Muhammad in the Bible David Benjamin Keldani | Ishmael | Abraham
You are on page 1of 342

Muhammad In The Bible by David Benjamin Keldani (born 1867 at Urmia in

Persia died 1940). He converted to Islam in 1904.He wrote Muhammad in


the Bible - originally published in 1928 as a series of articles in the
journal The Islamic Review. He died in 1940
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................... 3
Biography Of Professor David Benjamin Keldani, B.D. (died 1940c) Former
Roman Catholic Bishop of the Uniate Chaldean.............................. 3
Prefatory Remarks ........................................................................... 5
Allah And His Attributes ................................................................ 5
Muhammad in the Old Testament ................................................. 11
"And The Ahmed Of All Nations Will Come." - Haggai, Ii.7. ............ 11
The Question Of The Birthright And The Covenant ....................... 14
The Mystery Of The "Mispa" ............................................ 19
Prophet Muhammad Is The "Shiloh" ................................ 26
Prophet Muhammad And The Emperor Constantine.......... 35
Prophet Muhammad Is The Son-Of-Man........................... 40
King David Calls Him: "My Lord" .......................................... 46
The Lord And The Prophet Of The Covenant ....................... 51
Genuine Prophets Preach Only Islam ................................... 55
"The Prophet Who Teaches Islam" ....................................... 57
Islam Is The Kingdom Of God On Earth.................................. 61
Muhammad in the New Testament....................................... 68
Islam And Ahmadiyat Announced By Angels........................... 68
"Eudokia" Means "Ahmadiyeh" [LUKE ii. 14] .......................... 74

John The Baptist Announces A Powerful Prophet ................... 79


The Prophet Foretold By The Baptist Was Certainly Prophet Muhammad .. 84
John The Baptist Foretold Prophet Muhammad ................. 86
The Baptism Of John And Jesus Only A Type Of Religious Marking
"Sibghatullah" (1) 89
What Baptism Is And What It Is Not? ............................... 91
The "Sibghatullah," Or The Baptism With The Holy Spirit And With Fire .... 95
The "Paraclete" Is Not The Holy Spirit................................ 101
"Periqlytos" Means "Ahmad".............................................. 106
"The Son Of Man," Who Is He?............................................ 113
By The Apocalyptical "Son Of Man," Prophet Muhammad Is Intended... 119
**
The Son Of Man According To The Jewish Tradition
"And The Ahmed Of All Nations Will Come." - Haggai, Ii.7.... 11
The Question Of The Birthright And The Covenant............... 14
The Mystery Of The "Mispa"................................................ 19
Prophet Muhammad Is The "Shiloh"..................................... 26
Prophet Muhammad And The Emperor Constantine............. 35
Prophet Muhammad Is The Son-Of-Man.............................. 40
King David Calls Him: "My Lord"............................................. 46
The Lord And The Prophet Of The Covenant......................... 51
Genuine Prophets Preach Only Islam.................................. 55
"The Prophet Who Teaches Islam"................................... 57
Islam Is The Kingdom Of God On Earth............... 61

Muhammad in the New Testament................ 68


Islam And Ahmadiyat Announced By Angels.......... 68
"Eudokia" Means "Ahmadiyeh" [LUKE ii. 14]... 74
John The Baptist Announces A Powerful Prophet... 79
The Prophet Foretold By The Baptist Was Certainly Prophet Muhammad.... 84
John The Baptist Foretold Prophet Muhammad ................................... 86
The Baptism Of John And Jesus Only A Type Of Religious Marking"Sibghatullah"
(1) ........ 89
What Baptism Is And What It Is Not? .............. 91
The "Sibghatullah," Or The Baptism With The Holy Spirit And With Fire ...... 95
The "Paraclete" Is Not The Holy Spirit ..................................... 101
"Periqlytos" Means "Ahmad" ................................................. 106
"The Son Of Man," Who Is He? ................................. 113
By The Apocalyptical "Son Of Man," Prophet Muhammad Is Intended ..... 119
The Son Of Man According To The Jewish Apocalypses ..................... 126
The Prophet Of Arabia As Spoken Of In The Bible "The Burden Upon Arabia" Isaiah xxi. 13.132
Introduction
"Certainly, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers
(Muslims) the Jews and those who are Pagans, and you will find the nearest in
love to the Believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is
because amongst them are priests (Men devoted to learning) and monks (men
who have renounced the world), and because they do not behave proudly. And
when they listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad),
you see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognize the truth. They
say: "Our Lord! We believe; so write us down among the witnesses. And why
should we not believe in Allah and in that which has come to us of the truth

(Islamic Monotheism) and we wish that our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on
the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people?" So because of what
they said, Allah rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise),
they will abide therein forever. Such is the reward of good-doers. But those
who disbelieved and denied Our signs, they shall be the dwellers of the HellFire." (Holy Qur'an 5:82-86)
Biography Of Professor David Benjamin Keldani, B.D. (died 1940c) Former
Roman Catholic Bishop of the Uniate Chaldean
Abdu'l-Ahad Dawud is the former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman
Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect. He was born in 1867 at Urmia in
Persia; educated from his early infancy in that town. From 1886-89 he was on
the teaching staff of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to the Assyrian
(Nestorian) Christians at Urmia. In 1892 he was sent by Cardinal Vaughan to
Rome, where he underwent a course of philosophical and theological studies
at the Propaganda Fide College, and in 1895 was ordained Priest. In 1892
Professor Dawud contributed a series of articles to The Tablet on "Assyria,
Rome and Canterbury"; and also to the Irish Record on the "Authenticity of
the Pentateuch."
He has several translations of the Ave Maria in different languages, published
in the illustrated Catholic Missions. While in Constantinople on his way to
Persia in 1895, he contributed a long series of articles in English and French to
the daily paper, published there under the name of The Levant Herald, on
"Eastern Churches." In 1895 he joined the French Lazarist Mission at Urmia,
and published for the first time in the history of that Mission a periodical in the
vernacular Syriac called Qala-La-Shara, i.e. "The Voice of Truth." In 1897 he was
delegated by two Uniate-Chaldean Arch- bishops of Urmia and of Salmas to
represent the Eastern Catholics at the Eucharistic Congress held at Paray-leMonial in France under the presidency of Cardinal Perraud. This was, of course,
an official invitation. The paper read at the Congress by "Father Benjamin" was
published in the Annals of the Eucharistic Congress, called "Le Pellerin" of that
year. In this paper, the Chaldean Arch-Priest (that being his official title)
deplored the Catholic system of education among the Nestorians.

In 1888 Father Benjamin was back again in Persia. In his native village, Digala,
about a mile from the town, he opened a school. The next year he was sent by
the Ecclesiastical authorities to take charge of the diocese of Salmas, where a
sharp and scandalous conflict between the Uniate Archbishop, Khudabash, and
the Lazarist Fathers for a long time had been menacing a schism. On the day of
New Year 1900, Father Benjamin preached his last and memorable sermon to a
large congregation, including many non-Catholic Armenians and others in the
Cathedral of St. George's Khorovabad, Salmas. The preacher's subject was
"New Century and New Men." He recalled the fact that the Nestorian
Missionaries, before the appearance of Islam, namely "submission" to God,
had preached the Gospel in all Asia; that they had numerous establishments in
India (especially at the Malabar Coast), in Tartary, China and Mongolia; and
that they translated the Gospel to the Turkish Uighurs and in other languages;
that the Catholic, American and Anglican Missions, in spite of the little good
they had done to the Assyro- Chaldean nation in the way of preliminary
education, had split the nation - already a handful in Persia, Kurdistan and
Mesopotamia into numerous hostile sects; and that their efforts were destined
to bring about the final collapse. Consequently he advised the natives to make
some sacrifices in order to stand upon their own legs like men, and not to
depend upon the foreign missions, etc.
The preacher was perfectly right in principle; but his remarks were unfavorable
to the interests of the Lord's Missionaries. This sermon hastily brought the
Apostolique Delegate, Mgr. Lesne, from Urmia to Salmas. He remained to the
last a friend of Father Benjamin. They both returned to Urmia. A new Russian
Mission had already been established in Urmia since 1899. The Nestorians
were enthusiastically embracing the religion of the "holy" Tsar of All Russias!
Five big and ostentatious missions, Americans, Anglicans, French, Germans and
Russians with their colleges, press backed up by rich religious societies, Consuls
and Ambassadors, were endeavoring to convert about one hundred thousand
Assyro-Chaldeans from Nestorian heresy unto one or another of the five
heresies. But the Russian Mission soon outstripped the others, and it was this
mission which in 1915 pushed or forced the Assyrians of Persia, as well as the
mountaineer tribes of Kurdistan, who had then immigrated into the plains of
Salmas and Urmia, to take up arms against their respective Governments. The

result was that half of his people perished in the war and the rest expelled
from their native lands.
The great question which for a long time had been working its solution in the
mind of this priest was now approaching its climax. Was Christianity, with all its
multitudinous shapes and colors, and with its unauthentic, spurious and
corrupted Scriptures, the true Religion of God? In the summer of 1900 he
retired to his small villa in the middle of vineyards near the celebrated fountain
of Chali- Boulaghi in Digala, and there for a month spent his time in prayer and
meditation, reading over and over the Scriptures in their original texts. The
crisis ended in a formal resigna- tion sent in to the Uniate Archbishop of Urmia,
in which he frankly explained to (Mgr.) Touma Audu the reasons for
abandoning his sacerdotal functions. All attempts made by the ecclesiastical
authorities to withdraw his decision were of no avail. There was no personal
quarrel or dispute between Father Benjamin and his superiors; it was all question of conscience.
For several months Mr. Dawud, as he was now called, was employed in Tabriz
as Inspector in the Persian Service of Posts and Customs under the Belgian
experts. Then he was taken into the service of the Crown Prince Muhammad
'Ali Mirza as teacher and translator. It was in 1903 that he again visited England
and there joined the Unitarian Community. And in 1904 he was sent by the
British and Foreign Unitarian Association to carry on an educational and
enlightening work among his country people. On his way to Persia he visited
Constantinople; and after several interviews with the Sheikhu 'I-Islam Jemalu
'd-Din Effendi and other Ulemas, he embraced the Holy Religion of Islam,
meaning submission to God.
PREFATORY REMARKS
I propose through this article and the ones which will follow to show that the
doctrine of Islam concerning the Deity and the last great messenger of Allah is
perfectly true and conforms to the teachings of the Bible.
I shall devote the present article to discussing the first point, and in a few
other papers I shall attempt to show that Prophet Muhammad is the real
object of the Covenant and in him, and him alone, are actually and literally
fulfilled all the prophecies in the Old Testament.

I wish to make it quite clear that the views set out in this article and those
which will follow it are quite personal, and that I am alone responsible for my
personal and unborrowed researches in the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures. I do
not, however, assume an authoritative attitude in expounding the teachings of
Islam, meaning submission to God. I have not the slightest intention nor desire
to hurt the religious feelings of Christian friends. I love Christ, Moses and
Abraham, as I do Prophet Muhammad and all other holy prophets of God.
My writings are not intended to raise a bitter and therefore useless dispute
with the Churches, but only invite them to a pleasant and friendly investigation
of this all-important question with a spirit of love and impartiality. If the
Christians desist from their vain attempt of defining the essence of the
Supreme Being, and confess His absolute Oneness, then a union between them
and the Muslims is not only probable but extremely possible. For once the
Oneness of God is accepted and acknowledged, the other points of difference
between the two faiths can more easily be settled.
ALLAH AND HIS ATTRIBUTES
There are two fundamental points between Islam and Christianity which, for
the sake of the truth and the peace of the world, deserved a very serious and
deep investigation. As these two religions claim their origin from one and the
same source, it would follow that no important point of controversy between
them should be allowed to exist. Both these great religions believe in the
existence of the Deity and in the covenant made between God and the
Prophet Abraham. On these two principal points a thoroughly conscientious
and final agreement must be arrived at between the intelligent adherents of
the two faiths.
Are we poor and ignorant mortals to believe in and worship one God, or are
we to believe in and fear a plurality of Gods? Which of the two, Christ or
Prophet Muhammad, is the object of the Divine Covenant? These two
questions must be answered once for all.
It would be a mere waste of time here to refute those who ignorantly or
maliciously suppose the God as mentioned in Islam to be different from the
true God and only a fictitious deity of Prophet Muhammad's own creation. If
the Christian priests and theologians knew their Scriptures in the original

