the most part unmeaning and hence extremely feeble to a Muslim. This often arises from
his ignorance.
The line of argument which a missionary has to use, therefore, must be accommodated to
the limits of his opponent's knowledge or comprehension. Being himself inclined to
suppress or even deny facts known to be true when necessary for his argument, the Muslim
does not credit the Christian with any higher regard for truth than he entertains himself.
It is necessary therefore to argue from facts which the Muslim deems incontrovertible.
Hence we frequently have to appeal to the testimony of the Qur’an in support of our
arguments, occasionally introducing the evidence of Muhammadan tradition and Muslim
commentaries. Only when we have proved the genuineness and authority of the Holy
Scriptures is it permissible for us to appeal, with any hope of effect, to the Bible.
One must not be surprised at finding among Muhammadan controversialists a great want of
logic, though much pretence to a knowledge of it. They often mistake illustration for
argument, and are especially skilled in the dialectic feat known as "petitio
principii." Against this the missionary must be continually on his guard.
These all constitute difficulties in the way of the acceptance of the Gospel by
Muhammadans. They are not "Muhammadan Objections," but they are very real
Muhammadan difficulties, and have to be reckoned with as such.
