On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    the very error against which Muhammed chiefly framed his system . Of all enemies of change , prejudice and ignorance are the greatest—hoth of which largely abound in Muhainmedan countries . Dismissing the theory of Mr . Forster , we have , hefore we quit him , one word of expostulation to utter . Unitarian ism has often been stigmatized as assimilated to Islamism . It has been denounced as little better than the

    faith of the Moslems . Mr . Forster , however , proclaims it " vastly inferior , ' * and gravely tells his readers , " The Mahometans approach more nearly to the gospel than Socinus , or his imitators and outrunners , the modern Unitarians , since Mahometairism strenuously maintains several prime articles of the Catholic faith which those presumptuous innovators" ( in another place

    we are styled " pretended Christians" ) " strenuously deny . " More in the same strain might be quoted . We regret not for ourselves merely , but for his own sake , that so respectable a man as Mr . Forster should have lent himself to so bad an object as that of misrepresenting his fellow-christians . One part of Christianity we have however learnt , namely , when reviled not to revile again .

    Much as Mr . Higgins desires to extol his " illustrious" " hero , " he does not set him above Unitarian Christians , though he attempts to bring us down to the level of Muhammed . Whether this is intended as a compliment to his prophet ( we should have written no-prophet ) or to Unitarians , we do not know . If for us , we decline it with all due acknowledgements . Our readers must not be surprised that we have made this confession of ignorance , for we can assure them that Mr . Higgins * s meaning is not unfrequently obscure . The book is made up of some two hundred distinct and short paragraphs ,

    which , if read separately , may be understood . Scarcely so , however , if different portions are compared together , for then something like inconsistencies and contradictions will frequently appear ; or if the whole be read consecutively , when the disorder and confusion that reign in the several parts of the book will be transfused from its pages into the mind . In fact , we hardly comprehend why Mr . Higgins has thought fit to go in this instance to the press . There was surely no need of saying , in loose , unmeasured sentences , what Gibbon has detailed in all the attractions of his

    imposing style ; nor to iterate his mistakes , nor to make them the occasion of penning tirades against Christian priests . In a word , we see little in the work which deserved publication . There is nothing new except blunders ; there is no evincement of mental strength , except in mental perversion . An old story is badly told , and an entire volume is made up of scattered and disjointed fragments . Almost the only thing in the book we could with complacency have looked on , namely , the defence of Muhammed ' s character

    from the aspersions of his enemies , is spoiled by being overdone , and pursued in the very spirit of uncharitableness which the writer condemns . Such , in general , being our opinion of " An Apology for the Life and Character of the celebrated Prophet of Arabia , " we should not have troubled our readers with any notice of the volume , did we not fear that it might in some instances prove injurious . A few remarks will , however , suffice to shew that Mr . Higgins is by no means an infallible guide .

    Mr . Higgins is very anxious to shew that Muhammed was not an impostor , " at least to the extent to which it is generally carried . " If the question be one of degree , the fact involved in the accusation is conceded , and " Mohamed the Illustrious" was an impostor . Mr . Higgins contends that Muhammed might represent himself as sent of God , and yet be no impostor , thinking himself called by the state of society to bring about a reformation .

    Untitled Article

    236 Hig-ginfs Apology for Mohamed ,

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1830, page 236, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2583/page/20/