Hebrew instead of in translations as the Muslims read their Quran in its Arabic
text, they would clearly see that Allah is the same ancient Semitic name of the
Supreme Being who revealed and spoke to Adam and all the prophets.
Allah is the only Self-Existing, Knowing, Powerful Being. He encompasses, fills
every space, being and thing; and is the source of all life, knowledge and force.
Allah is the Unique Creator, Regulator and Ruler of the universe. He is
absolutely One. The essence, the person and nature of Allah are absolutely
beyond human comprehension, and therefore any attempt to define His
essence is not only futile but even dangerous to our spiritual welfare and faith;
for it will certainly lead us into error.
The trinitarian branch of the Christian Church, for about seventeen
centuries, has exhausted all the brains of her saints and philosophers to define
the Essence and the Person of the Deity; and what have they invented? All that
which Athanasiuses, Augustines and Aquinases have imposed upon the
Christians "under the pain of eternal damnation" to believe in a God who is
"the third of three"! Allah, in His Holy Quran, condemns this belief in these
solemn words:
"Because the unbelivers are those who say: 'Allah is one of three.' There is
but One God. If they do not desist in what they say, a painful punishment will
afflict those of them that disbelieve." (Quran Ch.5 v73).
The reason why the orthodox Muslim scholars have always refrained from
defining God's Essence is because His Essence transcends all attributes in
which it could only be defined. Allah has many Names which in reality are only
adjectives derived from His essence through its various manifestations in the
universe which He alone has formed. We call Allah by the appellations
Almighty, Eternal, Omnipresent, Omniscient, Merciful, and so forth, because
we conceived the eternity, omnipresence, universal knowledge, mercifulness,
as emanating from His essence and belonging to Him alone and absolutely. He
is alone the infinitely Knowing, Powerful, Living, Holy, Beautiful, Good, Loving,
Glorious, Terrible.
Avenger, because it is from Him alone that emanate and flow the qualities of
knowledge, power, life, holiness, beauty and the rest. God has no attributes in
the sense we understand them. With us an attribute or a property is common

to many individuals of a species, but what is God's is His alone, and there is
none other to share it with Him. When we say, "Solomon is wise, powerful, just
and beautiful," we do not ascribe exclusively to him all wisdom, power, justice
and beauty. We only mean to say that he is relatively wise as compared with
others of his species, and that wisdom too is relatively his attribute in common
with the individuals belonging to his class. To make it more clear, a divine
attribute is an emanation of God, and therefore an activity. Now every divine
action is nothing more or less than a creation.
It is also to be admitted that the divine attributes, inasmuch as they are
emanations, posit time and a beginning; consequently when Allah said: "Be,
and it was" - or He uttered, His word in time and in the beginning of the
creation. This is what the Sufis term "aql-kull", or universal intelligence, as the
emanation of the "aql awwal", namely, the "first intelligence." Then the "nafskull", or the "universal soul" that was the first to hear and obey this divine
order, emanated from the "first soul" and transformed the universe.
This reasoning would lead us to conclude that each act of God displays a
divine emanation as His manifestation and particular attribute, but it is not His
Essence or Being. God is Creator, because He created in the beginning of time,
and always creates. God spoke in the beginning of time just as He speaks in His
own way always. But as His creation is not eternal or a divine person, so His
Word cannot be considered eternal and a divine Person. The Christians
proceed further, and make the Creator a divine father and His Word a divine
son; and also, because He breathed life into His creatures, He is surnamed a
divine Spirit, forgetting that logically He could not be father before creation,
nor "son" before He spoke, and neither "Holy Ghost" before He gave life. I can
conceive the attributes of God through His works at manifestations a
posteriori, but of his eternal and a prior attributes posses no conception
whatever, nor do I imagine any human intelligence to be able to comprehend
the nature of an eternal attribute and its relationship to the essence of God. In
fact, God has not revealed to us the nature of His Being in the Holy Scriptures
nor in the human intellect.
The attributes of God are not to be considered as distinct and separate
divine entities or personalities, otherwise we shall have, not one trinity of
persons in the Godhead, but several dozen of trinities. An attribute until it

actually emanates from its subject has no existence. We cannot qualify the
subject by a particular attribute before that attribute has actually proceeded
from it and is seen. Hence we say "God is Good" when we enjoy His good and
kind action; but we cannot describe Him - properly speaking - as "God is
Goodness," because goodness is not God, but His action and work. It is for this
reason that the Quran always attributes to Allah the adjectival appellations,
such as the Wise, the Knowing, the Merciful, but never with such descriptions
as "God is love, knowledge, word," and so forth; for love is the action of the
lover and not the lover himself, just as knowledge or word is the action of the
knowing person and not himself.
I particularly insist on this point because of the error into which have fallen
those who maintain the eternity and distinct personality of certain attributes
of God. The Verb or the Word of God has been held to be a distinct person of
the Deity; whereas the word of God can have no other signification than an
expression of His Knowledge and Will. The Quran, too, is called "the Word of
God," and some early Muslim doctors of law asserted that it was eternal and
uncreated. The same appellation is also given to Jesus Christ in the Quran Kalimatun minho, i.e. "a Word from Him" (Ch.3 v45). But it would be very
irreligious to assert that the Word or Logos of God is a distinct person, and that
it assumed flesh
and became incarnate in the shape of a man of Nazareth or in the form of a
book, the former called "the
Christ" and the latter "the Quran"! To sum up this subject, I insistently
declare that the Word or any other imaginable attribute of God, not only is it
not a distinct Divine entity or individuality, but also it could have no actual (in
actu) existence prior to the beginning of time and creation.
The first verse with which St. Johns Gospel commences was often refuted by
the early Unitarian writers, who rendered its true reading as follows: "In the
beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was
God's."
It will be noticed that the Greek form of the genitive case "Theou" i.e.
"God's" (1) was corrupted into "Theos"; that is, "God," in the nominative form
of the name! It is also to be observed that the clause "In the beginning was the

word" expressly indicates the origin of the word which was not before the
beginning! By the "word of God" is not meant a separate and distinct
substance, coeval and coexistent
______________
(1) Footnote: Concerning the Logos, ever since the the "Gospels" and
"Commentaries" as well as the controversial writings belonging to the
Unitarians, except what has been quoted from them in the writings of their
opponents, such as the learned Greek Patriarch Photius and those before him.
Among the "Fathers" of the Eastern Christians, one of the most distinguished
is St. Ephraim the Syrian. He is the author of many works, chiefly of a
commentary on the Bible which is published both in Syriac and in Latin, which
latter edition I had carefully read in Rome. He has also homilies, dissertations
called "midrishi" and "contra Haeretici," etc. Then there is a famous Syrian,
author Bir Disin (generally written Bardisanes) who flourished in the latter end
of the second and the first of the third century A.D.
From the writings of Bir Disin nothing in the Syriac is extant except what
Ephraim, Jacob of Nesibin and other Nestorians and Jacobites have quoted for
refutation, and except what most of the Greek Fathers employed in their own
language. Bir Disin maintained that Jesus Christ was the seat of the temple of
the Word of God, but both he and the Word were created. St. Ephraim, in
combating the "heresy" of Bir Disin, says:
( Syriac ): "Wai lakh O, dovya at Bir Disin Dagreit l'Milta eithrov d'AIIihi.
Baram kthabha la kthabh d'akh hikhin Illa d'Miltha eithov Allihi,"
(Arabic) "Wailu 'I-laka yi anta' s-Safil Bir Disin Li-anna fara'aita kina 'I-kalimo li
'I-Lihi Li-kina 'IKitibo mi Kataba Kazi Illa 'I-Kalimo Kina 'I-Lih."
(English translation): "Woe unto thee O miserable Bir Disin That thou didst
read the "word was God's"! But the Book [Gospel] did not write likewise,
Except that "the Word was God." Almost in all the controversies on the
Logos the Unitarians are "branded" with the heresy of denying the eternality
and divine personality of it by having "corrupted" the Gospel of John, etc.
These imputations were returned to the Trinitarians by the true Nasira -

Unitarians. So one can deduct from the patristic literature that the Trinitarians
were always reproached with having corrupted the Scriptures.
______________end footnote
with the Almighty, but saying of His Knowledge and Will when He uttered
the word Kun, namely, "Be." When God said Kun, the worlds became; when
He said Kun for His Words to be recorded in the Protected Tablets by the pen it
became again.
By His saying: "Be," Jesus was created in the womb of the Blessed Virgin
Mary; and so on - whenever He wills to create a thing He but only says "Be," to
it and it becomes.
The Christian auspicatory formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost," does not even mention the name of God! And this
is the Christian God! The Nestorian and Jacobite formula, which consists of ten
syllables exactly like the Muslim "Bismillahi," is thus to be transliterated: Bshim
Abha wo-Bhra ou-Ruha d-Qudsha, which has the same meaning as that
contained in all other Christian formulas. The Quranic formula, on the other
hand, which expresses the foundation of the Islamic truth is a great contrast to
the Trinitarians' formula: Bismillahi 'r-Rahmani 'r-Rahim; that is: "In the Name
of [Allah] the Most Merciful and Compassionate ^Allah."
The Christian Trinity - inasmuch as it admits a plurality of persons in the
Deity, attributes distinct personal properties to each person; and makes use of
family names similar to those in the pagan mythology - cannot be accepted as
a true conception of the Deity. Allah is neither the father of a son nor the son
of a father. He has no mother, nor is He self- made. The belief in "God the
Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost" is a flagrant denial of the
Oneness of God, and an audacious confession in three imperfect beings who,
unitedly or separately, cannot be the true God.
Mathematics as a positive science teaches us that a unit is no more nor less
than one; that one is never equal to one plus one plus one; in other words, one
cannot be equal to three, because one is the third of the three. In the same
way, one is not equal to a third. And vice versa, three are not equal to one, nor
can a third be equal to a unit. The unit is the basis of all numbers, and a

standard for the measurements and weights of all dimensions, distances,


quantities and time. In fact, all numbers are aggregates of the unit
1. Ten is an aggregate of so many equal units of the same kind.
Those who maintain the unity of God in the trinity of persons tell us that
"each person is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and perfect God; yet there
are not three omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and perfect Gods, but one
omnipotent . . . God!" If there is no sophistry in the above reasoning then we
shall present this "mystery" of the churches by an equation:.
God = 1 God + 1 God + 1 God; therefore: 1 God = 3 Gods. In the first place,
one god cannot equal three gods, but only one of them. Secondly, since you
admit each person to be perfect God like His two associates, your conclusion
that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is not mathematical, but an absurdity!
You are either too arrogant when you attempt to prove that three units
equal one unit; or too cowardly to admit that three ones equal three ones. In
the former case you can never prove a wrong solution of a problem by a false
process; and in the second you have not the courage to confess your belief in
three gods.
Besides, we all - Muslims and Christians - believe that God is Omnipresent,
that He fills and encompasses every space and particle. Is it conceivable that all
the three persons of the Deity at the same time and separately encompass the
universe, or is it only one of them at the time? To say "the Deity does this"
would be no answer at all. For Deity is not God, but the state of being God, and
therefore a quality.
Godhead is the quality of one God; it is not susceptible of plurality nor of
diminution. There are no godheads but one Godhead, which is the attribute of
one God alone.
Then we are told that each person of the trinity has some particular
attributes which are not proper to the other two. And these attributes indicate
- according to human reasoning and language - priority and posteriority among
them. The Father always holds the first rank, and is prior to the Son. The Holy
Ghost

is not only posterior as the third in the order of counting but even inferior to
those from whom he
proceeds. Would it not be considered a sin of heresy if the names of the three
persons were conversely
repeated? Will not the signing of the cross upon the countenance or over the
elements of the Eucharist
be considered impious by the Churches if the formula be reversed thus: "In the
name of the Holy Ghost,
and of the Son, and of the Father"? For if they are absolutely equal and coeval,
the order of precedence
need not be so scrupulously observed.
The fact is that the Popes and the General Councils have always condemned
the Sabelian doctrine
which maintained that God is one but that He manifested Himself as the Father
or as the Son or as the
Holy Spirit, being always one and the same person. Of course, the religion of
Islam does not endorse or
sanction the Sabelian views. God manifested Jamal or beauty in Christ, Jelal or
Glory and Majesty in
Prophet Muhammad, and Wisdom in Solomon, and so on in many other
objects of nature, but none of
those prophets are gods neither the beautiful scenery of nature are gods.
The truth is that there is no mathematical exactitude, no absolute equality
between the three persons
of the Trinity. If the Father were in every respect equal to the Son or the Holy
Spirit, as the unit 1 is
positively equal to another figure 1, then there would necessarily be only one
person of God and not

three, because a unit is not a fragment or fraction nor a multiple of itself. The
very difference and
relationship that is admitted to exist between the persons of the Trinity leaves
no shadow of doubt that
they are neither equal to each other nor are they to be identified with one
another. The Father begets and
is not begotten; the Son is begotten and not a father; the Holy Ghost is the
issue of the other two persons; the first person is described as creator and
destroyer; the second as savior or redeemer, and the
third as life-giver. Consequently none of the three is alone the Creator, the
Redeemer and the Life-giver.
Then we are told that the second person is the Word of the first Person,
becomes man and is sacrificed
on the cross to satisfy the justice of his father, and that his incarnation and
resurrection are operated and
accomplished by the third person.
In conclusion, I must remind Christians that unless they believe in the
absolute Oneness of God, and
renounce the belief in the three persons, they are certainly unbelievers in the
true God. Strictly speaking,
Christians are polytheists, only with this exception, that the gods of the
heathen are false and imaginary,
whereas the three gods of the Churches have a distinct character, of whom the
Father - as another epithet
for Creator - is the One true God, but the son is only a prophet and worshiper
of God, and the third
person one of the innumerable holy spirits in the service of the Almighty God.

