass an independent judgment, said, “I look upon
the revelation as neither apostolic nor prophetic;” but it is received
as both by our English Protestants, and continually referred to by them
as the record of a genuine and authentic vision. But I assert, without
fear of contradiction, that if they had never known it, and some
missionary brought home an account of its marvels as belonging to the
faith of some Polynesian islanders, they would be filled with wonder and
compassion at the monstrous superstitions of those poor heathen
barbarians. Yes, Exeter Hall and the readers and writers of the
_Christian World_ itself, would assuredly invoke help to enlighten the
degraded idolaters who believed in a heaven whose God was to look upon
like a jasper and a sardine; in the midst of whose throne, and round
about whose throne, were four beasts—a lion, a calf, a man-faced
monster, an eagle—each with six wings, and full of eyes before and
behind and within; which beasts never rested day nor night from saying,
“Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty;” and which, moreover, worshipped a
lamb with seven horns and seven eyes—a figment more extravagant than the
many-headed and many-armed idols of India. And so with the other
enormities of the Apocalypse. Our civilised gentlemen of the _Christian
World_ can only believe that they believe these things, because hallowed
associations and unreflecting faith blind their judgment to the obvious
absurdity of the imagery and the conspicuous non-fulfilment of the
prophecy, which again and again claims to announce events then at hand,
to come quickly.
In the next place I assert that the everlasting monotonous singing of
the praises of the lamb, the interminable senseless routine, is not a
whit more spiritual, while infinitely less alluring, than the
occupations of the Mohammedan Paradise. If it be answered that
enlightened Christians have nobler ideas of heaven, I reply that such
anticipations are not warranted by the New Testament, and that
magnanimous Muslims have also nobler anticipations of paradise, for
which there is warrant in the Kur-ân. And while on the subject of
spirituality, I may remark that the pure monotheism of the Muslim and
the Jew is immensely more spiritual, as well as more rational, than the
monotritheism of the Christian, which not only deifies a man, but
juggles with a so-called mystery that cannot be expressed in words
without self-contradiction, cannot be conceived in thought, and, by the
confession of its own apologists, defies reason.
As to the “hysterical buffoonery,” I have yet to learn that there is
anything hysterical in a jolly burst of Rabelaisian laughter. And as to
the “poor hollow mockery,” I can assure the writer in the _Christian
World_ that the mockery was quite rich, sound and genuine in relation to
the Apocalypse of his idolised book and the popular Protestant Moody and
Sankey heaven. (By the bye, can anyone inform us whether Mr. Sankey is
really a Jew, and not a Christian Jew, as I have heard positively
asserted on Hebrew authority?) As to the “blasphemous irreverence” and
the “horrible and blasphemous invocation,” I deny the possibility of
blasphemy where there is no belief. A man may blaspheme that which he
accounts worthy of reverence, because in speaking evil of it he violates
his own convictions and holiest feelings. But if for me there is no God,
how can I blaspheme him? Speaking contemptuously of him, I but contemn
nothing. If the writer in the _Christian World_ were accused of
blasphemy for reviling Jupiter and Venus, Brahma and Vishnu, Baal and
Moloch, the Goddess of Reason and Mumbo Jumbo, he would reply, I cannot
blaspheme false gods, meaning simply gods in whom he has no faith. Just
so,
I say that I cannot blaspheme the trinity-in-unity of the Christian,
which to me is non-existent, absurd, impossible. It would be well for
the writers and readers of the _Christian World_ to ponder these things.