sufficient to prove a doctrine which
their Master Himself is alleged not to have held. When particularly hard
pressed, an easy refuge is obtained behind the charge of corruption, of which
the smallest apparent discrepancy is regarded as full and satisfactory proof.
The controversy then branches out into the general subject,�embracing the
claim of the Apostles to inspiration; the Divinity of Christ; the prophecies
applied by Mohammedans to their Prophet, etc. But K�zim Ali's perversity
surpasses that of the most of his brethren: he assumes the most fanciful
interpretations, and insists that they can be the only correct ones, however
absurd and obstinately perverted they may have been proved.1 In the
same spirit the plainest interpretations are constantly ascribed with irony to
Pfander's extraordinary acuteness, and characterised as phantoms of his
imagination. Pfander soon perceived what a bully he had to deal with,
and in his second and third letters threatened to close the controversy if
more impartiality were not shown by his antagonists. K�zim Ali's fourth
letter exceeded its predecessors in irrational bigotry, and its style began to
descend to petulant and offensive remarks. Pfander accordingly carried his
threat into execution, and refused to reply unless umpires were selected to
decide whether certain points had not been satisfactorily proved; to this
K�zim Ali would not accede, and here the matter ended. The Mohammedan
argument is conducted with some ability and much subtilty; and a surprising