In the Old Testament, God is called Father because of His being a loving
Creator and Protector, but as
the Churches abused this Name, the Quran has justly refrained from using it.
The Old Testament and the Quran condemn the doctrine of three persons in
God; the New Testament
does not expressly hold or defend it, but even if it contains hints and traces
concerning the Trinity, it is
no authority at all, because it was neither seen nor written by Christ himself,
nor in the language he
spoke, nor did it exist in its present form and contents for - at least - the first
two centuries after him.
It might with advantage be added that in the East the Unitarian Christians
always combated and
protested against the Trinitarians, and that when they beheld the utter
destruction of the "Fourth Beast"
by the Great Prophet of Allah, they accepted and followed him. The Devil, who
spoke through the
mouth of the serpent to Eve, uttered blasphemies against the Most High
through the mouth of the "Little
Horn" which sprang up among the "Ten Horns" upon the head of the "Fourth
Beast" (Dan. viii.), was
none other than Constantine the Great, who officially and violently proclaimed
the Nicene Creed. But,
Prophet Muhammad has destroyed the "Iblis" or the Devil from the Promised
Land for ever, by
establishing Islam there as the religion of the One true God.
Muhammad in the Old Testament
"And The Ahmed Of All Nations Will Come." - Haggai, Ii.7.

Some two centuries after the idolatrous and impenitent Kingdom of Israel
was overthrown, and the
whole population of the ten tribes deported into Assyria, Jerusalem and the
glorious temple of Solomon
were razed to the ground by the Chaldeans, and the unmassacred remnant of
Judah and Benjamin was
transported into Babylonia. After a period of seventy years' captivity, the Jews
were permitted to return to their country with full authority to build again
their ruined city and the temple. When the foundations
of the new house of God were being laid, there arose a tremendous uproar of
joy and acclamation from
the assembly; while the old men and women who had seen the gorgeous
temple of Solomon before,
burst into a bitter weeping. It was on this solemn occasion that the Almighty
sent His worshiper the
Prophet Haggai to console the sad assembly with this important message:
"And I will shake all nations, and the Himdah all the nations will come; and I
will fill this house with
glory, says the Lord of hosts. Mine is the silver, mine is the gold, says the Lord
of hosts, the glory of my
last house shall be greater than that of the first one, says the Lord of hosts; and
in this place I will give
Shalom, says the Lord of hosts" (Haggai, ii. 7-9).
I have translated the above paragraph from the only copy of the Bible at my
disposal, lent to me by an
Assyrian lady cousin in her own vernacular language. But let us consult the
English versions of the

Bible, which we find have rendered the original Hebrew words himda and
shalom into "desire" and
"peace" respectively.
Jewish and Christian commentators alike have given the utmost importance
to the double promise
contained in the above prophecy. They both understand a messianic prediction
in the word Himda.
Indeed, here is a wonderful prophecy confirmed by the usual biblical formula
of the divine oath, "says
the Lord Sabaoth," four times repeated. If this prophecy be taken in the
abstract sense of the words
himda and shalom as "desire" and "peace," then the prophecy becomes
nothing more than an
unintelligible aspiration. But if we understand by the term himda a concrete
idea, a person and reality,
and in the word shalom, not a condition, but a living and active force and a
definitely established
religion, then this prophecy must be admittedly true and fulfilled in the person
of Ahmed and the
establishment of Islam. For himda and shalom - or shlama have precisely the
same significance
respectively as Ahmed and Islam.
Before endeavoring to prove the fulfillment of this prophecy, it will be well
to explain the etymology
of the two words as briefly as possible:
(a) Himda. The clause in the original Hebrew text reads thus: "ve yavu
himdath kol haggoyim," which

literally rendered into English would be "and will come the Himda of all
nations." The final hi in
Hebrew, as in Arabic, is changed into th, or t when in the genitive case. The
word is derived from an
archaic Hebrew - or rather Aramaic - root hmd (consonants pronounced
hemed). In Hebrew hemed is
generally used in the sense of great desire, covet, appetite and lust. The ninth
command of the
Decalogue is: "Lo tahmod ish reikha" ("Thou shalt not covet the wife of thy
neighbor"). In Arabic the
verb hemida, from the same consonants hmd, means "to praise," and so on.
What is more praised and
illustrious than that which is most craved for, coveted, and desired? Whichever
of the two meanings be
adopted, the fact that Ahmed is the Arabic form of Himda remains indisputable
and decisive. The Holy
Quran (ch.61:6 ) declares that Jesus announced unto the people of Israel the
coming of Ahmad: "And
when Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'Children of Israel, I am sent to you by Allah
to confirm the
Torah that is before me, and to give news of a Messenger who will come after
me whose name
shall be Ahmad.' Yet when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: 'This
is clear sorcery.'"
The Gospel of St. John, being written in Greek, uses the name Paracletos, a
barbarous form unknown
to classical Greek literature. But Periclytos, which corresponds exactly with
Ahmed in its signification of "illustrious," "glorious" and "praised," in its
superlative degree, must have been the translation into

Greek of Himda or probably Hemida of the Aramaic form, as uttered by Jesus


Christ. Alas! there is no
Gospel extant in the original language spoken by Jesus!
(b) As to the etymology and signification of the words shalom, shlama, and
the Arabic salam, Islam, I
need not detain the reader by dragging him into linguistic details. Any Semitic
scholar knows that
Shalom and Islam are derived from one and the same root and that both mean
peace, submission, and
resignation.
This being made clear, I propose to give a short exposition of this prophecy
of Haggai. In order to
understand it better, let me quote another prophecy from the last book of the
Old Testament called
Mallachai, or Mallakhi, or in the Authorized Version, Malachi (chap. iii. I):
"Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:
suddenly he will come to
his temple. He is the Adonai (i.e. the Lord) whom you desire, and the
Messenger of the Covenant with
whom you are pleased. Lo he is coming, says the Lord of hosts."
Then compare these mysterious oracles with the wisdom embodied in the
sacred verse of the Quran:
"Exalted is He who caused His worshiper (Prophet Muhammad) to travel in the
night from the
sacred Mosque (Mecca) to the farthest Mosque (Jerusalem) which We have
blessed around it that
We might show him of Our signs. He is the Hearer, the Seer." Ch.17:1 Quran.

That by the person coming suddenly to the temple, as foretold in the two
biblical documents above
mentioned, Prophet Muhammad, and not Prophet Jesus, is intended the
following arguments must surely
suffice to convince every impartial observer:
1. The kinship, the relation and resemblance between the two tetrograms
Himda and Ahmd, and the
identity of the root hmd from which both substantives are derived, leave not a
single particle of doubt
that the subject in the sentence "and the Himda of all nations will come" is
Ahmed; that is to say,
Muhammad. There is not the remotest etymological connection between
himda and any other names of
"Jesus," "Christ," "Savior," not even a single consonant in common between
them.
2. Even if it be argued that the Hebrew form Hmdh (read himdah) is an
abstract substantive
meaning "desire, lust, covetousness, and praise," the argument would be again
in favor of our thesis; for
then the Hebrew form would, in etymology, be exactly equivalent in meaning
and in similarity to, or
rather identity with, the Arabic form Himdah. In whatever sense you wish to
take the tetrogram Hmdh,
its relation to Ahmed and Ahmedism is decisive, and has nothing to do with
Jesus and Jesuism! If St.
Jerome, and before him the authors of the Septuagint, had preserved intact
the Hebrew form Hmdh,

instead of putting down the Latin "cupiditas" or the Seek "euthymia," probably
the translators appointed
by King James I would have also reproduced the original form in the Authorized
Version, and the Bible
Society have followed suit in their translations into Islamic languages.
3. The temple of Zorobabel was to be more glorious than that of Solomon
because, as Mallakhi
prophesied, the great Prophet or Messenger of the Covenant, the "Adonai" or
the Seyid of the messengers was to visit it suddenly, as indeed Prophet
Muhammad did during his miraculous night
journey, as stated in the Quran! The temple of Zorobabel was repaired or
rebuilt by Herod the Great.
And Jesus, certainly on every occasion of his frequent visits to that temple,
honored it by his holy person
and presence. Indeed, the presence of every prophet in the House of God had
added to the dignity and
sanctity of the sanctuary. But this much must at least be admitted, that the
Gospels which record the
visitations of Christ to the temple and his teachings therein fail to make
mention of a single conversion
among his audience. All his visits to the temple are reported as ending in bitter
disputes with the
unbelieving priests and Pharisees! It must also be concluded that Jesus not
only did not bring "peace' to
the world as he deliberately declared (Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii., Luke xxi.), but he
even predicted the total
destruction of the temple (Matt. x. 34, etc.), which was fulfilled some forty
years afterwards by the

Romans, when the final dispersion of the Jews was completed.


4. Ahmad, which is another form of the name Muhammad and of the same
root and signification,
namely, the "praised," during his night journey visited the sacred spot of the
ruined temple, as stated in
the Holy Quran, and there and then, according to the sacred tradition uttered
repeatedly by himself to his
companions, officiated the divine service of prayer and adoration to Allah in
the presence of all the
Prophets; and it was then that Allah "to travel in the night from the sacred
Mosque to the farthest
Mosque which We have blessed around it that We might show him of Our
Signs." (Ch 17:1 Quran)
to the Last Prophet. If Moses and Elias could appear in bodily presence on the
mount of transfiguration,
they and all the thousands of Prophets could also appear in the arena of the
temple at Jerusalem; and it
was during that "sudden coming" of Prophet Muhammad to "his temple" (Mal.
iii. 1 ) that God did
actually fill it "with glory" (Hag. ii.).
That Amina, the widow of Abdullah, both of whom died before the advent of
Islam, should name her
orphan son "Ahmed," the first proper noun in the history of mankind, is,
according to my humble belief,
the greatest miracle in favor of Islam. The second Caliph, Hazrat Omar, rebuilt
the temple, and the
majestic Mosque at Jerusalem remains, and will remain to the end of the
world, a perpetual monument

of the truth of the covenant which Allah made with Abraham and Ishmael
(Gen. xv.-xvii).
The Question Of The Birthright And The Covenant
There is a very, very ancient religious dispute between the Ishmaelites and
the Israelites about the
questions con- cerning the Birthright and the Covenant. The readers of the
Bible and the Qur'an are
familiar with the story of the great Prophet Abraham and his two sons Ishmael
(Isma'il) and Isaac
(Ishaq). The story of Abraham's call from the Ur of the Chaldees, and that of his
descendants until the
death of his grandson Joseph in Egypt, is written in The Book of Genesis
(chapters xi.-l). In his
genealogy as recorded in Genesis, Abraham is the twentieth from Adam, and a
con- temporary of
Nimrod, who built the stupendous Tower of Babel. The early story of
Abraham in the Ur of Chaldea, though not mentioned in the Bible, is recorded
by
the famous Jewish historian Joseph Flavius in his Antiquities and is also
confirmed by the Qur'an. But
the Bible expressly tells us that the father of Abraham, Terah, was an idolater
(Jos. xxiv. 2, 14).
Abraham manifested his love and zeal for God when he entered into the
temple and destroyed all the
idols and images therein, and thus he was a true prototype of his illustrious
descendant Prophet
Muhammad. He came out unhurt and triumphantly from the burning furnace
wherein he was cast by the

order of Nimrod. He leaves his native land for Haran in the company of his
father and his nephew Lot.
He was seventy-five years old when his father died at Haran. In obedience and
absolute resignation to
the divine call, he leaves his country and starts on a long and varied journey to
the land of Canaan, to
Egypt and to Arabia. His wife Sarah is barren; yet God announces to him that
he is destined to become
the father of many nations, that all the territories he is to traverse shall be
given as an inheritance to his
descendants, and that, "by his seed all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed"! This wonderful and
unique promise in the history of religion was met with an unshaken faith on
the part of Abraham, who
had no issue, no son. When he was led out to look at the sky at night and told
by Allah that his posterity
would be as numerous as the stars, and as innumerable as the sand which is on
the shores of the sea,
Abraham believed it. And it was this belief in God, that "was counted
righteousness," as the Scripture
says.
A virtuous poor Egyptian girl, Hagar by name, is a slave and a maid in the
service of Sarah. At the
bidding and consent of the mistress the maidservant is duly married by the
Prophet, and from this union
Ishmael is born, as fore- told by the Angel. When Ishmael is thirteen years old,
Allah again sends His

Angel with His revelation to Abraham; the same promise is repeated to


Abraham; the rite of
Circumcision is formally instituted and immediately executed. Abraham, at his
ninetieth year of age,
Ishmael, and all the male servants, are circumcised; and the "Covenant"
between God and Abraham with
his only begotten son is made and sealed, as if it were with the blood of
circumcision. It is a kind of
treaty concluded between Heaven and the Promised Land in the person of
Ishmael as the only offspring
of the nonagenarian Patriarch. Abraham promises allegiance and fealty to his
Creator, and God promises
to be forever the Protector and God of the posterity of Ishmael.
Later on - that is to say, when Abraham was ninety- nine years old and Sarah
ninety, we find that she
also bears a son whom they name Isaac according to the Divine promise.
As no chronological order is observed in the Book of Genesis, we are told
that after the birth of Isaac,
Ishmael and his mother are turned out and sent away by Abraham in a most
cruel manner, simply
because Sarah so wished. Ishmael and his mother disappear in the desert, a
fountain bursts out when the
youth is on the point of death from thirst; he drinks and is saved. Nothing more
is heard of Ishmael in
the Book of Genesis except that he married an Egyptian woman, and when
Abraham died he was present
together with Isaac to bury their dead father. Then the Book of Genesis
continues the story of Isaac, his two sons, and the descent of Jacob into

Egypt, and ends with the death of Joseph.


The next important event in the history of Abraham as recorded in Genesis
(xxii.) is the offering of
"his only son" a sacrifice to God, but he was ransomed with a ram which was
presented by an angel. As
the Qur'an says, "That was indeed a clear trial" for Abraham (Qur'an, Ch.
38:106), but his love for
God surpassed every other affection; and for this reason he is called the Friend
of Allah, "Allah has
taken Abraham for a Friend". (Qur'an)
Thus runs the brief account of Abraham in connection with our subject of
the Birthright and the
Covenant.
There are three distinct points which every true believer in God must accept
as truths. The first point
is that Ishmael is the legitimate son of Abraham, his first-born, and therefore
his claim to birthright is
quite just and legal. The second point is that the Covenant was made between
God and Abra- ham as
well as his only son Ishmael before Isaac was born. The Covenant and the
institution of the
Circumcision would have no value or signification unless the repeated promise
contained in the Divine
words, "Throughout thee all the nations of the earth shall be blessed," and
especially the expression, the
Seed "that shall come out from the bowels, he will inherit thee" (Gen. xv. 4).
This promise was fulfilled

when Ishmael was born (Gen. xvi.), and Abraham had the consolation that his
chief servant Eliezer
would no longer be his heir. Consequently we must admit that Ishmael was the
real and legitimate heir
of Abraham's spiritual dignity and privileges. The perogative that "by Abraham
all the gene- rations of
the earth shall be blessed, "so often repeated - though in different forms - was
the heritage by birthright,
and was the patrimony of Ishmael. The inheritance to which Ishmael was
entitled by birthright was not
the tent in which Abraham lived or a certain camel upon which he used to ride,
but to subjugate and
occupy forever all the territories extending from the Nile to the Euphrates,
which were inhabited by
some ten different nations (xvii. 18-21). These lands have never been subdued
by the descendants of
Isaac, but by those of Ishmael. This is an actual and literal fulfillment of one of
the conditions contained
in the Covenent.
The third point is that Isaac was also born miraculously and specially blessed
by the Almighty, that
for his people the land of Canaan was promised and actually occupied under
Joshua. No Muslim ever
thinks of disparaging the sacred and prophetical position of Isaac and his son
Jacob; for to disparage or
to lower a Prophet is an impiety. When we compare Ishmael and Isaac, we
cannot but reverence and

respect them both as holy Prophets of God. In fact, the people of Israel, with
its Law and sacred
Scriptures, have had a unique religious history in the Old World. They were
indeed the Chosen People
of God. Although that people have often rebelled against God, and fallen into
idolatry, yet they have
given to the world myriads of prophets and righteous men and women. So
far there could be no real point of controversy between the descendants of
Ishmael and the people
of Israel. For if by "Blessing" and the "Birthright" it meant only some material
possessions and power,
the dispute would be settled as it has been settled by sword and the
accomplished fact of the Arab
occupation of the promised lands. Rather, there is a fundamental point of
dispute between the two
nations now existing for nearly four thousand years; and that point is the
question of the Messiah and
Prophet Muhammad. The Jews do not see the fulfillment of the so-called
Messianic prophecies either in
the person of Christ or in that of Prophet Muhammad. The Jews have always
been jealous of Ishmael
because they know very well that in him the Covenant was made and with his
circumcision it was
concluded and sealed, and it is out of this rancor that their scribes or doctors
of law have corrupted and
interpolated many passages in their Scriptures. To efface the name "Ishmael"
from the second, sixth, and
seventh verses of the twenty-second chapter of the Book of Genesis and to
insert in its place "Isaac," and

to leave the descriptive epithet "thy only begotten son" is to deny the
existence of the former and to
violate the Covenant made between God and Ishmael. It is expressly said in
this chapter by God:
"Because thou didst not spare thy only begotten son, I will increase and
multiply thy posterity like the
stars and the sands on the seashore," which word "multiply" was used by the
Angel to Hagar in the
wilderness: I will multiply thy offspring to an innumerable multitude, and that
Ishmael "shall become a
fruitful man" (Gen. xvi. 12). Now the Christians have translated the same
Hebrew word, which means
"fruitful" or "plentiful" from the verb para - identical with the Arabic wefera in their versions "a wild
ass"! Is it not a shame and impiety to call Ishmael "a wild ass" whom God styles
"Fruitful" or
"Plentiful"?
It is very remarkable that Christ himself, as reported in the Gospel of St.
Barnabas, reprimanded the
Jews who said that the Great Messenger whom they call "Messiah" would
come down from the lineage
of King David, telling them plainly that he could not be the son of David, for
David calls him "his
Lord," and then went on to explain how their fathers had altered the
Scriptures, and that the Covenant
was made, not with Isaac, but with Ishmael, who was taken to be offered a
sacrifice to God, and that the

expression "thy only begotten son" means Ishmael, and not Isaac. Paul, who
pretends to be an apostle of
Jesus Christ, uses some irreverent words about Hagar (Gal. vi. 21-31 and
elsewhere) and Ishmael, and
openly contradicts his Master. This man has done all he could to pervert and
mislead the Christians
whom he used to persecute before his conversion; and I doubt very much that
the Jesus of Paul was
Jesus, the son of Mary who according to Christian traditions was hanged on a
tree about a century or so
before Christ, for his Messianic pretensions. In fact, the Epistles of Paul as they
stand before us are full
of doctrines entirely repugnant to the spirit of the Old Testament, as well as to
that of the humble
Prophet, Jesus of Nazareth. Paul was a bigoted Pharisee and a lawyer. After his
conversion to
Christianity he seems to have become even more fanatical than ever. His
hatred to Ishmael and his claim
to the birthright makes him forget or overlook the Law of Moses which forbids
a man to marry his own
sister under the pain of capital penalty. If Paul were inspired by God, he would
have either denounced
the Book of Genesis as full of forgeries when it says twice (xii. 10-20, xx. 2-18)
that Abraham was the
husband of his own sister, or that he would have exposed the Prophet to be a
liar! (God forbid). But he
believes in the words of the book, and his con- science does not torment him
in the least when he

identifies Hagar with the barren desert of the Sinai, and qualifies Sarah as the
Jerusalem above in
heaven! (Gal. iv. 25, 26). Did ever Paul read this anathema of the Law:"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the
daughter of his mother. And
all the people say: Amen"? (Duet. xxvii. 22).
Is there a human or divine law that would consider more legitimate one who
is the son of his own
uncle and aunt than he whose father is a Chaldean and his mother an
Egyptian? Have you anything to
say against the chastity and the piety of Hagar? Of course not, for she was the
wife of a Prophet and the
mother of a Prophet, and herself favored with Divine revelations.
The God who made the Covenant with Ishmael thus prescribes the law of
inheritance, namely: If a
man has two wives, one beloved and the other despised, and each one has a
son, and if the son of the
despised wife is the first-born, that son, and not the son of the beloved wife, is
entitled to the birthright.
Consequently the first-born shall inherit twice that of his brother. (Duet. xxi.
15-17). Is not, then, this
law explicit enough to put to silence all who dispute the just claim of Ishmael
to birthright?
Now let us discuss this question of the birthright as briefly as we can. We
know that Abraham was a
nomad chief as well as a Messenger of God, and that he used to live in a tent
and had large flocks of

cattle and great wealth. Now the nomad tribesmen do not inherit lands and
pastures, but the prince
assigns to each of his sons certain clans or tribes as his subjects and
dependents. As a rule the youngest
inherits the hearth or the tent of his parents, whereas the elder - unless unfit succeeds him to his throne.
The great Mongol conqueror Jenghiz Khan was succeeded by Oghtai, his eldest
son, who reigned in
Pekin as Khaqan, but his youngest son remained in his father's hearth at Qaraqorum in Mongolia. It
was exactly the same with Abraham's two sons. Isaac, who was the younger of
the two, inherited the tent
of his father and became, like him, a nomad living in tents. But Ishmael was
sent to Hijaz to guard the
House of Allah which he, together with Abraham, had built as referred to in the
Qur'an. Here he settled,
became Prophet and Prince among the Arab tribes who believed in him. It was
at Mecca, or Becca, that
the Ka'aba became the center of the pilgrimage called al-hajj. It was Ishmael
that founded the religion of
one true Allah and instituted the Circumcision.
His offspring soon increased and was multiplied like the stars of the sky.
From the days of Prophet
Ishmael to the advent of Prophet Muhammad, the Arabs of Hijaz, Yemen and
others have been
independent and masters of their own countries. The Roman and Persian
Empires were powerless to

subdue the people of Ishmael. Although idolatry was afterwards introduced,


still the names of Allah,
Abraham, Ishmael, and a few other Prophets were not forgotten by them. Even
Esau, the elder son of
Isaac, left his father's hearth for his younger brother Jacob and dwelt in Edom,
where he became the
chief of his people and soon got mixed with the Arab tribes of Ishmael who
was both his uncle and
father-in-law. The story of Esau's selling his birthright to Jacob for a dish of
pottage is foul trick
invented to justify the ill-treatment ascribed to Ishmael. It is alleged that "God
hated Esau and loved
Jacob," while the twins were in their mother's womb; and that the "elder
brother was to serve his
younger one" (Gen. xxv Rom. ix. 12, 13). But, strange to say, another report,
probably from another
source, shows the case to be just the reverse of the above-mentioned
prediction. For the thirty- third
chapter of Genesis clearly admits that Jacob served Esau, before whom he
seven times prostrates in
homage, addressing him "My Lord," and declaring himself as "your slave."
Abraham is reported in the Bible to have several other sons from Qitura and
"the concubines," to
whom he gave presents or gifts and sent them towards the East. All these
became large and strong tribes.
Twelve sons of Ishmael are men- tioned by name and described, each one to
be a prince with his towns and camps or armies (Gen. xxv.). So are the children
from Qitura, and others, as well as those descended

from Esau mentioned by their names.


When we behold the number of the family of Jacob when he went to Egypt,
which hardly exceeded
seventy heads, and when he was met by Esau with an escort of four hundred
armed horsemen, and the
mighty Arab tribes submitted to the twelve Amirs belonging to the family of
Ishmael, and then when the
last Messenger of Allah proclaims the religion of Islam, all the Arab tribes
unitedly acclaim him and
accept His religion, and subdue all the lands promised to the children of
Prophet Abraham, we must
indeed be blind not to see that the Covenant was made with Ishmael and the
promise accom- plished in
the person of Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace).
Before concluding this article I wish to draw the atten- tion of the students
of the Bible, especially that
of the Higher Biblical Criticism, to the fact that the so-called Messianic
Prophecies and Passages belong
to a propaganda in favor of the Davidic Dynasty after the death of King
Solomon when his kingdom was
split into two. The two great Prophets Elias and Elisha, who flourished in the
Kingdom of Samariah or
Israel, do not even mention the name of David or Solomon. Jerusalem was not
longer the center of
religion for the Ten Tribes, and the Davidic claims to a perpetual reign was
rejected.
But Prophets like Ishaia and others who were attached to the Temple of
Jerusalem and the House of

David have foretold the coming of a great Prophet and Sovereign.


As it was said in the first article, there are certain mani- fest marks with
which the coming Last
Prophet will be known. And it is these marks that we shall attempt to study in
the future articles.
The Mystery Of The "Mispa"
In this article, as the title shows, I shall try to give an exposition of the
ancient Hebrew Cult of Stone,
which they inherited from Abraham, their great progenitor, and to show that
this Stone-Cult was
instituted at Mecca by that Patriarch and his son Ishmael; in the land of Canaan
by Isaac and Jacob; and
in Moab and elsewhere by the other descendants of Abraham.
By the term "Stone-Cult," let it be understood, I do not mean stone-worship,
which is idolatry; by it I
understand the worship of God at a specially consecrated stone meant for that
purpose. In those days,
when the chosen family were leading a nomadic and pastoral life, it had no
settled habitation where to
build a house, especially dedicated to the worship of God; they used to erect a
particular stone around
which they used to make a hajj; that is to say, to turn round seven times in the
form of a dancing-ring.
The word hajj might frighten the Christian readers and they might shrink at its
sight because of its
Arabic form and because of its being at present a Muslim religious
performance. The word hajj is exactly identical in meaning and etymology with
the same in the Hebrew and other Semitic languages.

The Hebrew verb hagag is the same as the Arabic hajaj, the difference being
only in the pronunciation of
the third letter of the Semitic alphabet gamal, which the Arabs pronounce as j.
The Law of Moses uses
this very word hagag or haghagh (1) when it orders the festival ceremonies to
be performed. The word
signifies to compass a building, an altar or a stone by running round it at a
regular and trained pace with
the purpose of performing a religious festival of rejoicing and chanting. In the
East the Christians still
practice what they call higga either during their festival days or at weddings.
Consequently, this word
has nothing to do with pilgrimage, which is derived from the Italian pellegrino,
and this also from the
Latin peregrinus - meaning a "foreigner."
------------- Footnotes: (1) Unlilke the Arabs, both the Hebrew as well as the
Aramaic peoples have no
j sound in their alphabet; their third letter, gamal, when hard has a g sound
and when soft or aspirate
becomes guttural and sounds gh. ------------End of footnote
Abraham during his sojourns frequently used to build an altar for worship
and sacrifice at different
places and on particular occasions. When Jacob was on his way to Padan Aram
and saw the vision of
that wonderful ladder, he erected a stone there, upon which he poured oil and
called it Bethel, i.e. "The
House of God"; and twenty years later he again visited that stone, upon which
he poured oil and "pure

wine," as recorded in Genesis xxviii. 10-22; xxxv. A special stone was erected as
a monument by Jacob
and his fatherin-law upon a heap of stones called Gal'ead in Hebrew, and
Yaghar sahdutha by Laban in
his Aramaic language, which means "a heap of witness." But the proper noun
they gave to the erected
stone was Mispa (Gen. xxxi. 45-55), which I prefer to write in its exact Arabic
form, Mispha, and this I
do for the benefit of my Muslim readers.
Now this Mispha became later on the most important place of worship, and
a center of the national
assemblies in the history of the people of Israel. It was here that Naphthah - a
Jewish hero - made a vow
"before the Lord," and after beating the Ammonites, he is supposed to have
offered his only daughter as
a burnt offering (Judges xi). It was at Mispha that four hundred thousand
swordsmen from the eleven
tribes of Israel assembled and "swore before the Lord" to exterminate the tribe
of Benjamin for an
abominable crime committed by the Benjamites of Geba' and succeeded
(Judges xx. xxi.). At Mispha all
the people were summoned by the Prophet Samuel, where they "swore before
the Lord" to destroy all
their idols and images, and then were saved from the hands of the Philistines (I
Sam. vii). It was here
that the nation assembled and Saul was appointed king over Israel (1 Sam. x) .
In short, every national

question of great moment was decided at this Mispha or at Bethel. It seems


that these shrines were built
upon high places or upon a raised platform, often called Ramoth, which
signifies a "high place." Even
after the building of the gorgeous Temple of Solomon, the Misphas were held
in great reverence. But,
like the Ka'aba at Mecca, these Misphas were often filled with idols and
images. After the destruction of
Jerusalem and the Temple by the Chaldeans, the Mispha still maintained its
sacred character as late as
the time of the Maccabees during the reign of King Antiochus (l).
Now, what does the word Mispa mean? It is generally translated into a
"watch-tower." It belongs to
that class of Semitic nouns - Asma Zarf - which take or drive their name from
the thing that they enclose or contain. Mispa is the place or building which
derives its name from sapha, an archaic word for
"stone." The usual word for stone in Hebrew is iben, and in Arabic hajar. The
Syriac for stone is kipa.
But safa or sapha seems to be common to them all for some particular object
or person when designated
as a "stone." Hence the real meaning of Mispa is the locality or place in which a
sapha or stone is set and
fixed. It will be seen that when this name, Mispa, was first given to the stone
erected upon a heap of
stone blocks, there was no edifice built around it. It is the spot upon which a
sapha rests, that is called
Mispa.

Before explaining the signification of the noun sapha I have to tax again the
patience of those of my
readers who are not acquainted with the Hebrew. The Arabic language lacks
the p sound in its alphabet
just as much as do the Hebrew and other Semitic languages, in which the letter
p, like g, is sometimes
soft and is pronounced like f or ph. In English, as a rule, the Semitic and Greek
words containing f
sound are transliterated and written by the insertion of "ph" instead of "f," e.g.
Seraph, Mustapha, and
Philosophy. It is in accordance with this rule that I prefer to write this word
sapha to safa.
------------- Footnote: (1) The Bible which I consult does not contain the socalled deutro- canonical or
Apocryphal books of the Old Testament. This Bible is published by the
American Bible Society (New
York 1893 ) . The title runs thus Kthahhi Qaddishi Dadiathiqi Wadiathiqi
Khadatt An Shad-wath
Poushaqa dmin lishani qdimaqi. Matha 'ta d'dasta. Biblioneta d' America [The
Holy Books of the Old
Testament and of the New Covenant (Testament), with the concordance or
witnesses. Translated from
the ancient languages. Published at the Press of the American Bible Society]. ------------ End of footnote
When Jesus Christ surnamed his first disciple Shim'on (Simon) with the
significant title of "Petros"
(Peter), he must evidently have had in his mind this ancient sacred Sapha
which had been lost long ago!

But, alas! we cannot positively set out the exact word which he expressed in
his own language. The
Greek form Petros in the masculine gender - Petra in the feminine - is so
unclassical and unGreek, that
one is astonished at its being ever adopted by the Churches. Did Jesus or any
other Jew ever dream of
calling the fisherman Bar Yona, Petros? Decidedly not. The Syriac version called
Pshitta has frequently
rendered this Greek form into Kipha (Kipa). And the very fact that even the
Greek text has preserved the
original name "Kephas," which the English versions have reproduced in the
shape of "Cephas," shows
that Christ spoke the Aramaic language and gave the surname "Kipha" to his
principal disciple.
The old Arabic versions of the New Testament have frequently written St.
Peter's name as "Sham'un'
as-Sapha"; that is to say, "Simon the Stone." The words of Christ: "Thou art
Peter," etc., have their
equivalent in the Arabic version in the form of "Antas-Sapha" (Matt. xvi. 18;
John i. 42, etc.).
It follows, therefore, that if Simon is the Sapha, the Church which was to be
built on it would
naturally be the Mispha. That Christ should liken Simon to Sapha and the
Church to Mispha is very
remarkable; but when I come to divulge the mystery hidden in this similitude
and the wisdom embodied
in the Sapha, then it must be accepted as the most marvelous truth of Prophet
Muhammad's merit to his

glorious title: 'THE MUSTAPHA'!


From what has been stated above, our curiosity would naturally lead one to
ask the following
questions: - (a) Why did the Muslims and Unitarian descendants of Abraham
choose a stone to perform their
religious service on or around it? (b) Why should this particular stone be
named sapha? (c) What is the
writer driving at? And so on - perhaps several others.
The stone was selected as the best suitable material upon which a traveling
devotee offered his
sacrifice, poured his pure oil and wine, (1) and performed his religious services
around it. It was more
than this; this stone was erected to commemorate the vows and certain
promises which a prophet or
righteous man made to his Creator, and the revelation he received from God.
Consequently, it was a
sacred monument to perpetuate the memory and the sacred character of a
great religious event. For such
a purpose no other material could surpass the stone. Not only does the solidity
and durability of the
stone make it suitable for that purpose, but its mere simplicity, cheapness,
worthlessness in a lonely
place would guarantee it against any attraction of human avarice or enmity to
steal or destroy it. As is
well known, the Law of Moses strictly forbids to hew or carve the stones of the
altar. The stone called
Sapha was to be absolutely left natural; no images, inscriptions, or engravings
were to be wrought upon

it, lest any one of these should be worshipped in time to come by the ignorant
people. Gold, iron silver,
or any other metal, could not answer all these qualities required in the simple
stone. It will be
understood, therefore, that the purest, the most durable, eligible, and the
safest material for a religious
and sacred monument could be none other than the stone.
------------ Footnote: 1. Wine was not forbidden to the people of Israel. -----------end of footnote
The molten bronze statue of the Jupiter worshipped by the heathen Roman
Pontifex Maximus, was
taken away from the Pantheon and recast into the image of St. Peter by order
of a Christian Sovereign
Pontiff; and indeed, the wisdom embodied in the Sapha is admirable and
worthy of all those who
worship no other object besides God.
It should also be remembered that not only is the erected Sapha a sacred
monument, but the very spot
and the circuit in which it is situated as well. And it is for this reason that the
Muslim hajj, like the
Hebrew higga, is performed round the building where the Sacred Stone is
fixed. It is known fact that the
Karamatians who carried the Black Stone from the Ka'aba and kept it in their
own country for some
twenty years, were obliged to bring and put it back in its former place because
they could not draw the
pilgrims from Mecca. If it had been gold or other precious object, it could not
have existed, at least, for

some five thousand years; or even if it had had on it some carvings or images
of art, it would have been
destroyed by the Prophet Muhammad himself.
As to the meaning - or rather meanings - of the Sapha, I have already
referred to them as qualities of
the stone.
The word consists of the consonants "sadi" and "pi" ending with the vowel
"hi" both as a verb and
noun. It means, in its qal form, "to purify, to watch, to gaze from distance, and
to choose." It also has the meanings of "to be firm and sound"; in its pi'el
paradigm, which is causative, it simply means "to make a
choice, to cause to elect," and so on.
A man who watched from a tower was called Sophi (2 Kings ix. 17, etc.). In
ancient times - that is,
before the building of the Temple of Solomon - the Prophet or the "Man of
God" was called Roi or
Hozi, which means the "seer" ( 1 Sam. ix. 9). The Hebrew scholars are, of
course, familiar with the word
Msaphpi, or rather Msappi, which is equivalent in orthography to the Arabic
musaphphi, which signifies
"one who endeavors to elect that which is pure, sound, firm," and so forth. The
watchman on the Tower
of Yizrael, as quoted above, was gazing and watching sharply from a great
distance to distinguish a
company of persons coming on towards the town. He saw the first messenger
of the King who arrived
and joined the group but did not return. The same was the case with the
second and the third envoy. It

was later on that the Sophi could distinguish the chief of the group as Jehu.
Now, what then was the
business and the office of that watchman? It was to look out sharply from
some distance to distinguish
one among the others with a view to understanding his identity and his
movements, if at all possible, and
then to inform his king. If you ask: What was the business and the office of the
solitary Sophi of the
Mispa? the answer - which would merely be that he used to watch from the
minaret of the Misppha
(Mispa) in order to distinguish the identity of the pilgrims in the desert, or that
he used to keep watch
against some danger - could not satisfy an eager inquirer. If so, the Mispha
would lose its religious and
sacred character, and would rather seem to assume that of a military
watchtower. But the case with the
Sophi of the Mispha was quite different. Originally the Mispha was only a
simple shrine on a solitary
high place in Gal'ead where the Sophi with his family or attendants used to
live. After the conquest and
occupation of the land of Canaan by Israel, the number of the Misphas
increases, and they soon become
great religious centers and develop into institutions of learning and
confraternities. They seem to be like
the Islamic Mevlevi, Bektashi, Neqshbendi, and other religious confraternities,
each one of them being
under its own Sheikh and Murshid. They had schools attached to the Mispha,
where the Law, the

religion, the Hebrew literature and other branches of knowledge were taught.
But over and above this
educational work, the Sophi was the supreme head of a community of initiates
whom he used to instruct
and teach the esoteric or mystic religion which we know under the name of
Sophia. Indeed, what we
term to-day Sufis were then called nbiyim or "prophets," and what is called, in
Islamic takkas, zikr or
invocation in prayer, they used to term "prophesying." In the time of the
Prophet Samuel, who was the
head of the State as well as that of the Mispha institutions, these disciples and
initiates had become very
numerous; and when Saul was anointed and crowned, he joined the zikr or
religious practice of
invocation with the initiates and was announced everywhere: "Behold Saul
also among the Prophets."
And this saying became a proverb; for he was also "prophesying" with the
group of prophets (1 Sam. x
9-13). The Sufism among the Hebrews continued to be an esoteric religious
confraternity under the
supremacy of the Prophet of the time until the death of King Solomon. After
the division of the kingdom
into two, it appears that a great schism had taken place among the Sufis too. In
the time of the Prophet
Elias, about 900 B.C., we are told that he was the only true Prophet left and
that all others were killed;
and that there were eight hundred and fifty prophets of the Baal and Ishra who
"ate at the table of Queen

Izabel" (1 Kings xviii. 19). But only a few years later, Elias's disciple and
successor, the Prophet Elisha,
at Bethel and at Jericho is met by scores of the "sons of Prophets" who foretell
him about the imminent
ascension of his master Elias (2 Kings ii.). Whatever may have been the real
position of the Hebrew Sufis (or Sophees) after the great religious
and national schism, one thing is certain, namely, that the true knowledge of
God and the esoteric
science of religion was preserved until the appearance of Jesus Christ, who
built his Community of the
Initiates in the Inner Religion upon Simon the Sapha, and that the true Sophis
or seers of the Christian
Mispha perpetuated this knowledge and watched over it until the appearance
of the Elect of Allah,
Prophet Muhammad al-Mustapha - the Hebrew "Mustaphi"!
The Bible mentions - as I said above - numerous prophets attached to the
Misphas; but we must well
understand that, as the Qur'an clearly declares, "God best knows whom He
shall appoint for His
Messenger" that He does not bestow the gift of prophecy on a person on
account of his nobility, riches,
or even piety, but for His own pleasure. The faith and all works of piety,
meditations, spiritual exercises,
prayers, fasting, and divine knowledge may raise a novice to become a spiritual
murshid or guide, or to
the rank of a saint, but never to the status of a prophet; for prophecy is not
procured by effort, but is a

gift of God. Even among the Prophets there are only a few who were
Messengers favored with a special
book and commissioned to direct a certain people or with a particular mission.
Therefore the term
"prophets" as used in the Hebrew Scriptures is often ambiguous.
I must also remark in this connection that probably the majority of the
material of the Bible was the
work or production of these Misphas before the Babylonian Captivity or even
earlier, but afterwards has
been revised by unknown hands until it has taken the shape which we
nowadays have.
It now remains to say few words about the Muslim Sufism and the Greek
word Sophia (wisdom or
love of wisdom); and a discussion of these two systems of high knowledge
does lie outside the scope of
this article. Philosophy, in the wider sense of the term, is the study or science
of the first principles of
being; in other words, it transcends the limits of physics to study the pure
being, and leaves behind the
study of causes or laws of that which happens or is seen in nature trying to
reach the metaphysics which
deals with faith, ethics and law known now as the spiritual aspects of
civilization, while the physic is
considered the material aspects of civilization. Thereby it takes the greatest
pains to find the truth.
The difference between the Greek Sophia and the Muslim Sufi is that the
Greek have mixed between

the materialistic and spiritual areanas and at the same time, they failed to
received revelation as their top
philosophers i.e. Aristotle and Socrates admitted that dealing in the
metaphysics without receiving
revelation from the Creator is like crossing the ocean on a piece of wood!
Whereas the lucky Muslim
Sufis concentrated on the area of ethics and following the footsteps of Prophet
Muhammad and his
companions in disciplining one's heart and self in sailing to reach the High
Assembly of the Angels and
so forth.
Muslim Sufism is the contemplation on the deeds of Allah and His Creation
and ones self and
avoiding the contemplation on Allah Himself because the human is made of his
environment and sooner
use their five senses to describe Allah which becomes exceedingly dangerous
as it happened with the
Egyptians when they imagined the Sphinx that has head, paws, body etc.
The superiority of the Islamic Sophia to the Greek philosophy is manifest
from the object it views at.
And it is decidedly superior to the Christian celibacy and monasticism in its
indifference towards the
consciences and the beliefs of other people. A Muslim Sophi (Sufi) always
entertains respect for other
religions, laughs at the idea of "heresy" and abhors all persecutions and
oppressions. Most of the Christian Saints were either persecutors of or the
persecuted by heretics, and their celebrity consists in
their excess of intolerance. This is, alas but only too true.

It is also worthy noting that in the time of the first era of Islam, Muslim Sufis
were referred to as
"Zahid" or "Zohad" and at that time they had no methodology, but they had a
complete fellowship of
faith and jurisprudence to their respective school. They concentrated on the
ethics and thinking. The
following generation established the methodology of courses to be taken by
beginners, the intermediate
and the advanced based on the Qur'an and Prophetic Quotations. It is very
clear that the daily rectition of
Qur'an, the remembrance of the Names of Allah and the prayer on Prophet
Muhammad together with
asking Allah for forgiveness and praying at night, fasting during the day are
some of the important
characteristics. On the other hand, the authentic Muslim Sufi reject any
insincere members who fail to
keep the way of Prophet Muhammad. Admittedly, many ignorant people were
exposed, thinking that
these insincere cases are representative of Muslim Sufism. They fail to
understand that the (Ihsan) which
is one third of the Religion, as demonstrated in the answer of Prophet
Muhammad to the question "What
is Islam?, What Is Iman, and What is Ihsan? when Prophet Muhammad
commented that the one who
asked the questioner was the angel Gabriel and that he had come to teach you
the Religion. Also, Islam
was served by the four schools of jurisprudence while iman was served by faith
schools such as Salaf

and Asharia and of course Sufi served Ihsan. If some one doubts this let him
name the scholars of Ihsan,
because if you go to an Islamic Court which belongs to the section of Islam, or
go to a Faith school and
admit that he has jeouslousy and malice in his heart etc. of the disease of the
soul both schools will
admit that they have nothing to do with this aspect and refer him to an Abid,
worshiper, or Sufi, Shaykh.
As a secondary remark I should like to add that the Muslim authors have
always written the Greek
word "philosophy" in the form of Phelsepha with sin instead of sadi or tzadi,
which is one of the
constituent letters in the Hebrew and Arabic words Sapha and Sophi. I think
this form was introduced
into the Arabic literature by the Assyrian translators who formerly belonged to
the Nestorian sect. The
Turks write the name St. Sophia of Constantinople with sadi, but philosophy
with sin, like the samekh of
the Hebrews. I believe that the Greek Sophia is to be identified etymologically
with the Hebrew word;
and the idea that the Muslim word sophia (sowfiya) is derived from the soph,
which means "wool,"
ought to be abandoned.
The true Sophia - or wisdom - the true knowledge of God, the true science of
religion and morality,
and the infallible selection of the Last Messenger of Allah from among all His
Messengers, belonged to

the ancient institution of Israel called Mispha, until it was transformed into the
Mispha of the Nassara or
Christian. It is indeed marvelous to see how complete is the analogy and how
the economy of God
concerning His dealings with man is carried on with absolute uniformity and
order. The Mispha is the
filter where all the data and persons are filtered and strained by the
Musaphphi (Hebrew, Mosappi) as by
a colander (for such is the meaning of the word); so that the genuine is
distinguished and separated from
the false, and the pure from the impure; yet centuries succeed each other,
myriads of Prophets come and
go, still the Mustapha, the Elected One, does not appear. Then comes the Holy
Jesus; but he is rejected
and persecuted, because there existed no longer in Israel that official Mispha
which would have
recognized and announced him as a true Messenger of God who was sent to
bear witness to the
Mustapha that was the Last Prophet to follow him. The "Grand Assembly of
the Synagogue" convoked
and instituted by Ezra and Nehemiah, the last member of which was "Simeon
the Just" (ob 310 B.C.),
was succeeded by the Supreme Tribunal of Jerusalem, called the "Sahedrin";
but this latter Assembly,
whose President was the Nassi or the "Prince," condemned Jesus to death
because it did not recognize his person and the nature of his divine mission. A
few Sophis, however, knew Jesus and believed in his
prophetical mission; but the crowds at one time mistook him for the Mustapha
or the "elected"

Messenger of Allah, and seized and acclaimed him king, but he vanished and
disappeared from among
them. He was not the Mustaplta, otherwise it would be ridiculous to make
Simon the Sapha and his
Church the Mispha; for the office and the duty of the Mispha was to watch and
look for the Last
Messenger, so that when he came he would be proclaimed as the Elected and
Chosen One - the
Mustapha. If Jesus were the Mustapha, there would be no need for the
institution of the Mispha any
longer. This is a very deep and interesting subject; it deserves patient study.
Prophet Muhammad alMustapha is the mystery of the Mispha, and the
treasure of the Sophia.
Prophet Muhammad Is The "Shiloh"
Prophet Jacob, the grandson of Prophet Abraham, is lying sick in bed; he is in
his one hundred and
forty-seventh year, and the end is approaching rapidly. He summons his twelve
sons and their families to
his bedroom; and he blesses each son and foretells the future of his tribe. It is
generally known as the
"Testament of Jacob," and is written in an elegant Hebrew style with a poetic
touch. It contains a few
words which are unique and never occur again in the Bible. The Testament
recalls the varied events in
the life of a man who has had many ups and downs. He is reported to have
taken advantage of his
brother's hunger and bought his right of birth for a dish of pottage, and
deceived his blind old father and

obtained the blessing which by birthright belonged to Esau. He served seven


years to marry Rachel, but
was deceived by her father, being married to her elder sister Liah; so he had to
serve another term of
seven years for the former. The massacre of all the male population by his
(JacobProphet Muhammad Is
The "Shiloh"
Prophet Jacob, the grandson of Prophet Abraham, is lying sick in bed; he is in
his one hundred and
forty-seventh year, and the end is approaching rapidly. He summons his twelve
sons and their families to
his bedroom; and he blesses each son and foretells the future of his tribe. It is
generally known as the
"Testament of Jacob," and is written in an elegant Hebrew style with a poetic
touch. It contains a few
words which are unique and never occur again in the Bible. The Testament
recalls the varied events in
the life of a man who has had many ups and downs. He is reported to have
taken advantage of his
brother's hunger and bought his right of birth for a dish of pottage, and
deceived his blind old father and
obtained the blessing which by birthright belonged to Esau. He served seven
years to marry Rachel, but
was deceived by her father, being married to her elder sister Liah; so he had to
serve another term of
seven years for the former. The massacre of all the male population by his
(Jacob's) two sons Simon and

Livi for the pollution of his (Jacob's) daughter Dina by Schechim, the prince of
that town, had greatly
grieved him. The shameful conduct of his first-born, Reubin, in defiling his
father's bed by lying with
his concubine was never forgotten nor forgiven by him. But the greatest grief
that befell him after the
loss of his beloved wife Rachel was the disappearance for many years of his
favorite son Joseph. His
descent into Egypt and his meeting with Joseph caused him great joy and the
recovery of his lost sight.
Jacob was a Prophet, and surnamed by God "Israel," the name which was
adopted by the twelve tribes
that descended from him.
The policy of usurpation of the birthright runs through the records of the Book
of Genesis, and Jacob is
represented as a hero of this violation of the rights of other persons. He is
reported to give the birthright of his grandson Manashi to his younger brother
Ephraim, in spite of the remonstrances of their father
Joseph (chap. xlviii.). He deprives his firstborn son of his birthright and accords
the blessing to Judah,
his fourth son, because the former had lain with Bilha, Jacobs's "concubine,"
who is the mother of his
two sons Dan and Nephthali; and deprives the latter because he was no better
than the other, inasmuch
as he committed adultery with his own daughter-in-law Thamar, who bore a
son who became an
ancestor of David and of Jesus Christ (chap. xxv. 22, chap. xxxviii.)!

It is indeed incredible that the author, or at least the final editor, of this book
was "inspired by the Holy
Spirit," as the Jews and Christians allege. Jacob is reported to have married two
sisters simultaneously,
an action condemned by God's law (Lev. xviii. 18). In fact, with the exception of
Joseph and Benjamin,
his other sons are described as rough shepherds, liars (to their father and to
Joseph), murderers,
adulterers, which means it was a family not becoming a Prophet at all. Of
course, the Muslims cannot
accept any calumny against a Prophet or a righteous man unless it be expressly
recorded or mentioned in
the Qur'an. We do not believe the sin attributed to Judah to be true (cf. chap.
xxxviii), otherwise the
blessing accorded to him by Jacob would be a contradiction; and it is this very
blessing that we propose
to study and discuss in this article.
Jacob could not have blessed his son Judah if the latter was really the father of
his own daughter-in-law's
son, Peres, for both adulterers would be condemned to death by the Law of
God, Who had given him the
gift of prophecy (Lev. xx 12). However, the story of Jacob and that of his not
very exemplary family is
to be found in the Book of Genesis (chaps. xxv. - 1).
The famous prophecy, which may be considered as the nucleus of this
testament, is contained in the
tenth verse of the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis as follows: -

"The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, And the Lawgiver from between his
feet, Until the coming of
Shiloh, And to him belongeth the obedience of peoples."
This is the literal translation of the Hebrew text as much as I can understand it.
There are two words in
the text which are unique and occur nowhere else in the Old Testament. The
first of these words is
"Shiloh," and the other "yiqha" or "yiqhath (by construction or contraction).
Shiloh is formed of four letters, shin, yod, lamed and hi. There is a "Shiloh," the
proper name of a town
in Ephraim, (1 Sam. i. etc.), but there is no yod in it. This name cannot be
identical with, or refer to, the
town where the Ark of the Covenant or the Tabernacle was; for until then no
sceptre or lawgiver had
appeared in the tribe of Judah. The word certainly refers to a person, and not
to a place.
As far as I can remember, all the versions of the Old Testament have preserved
this original Shiloh
without giving it a rendering. It is only the Syriac Pshitta (in Arabic called alBessita) that has translated
it into "He to whom it belongs." It is easy to see how the translator has
understood the word as
composed of "sh" abridged form of asher= "he, that," and loh (the Arabic lehu)
= "is his. ' Consequently,
according to the Pshitta, the clause will be read in the following manner: "Until
he to whom it belongeth
come, And," etc. The personal pronoun "it" may refer to the sceptre and the
lawgiver separately or

collectively, or perhaps to the "obedience" in the fourth clause of the verse,


the language being poetic.
According to this important version the sense of the prediction would appear
to be plainly this:- "The royal and prophetic character shall not pass away from
Judah until he to whom it belongs come, for
his is the homage of people."
But apparently this word is derived from the verb shalah and therefore
meaning "peaceful, tranquil, quiet
and trust-worthy."
It is most likely that some old transcriber or copyist currente calamo and with a
slip of pen has detached
the left side of the final letter het, and then it has been transformed into hi, for
the two letters are
exceedingly alike being onlvery slightly different on the left side. If such an
error has been transmitted
in the Hebrew manuscript - either intentionally or not - then the word is
derived from shalah, ' to send,
delegate," the past participle of which would be shaluh - that is, "one who is
sent, messenger."
But there appears no reasonable cause for a deliberate change of het for hi,
since the yod is preserved in
the present shape of Shiloh, which has no vaw that would be necessary for the
past participle Shaluh.
Besides, I think the Septuagint has retained the Shiloh as it is. The only possible
change, therefore,
would be of the final letter het into hi. If such be the case, then the word
would take the form of Shiluah

and correspond exactly to the "Messenger of Yah," the very title given to
Muhammad alone "Rasul
Allah," i.e. "the Messenger of God." I know that the term "shiluah" is also the
technical word for the
"letter of divorce," and this because the divorced wife is "sent" away.
I can guess of no other interpretation of this singular name besides the three
versions I have mentioned.
Of course, it goes without saying that both the Jews and Christians believe this
blessing to be one of the
foremost Messianic prophecies. That Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth, is the
Christ or Messiah no Muslim
can deny, for the Qur'an does acknowledge that title. That every Israelite King
and High Priest was
anointed with the holy oil composed of olive oil and various spices we know
from the Hebrew
Scriptures (Lev. xxx. 23-33 ) . Even the Zardushti Koresh King of Persia is called
God's Christ: "Thus
says the Lord to His Christ Cyrus," etc. (Isa. xlv. 1-7).
It would be superfluous here to mention that although neither Cyrus nor Jesus
were anointed by the
sacred anointment, yet they are called Messiahs.
As to Jesus, even if his prophetic mission were recognized by the Jews, his
Messianic office could never
be accepted by them. For none of the marks or characteristics of the Messiah
they expect are to be found
in the man whom they attempted to crucify. The Jews expect a Messiah with
the sword and temporal

power, a conqueror who would restore and extend the kingdom of David, and
a Messiah who would
gather together the dispersed Israel unto the land of Canaan, and subdue
many nations under his yoke;
but they could never acclaim as such a preacher upon the Mount of Olives, or
one born in a manger.
To show that this very ancient prophecy has been practically and literally
fulfilled in Prophet
Muhammad the following arguments can be advanced. By the allegorical
expressions "the Sceptre" and
"Law-giver" it is unanimously admitted by the commentators to mean the royal
authority and the
prophecy respectively. Without stopping long to examine the root and
derivation of the second singular
word "yiqha," we may adopt either of its two significations, "obedience" or
"expectation." Let us follow the first interpretation of Shiloh as given in the
Pshitta version: "he to whom it belongs."
This practically means "the owner of the sceptre and the law," or "he who
possesses the sovereign and
legislative authority, and his is the obedience of nations." Who, then, can this
mighty Prince and great
Legislator be? Certainly not Moses, for he was the first organizer of the Twelve
Tribes of Israel, and
before him there never appeared a king or prophet in the tribe of Judah.
Decidedly not David, because he
was the first king and prophet descended from Judah. And evidently not Jesus
Christ, because he himself
repudiated the idea that the Messiah whom Israel was expecting was a son of
David (Matt. xxii. 44, 45;

Mark xii. 35-37; Luke xx. 41-44). He has left no written law, and never dreamt
of assuming the royal
sceptre; in fact, he advised the Jews to be loyal to Caesar and pay him tribute,
and on one occasion the
crowds attempted to make him a king, but he escaped and hid himself. His
Gospel was written on the
tablet of his heart, and he delivered his message of "good news," not in
scripto, but orally. In this
prophecy there is no question of the salvation from original sin by the blood of
a crucified person, nor of
a reign of a god-man over human hearts. Besides, Jesus did not abrogate the
Law of Moses, but he
distinctly declared that he had come to fulfill it; nor was he the last Prophet;
for after him St. Paul speaks
of many "prophets" in the Church.
Prophet Muhammad came with military power and the Qur'an to replace the
old Jewish worn-out sceptre
and the impracticable and old-fashioned law of sacrifices and of a corrupt
priesthood. He proclaimed the
purest religion of the one true God, and laid down the best practical precepts
and rules for morals and
conduct of men. He established the religion of Islam which has united into one
real brotherhood many
nations and peoples who associate no being with the Almighty. All Muslim
peoples obey the Prophet of
Allah, love and reverence him as the establisher of their religion, but never
worship him or give him

divine honor and attributes. He crushed and put an end to the last vestiges of
the Jewish principality of
Qureihda and Khaibar, having destroyed all their castles and fortifications.
The second interpretation of the tetragram "Shilh," pronounced Shiloh, is
equally important and in favor
of Prophet Muhammad. As it was shown above, the word signifies "tranquil,
peaceful, trustworthy,
quiet" and so forth. The Aramaic form of the word is Shilya, from the same
root Shala or shla. This verb
is not used in Arabic.
It is a well-known fact in the history of the Prophet of Arabia that, previous to
his call to the
Messengership, he was extremely quiet, peaceful, trustworthy, and of a
contemplative and attractive
character; that he was surnamed by the people of Mecca "Muhammad alEmm." When the Meccans
gave this title "Emm" or "Amm" to Muhammad they had not the remotest idea
of "Shiloh," yet the
ignorance of the idolatrous Arabs was made use of by God to confound the
unbelieving Jews, who had
scriptures and knew their contents. The Arabic verb amana, like the Hebrew
aman, to be "firm, constant,
secure," and therefore "to be tranquil, faithful and trustworthy," shows that
"amin" is precisely the
equivalent of Shiloh, and conveys all the significations contained in it.
Prophet Muhammad, before he was called by God to preach the religion of
Islam and to abolish the

idolatry which he successfully accomplished, was the most quiet and truthful
man in Mecca; he was
neither a warrior nor a legislator; but it was after he assumed the prophetical
mission that he became the
most eloquent speaker and the best valiant Arab. He fought with the infidels
sword in hand, not for his
own personal interest, but for the glory of Allah and for the cause of His
religion - Al-Islam. He was
shown by God the keys of the treasures of the earth, but he did not accept
them, and when he died he
was practically a poor man. No other worshiper of God, whether a king or a
prophet, has rendered such an admirably great and precious service to God
and to man as Prophet Muhammad has done: to God in
eradicating the idolatry from a large part of the globe, and to man by having
given the most perfect
religion and the best laws for his guidance and security. He seized the sceptre
and the law from the Jews;
fortified the former and perfected the latter. If Prophet Muhammad were
permitted to reappear to-day in
Mecca or Medina, he would be met by the Muslims with the same affection
and "obedience" as he saw
there during his earthly life. And he would see with a deep sense of pleasure
that the Holy Book he had
delivered is the same without the least alteration in it, and that it is chanted
and recited exactly as he and
his companions did. He would be glad to congratulate them on their fidelity to
the religion and to the
Oneness of Allah; and to the fact that they have not made of him a god or son
of a god.

As to the third interpretation of the name "Shiloh" I remarked that it might


possibly be a corruption of
"Shaluah," and in that case it would indisputably correspond to the Arabic title
of the Prophet so often
repeated in the Qur'an, namely, "Rasul" which means exactly the same as
Shaluah does, i.e. "a
Messenger." "Shaluah Elohim" of the Hebrews is precisely the "Rasul Allah"
which phrase is chanted
five times a day by the Crier to the Prayers from the minaret of all mosques in
the world.
In the Qur'an several prophets, particularly those to whom a sacred scripture
has been delivered, are
mentioned as Rasul; but nowhere in the Old Testament do we come across
Shiloh or Shaluah except in
the Testament of Jacob.
Now from whatever point of view we try to study and examine this prophecy
of Jacob, we are forced, by
the reason of its actual fulfillment in Prophet Muhammad, to admit that the
Jews are vainly expecting
the coming of another Shiloh, and that the Christians are obstinately persisting
in their error in believing
that it was Jesus who was intended by Shiloh.
Then there are other observations which deserve our serious consideration. In
the first place it is very
plain that the sceptre and the legislator would remain in the tribe of Judah so
long as the Shiloh does not
appear on the scene. According to the Jewish claim, Shiloh has not come yet. It
would follow, therefore,

that both the Royal Sceptre and the Prophetical Succession were still in
existence and belonged to that
tribe. But both these institutions have been extinct for over thirteen centuries.
In the second place it is to be observed that the tribe of Judah also has
disappeared together with its royal
authority and its sister - the prophetical succession. It is an indispensable
condition for the maintenance
of a tribal existence and identity to show that the tribe as a whole lives either
in its own fatherland or
elsewhere collectively and speaks its own language. But with the Jews the case
is just the reverse. To
prove yourself to be an Israelite, you need hardly trouble yourself about it; for
anybody will recognize
you, but you can never prove yourself to belong to one of the twelve tribes.
You are dispersed and have
lost your very language.
The Jews are forced to accept one or the other of the two alternatives, namely,
either to admit that Shiloh
has come already, but that their forefathers did not recognize him, or to accept
the fact that there exists
no longer a tribe of Judah from which Shiloh will have to descend.
As a third observation it is to be remarked that the text clearly implies, and
much against the JudeoChristian belief, that Shiloh is to be a total stranger to
the tribe of Judah, and even to all the other tribes.
This is so evident that a few minutes of reflection are sufficient to convince
one. The prediction clearly indicates that when Shiloh comes the sceptre and
the lawgiver will pass away from Judah; this can only

be realized if Shiloh be a stranger to Judah. If Shiloh is a descendant of Judah,


how could those two
elements cease to exist in that tribe? It could not be a descendant of any of the
other tribes either, for the
sceptre and the lawgiver were for all Israel, and not for one tribe only. This
observation explodes the
Christian claim as well. For Jesus is a descendant of Judah through Mary.
I very often wonder at these itinerant and erring Jews. For over twenty-five
centuries they have been
learning a hundred languages of the peoples whom they have been serving.
Since both the Ishmaelites
and the Israelites are the offspring of Abraham, what does it matter to them
whether Shiloh comes from
Judah or Zebulun, from Esau or Isachar, from Ishmael or Isaac, as long as he is a
descendant of their
father Abraham? Obey the Law of Prophet Muhammad, becomes Muslims,
and then it will be that you
can go and live in your old fatherland in peace and security.
's) two sons Simon and Livi for the pollution of his (Jacob's) daughter Dina by
Schechim, the prince of
that town, had greatly grieved him. The shameful conduct of his first-born,
Reubin, in defiling his
father's bed by lying with his concubine was never forgotten nor forgiven by
him. But the greatest grief
that befell him after the loss of his beloved wife Rachel was the disappearance
for many years of his
favorite son Joseph. His descent into Egypt and his meeting with Joseph caused
him great joy and the

recovery of his lost sight. Jacob was a Prophet, and surnamed by God "Israel,"
the name which was
adopted by the twelve tribes that descended from him.
The policy of usurpation of the birthright runs through the records of the Book
of Genesis, and Jacob is
represented as a hero of this violation of the rights of other persons. He is
reported to give the birthright
of his grandson Manashi to his younger brother Ephraim, in spite of the
remonstrances of their father
Joseph (chap. xlviii.). He deprives his firstborn son of his birthright and accords
the blessing to Judah,
his fourth son, because the former had lain with Bilha, Jacobs's "concubine,"
who is the mother of his
two sons Dan and Nephthali; and deprives the latter because he was no better
than the other, inasmuch
as he committed adultery with his own daughter-in-law Thamar, who bore a
son who became an
ancestor of David and of Jesus Christ (chap. xxv. 22, chap. xxxviii.)!
It is indeed incredible that the author, or at least the final editor, of this book
was "inspired by the Holy
Spirit," as the Jews and Christians allege. Jacob is reported to have married two
sisters simultaneously,
an action condemned by God's law (Lev. xviii. 18). In fact, with the exception of
Joseph and Benjamin,
his other sons are described as rough shepherds, liars (to their father and to
Joseph), murderers,
adulterers, which means it was a family not becoming a Prophet at all. Of
course, the Muslims cannot

accept any calumny against a Prophet or a righteous man unless it be expressly


recorded or mentioned in
the Qur'an. We do not believe the sin attributed to Judah to be true (cf. chap.
xxxviii), otherwise the
blessing accorded to him by Jacob would be a contradiction; and it is this very
blessing that we propose
to study and discuss in this article.
Jacob could not have blessed his son Judah if the latter was really the father of
his own daughter-in-law's
son, Peres, for both adulterers would be condemned to death by the Law of
God, Who had given him the
gift of prophecy (Lev. xx 12). However, the story of Jacob and that of his not
very exemplary family is
to be found in the Book of Genesis (chaps. xxv. - 1). The famous prophecy,
which may be considered as the nucleus of this testament, is contained in the
tenth verse of the forty-ninth chapter of Genesis as follows: "The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah, And the Lawgiver from between his
feet, Until the coming of
Shiloh, And to him belongeth the obedience of peoples."
This is the literal translation of the Hebrew text as much as I can understand it.
There are two words in
the text which are unique and occur nowhere else in the Old Testament. The
first of these words is
"Shiloh," and the other "yiqha" or "yiqhath (by construction or contraction).
Shiloh is formed of four letters, shin, yod, lamed and hi. There is a "Shiloh," the
proper name of a town
in Ephraim, (1 Sam. i. etc.), but there is no yod in it. This name cannot be
identical with, or refer to, the

town where the Ark of the Covenant or the Tabernacle was; for until then no
sceptre or lawgiver had
appeared in the tribe of Judah. The word certainly refers to a person, and not
to a place.
As far as I can remember, all the versions of the Old Testament have preserved
this original Shiloh
without giving it a rendering. It is only the Syriac Pshitta (in Arabic called alBessita) that has translated
it into "He to whom it belongs." It is easy to see how the translator has
understood the word as
composed of "sh" abridged form of asher= "he, that," and loh (the Arabic lehu)
= "is his. ' Consequently,
according to the Pshitta, the clause will be read in the following manner: "Until
he to whom it belongeth
come, And," etc. The personal pronoun "it" may refer to the sceptre and the
lawgiver separately or
collectively, or perhaps to the "obedience" in the fourth clause of the verse,
the language being poetic.
According to this important version the sense of the prediction would appear
to be plainly this:"The royal and prophetic character shall not pass away from Judah until he to
whom it belongs come, for
his is the homage of people."
But apparently this word is derived from the verb shalah and therefore
meaning "peaceful, tranquil, quiet
and trust-worthy."
It is most likely that some old transcriber or copyist currente calamo and with a
slip of pen has detached

the left side of the final letter het, and then it has been transformed into hi, for
the two letters are
exceedingly alike being onlvery slightly different on the left side. If such an
error has been transmitted
in the Hebrew manuscript - either intentionally or not - then the word is
derived from shalah, ' to send,
delegate," the past participle of which would be shaluh - that is, "one who is
sent, messenger."
But there appears no reasonable cause for a deliberate change of het for hi,
since the yod is preserved in
the present shape of Shiloh, which has no vaw that would be necessary for the
past participle Shaluh.
Besides, I think the Septuagint has retained the Shiloh as it is. The only possible
change, therefore,
would be of the final letter het into hi. If such be the case, then the word
would take the form of Shiluah
and correspond exactly to the "Messenger of Yah," the very title given to
Muhammad alone "Rasul
Allah," i.e. "the Messenger of God." I know that the term "shiluah" is also the
technical word for the
"letter of divorce," and this because the divorced wife is "sent" away.
I can guess of no other interpretation of this singular name besides the three
versions I have mentioned. Of course, it goes without saying that both the
Jews and Christians believe this blessing to be one of the
foremost Messianic prophecies. That Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth, is the
Christ or Messiah no Muslim
can deny, for the Qur'an does acknowledge that title. That every Israelite King
and High Priest was

anointed with the holy oil composed of olive oil and various spices we know
from the Hebrew
Scriptures (Lev. xxx. 23-33 ) . Even the Zardushti Koresh King of Persia is called
God's Christ: "Thus
says the Lord to His Christ Cyrus," etc. (Isa. xlv. 1-7).
It would be superfluous here to mention that although neither Cyrus nor Jesus
were anointed by the
sacred anointment, yet they are called Messiahs.
As to Jesus, even if his prophetic mission were recognized by the Jews, his
Messianic office could never
be accepted by them. For none of the marks or characteristics of the Messiah
they expect are to be found
in the man whom they attempted to crucify. The Jews expect a Messiah with
the sword and temporal
power, a conqueror who would restore and extend the kingdom of David, and
a Messiah who would
gather together the dispersed Israel unto the land of Canaan, and subdue
many nations under his yoke;
but they could never acclaim as such a preacher upon the Mount of Olives, or
one born in a manger.
To show that this very ancient prophecy has been practically and literally
fulfilled in Prophet
Muhammad the following arguments can be advanced. By the allegorical
expressions "the Sceptre" and
"Law-giver" it is unanimously admitted by the commentators to mean the royal
authority and the
prophecy respectively. Without stopping long to examine the root and
derivation of the second singular

word "yiqha," we may adopt either of its two significations, "obedience" or


"expectation."
Let us follow the first interpretation of Shiloh as given in the Pshitta version:
"he to whom it belongs."
This practically means "the owner of the sceptre and the law," or "he who
possesses the sovereign and
legislative authority, and his is the obedience of nations." Who, then, can this
mighty Prince and great
Legislator be? Certainly not Moses, for he was the first organizer of the Twelve
Tribes of Israel, and
before him there never appeared a king or prophet in the tribe of Judah.
Decidedly not David, because he
was the first king and prophet descended from Judah. And evidently not Jesus
Christ, because he himself
repudiated the idea that the Messiah whom Israel was expecting was a son of
David (Matt. xxii. 44, 45;
Mark xii. 35-37; Luke xx. 41-44). He has left no written law, and never dreamt
of assuming the royal
sceptre; in fact, he advised the Jews to be loyal to Caesar and pay him tribute,
and on one occasion the
crowds attempted to make him a king, but he escaped and hid himself. His
Gospel was written on the
tablet of his heart, and he delivered his message of "good news," not in
scripto, but orally. In this
prophecy there is no question of the salvation from original sin by the blood of
a crucified person, nor of
a reign of a god-man over human hearts. Besides, Jesus did not abrogate the
Law of Moses, but he

distinctly declared that he had come to fulfill it; nor was he the last Prophet;
for after him St. Paul speaks
of many "prophets" in the Church.
Prophet Muhammad came with military power and the Qur'an to replace the
old Jewish worn-out sceptre
and the impracticable and old-fashioned law of sacrifices and of a corrupt
priesthood. He proclaimed the
purest religion of the one true God, and laid down the best practical precepts
and rules for morals and
conduct of men. He established the religion of Islam which has united into one
real brotherhood many
nations and peoples who associate no being with the Almighty. All Muslim
peoples obey the Prophet of
Allah, love and reverence him as the establisher of their religion, but never
worship him or give him divine honor and attributes. He crushed and put an
end to the last vestiges of the Jewish principality of
Qureihda and Khaibar, having destroyed all their castles and fortifications.
The second interpretation of the tetragram "Shilh," pronounced Shiloh, is
equally important and in favor
of Prophet Muhammad. As it was shown above, the word signifies "tranquil,
peaceful, trustworthy,
quiet" and so forth. The Aramaic form of the word is Shilya, from the same
root Shala or shla. This verb
is not used in Arabic.
It is a well-known fact in the history of the Prophet of Arabia that, previous to
his call to the
Messengership, he was extremely quiet, peaceful, trustworthy, and of a
contemplative and attractive

character; that he was surnamed by the people of Mecca "Muhammad alEmm." When the Meccans
gave this title "Emm" or "Amm" to Muhammad they had not the remotest idea
of "Shiloh," yet the
ignorance of the idolatrous Arabs was made use of by God to confound the
unbelieving Jews, who had
scriptures and knew their contents. The Arabic verb amana, like the Hebrew
aman, to be "firm, constant,
secure," and therefore "to be tranquil, faithful and trustworthy," shows that
"amin" is precisely the
equivalent of Shiloh, and conveys all the significations contained in it.
Prophet Muhammad, before he was called by God to preach the religion of
Islam and to abolish the
idolatry which he successfully accomplished, was the most quiet and truthful
man in Mecca; he was
neither a warrior nor a legislator; but it was after he assumed the prophetical
mission that he became the
most eloquent speaker and the best valiant Arab. He fought with the infidels
sword in hand, not for his
own personal interest, but for the glory of Allah and for the cause of His
religion - Al-Islam. He was
shown by God the keys of the treasures of the earth, but he did not accept
them, and when he died he
was practically a poor man. No other worshiper of God, whether a king or a
prophet, has rendered such
an admirably great and precious service to God and to man as Prophet
Muhammad has done: to God in

eradicating the idolatry from a large part of the globe, and to man by having
given the most perfect
religion and the best laws for his guidance and security. He seized the sceptre
and the law from the Jews;
fortified the former and perfected the latter. If Prophet Muhammad were
permitted to reappear to-day in
Mecca or Medina, he would be met by the Muslims with the same affection
and "obedience" as he saw
there during his earthly life. And he would see with a deep sense of pleasure
that the Holy Book he had
delivered is the same without the least alteration in it, and that it is chanted
and recited exactly as he and
his companions did. He would be glad to congratulate them on their fidelity to
the religion and to the
Oneness of Allah; and to the fact that they have not made of him a god or son
of a god.
As to the third interpretation of the name "Shiloh" I remarked that it might
possibly be a corruption of
"Shaluah," and in that case it would indisputably correspond to the Arabic title
of the Prophet so often
repeated in the Qur'an, namely, "Rasul" which means exactly the same as
Shaluah does, i.e. "a
Messenger." "Shaluah Elohim" of the Hebrews is precisely the "Rasul Allah"
which phrase is chanted
five times a day by the Crier to the Prayers from the minaret of all mosques in
the world.
In the Qur'an several prophets, particularly those to whom a sacred scripture
has been delivered, are

mentioned as Rasul; but nowhere in the Old Testament do we come across


Shiloh or Shaluah except in
the Testament of Jacob.
Now from whatever point of view we try to study and examine this prophecy
of Jacob, we are forced, by
the reason of its actual fulfillment in Prophet Muhammad, to admit that the
Jews are vainly expecting the coming of another Shiloh, and that the Christians
are obstinately persisting in their error in believing
that it was Jesus who was intended by Shiloh.
Then there are other observations which deserve our serious consideration. In
the first place it is very
plain that the sceptre and the legislator would remain in the tribe of Judah so
long as the Shiloh does not
appear on the scene. According to the Jewish claim, Shiloh has not come yet. It
would follow, therefore,
that both the Royal Sceptre and the Prophetical Succession were still in
existence and belonged to that
tribe. But both these institutions have been extinct for over thirteen centuries.
In the second place it is to be observed that the tribe of Judah also has
disappeared together with its royal
authority and its sister - the prophetical succession. It is an indispensable
condition for the maintenance
of a tribal existence and identity to show that the tribe as a whole lives either
in its own fatherland or
elsewhere collectively and speaks its own language. But with the Jews the case
is just the reverse. To
prove yourself to be an Israelite, you need hardly trouble yourself about it; for
anybody will recognize

you, but you can never prove yourself to belong to one of the twelve tribes.
You are dispersed and have
lost your very language.
The Jews are forced to accept one or the other of the two alternatives, namely,
either to admit that Shiloh
has come already, but that their forefathers did not recognize him, or to accept
the fact that there exists
no longer a tribe of Judah from which Shiloh will have to descend.
As a third observation it is to be remarked that the text clearly implies, and
much against the JudeoChristian belief, that Shiloh is to be a total stranger to
the tribe of Judah, and even to all the other tribes.
This is so evident that a few minutes of reflection are sufficient to convince
one. The prediction clearly
indicates that when Shiloh comes the sceptre and the lawgiver will pass away
from Judah; this can only
be realized if Shiloh be a stranger to Judah. If Shiloh is a descendant of Judah,
how could those two
elements cease to exist in that tribe? It could not be a descendant of any of the
other tribes either, for the
sceptre and the lawgiver were for all Israel, and not for one tribe only. This
observation explodes the
Christian claim as well. For Jesus is a descendant of Judah through Mary.
I very often wonder at these itinerant and erring Jews. For over twenty-five
centuries they have been
learning a hundred languages of the peoples whom they have been serving.
Since both the Ishmaelites
and the Israelites are the offspring of Abraham, what does it matter to them
whether Shiloh comes from

Judah or Zebulun, from Esau or Isachar, from Ishmael or Isaac, as long as he is a


descendant of their
father Abraham? Obey the Law of Prophet Muhammad, becomes Muslims,
and then it will be that you
can go and live in your old fatherland in peace and security.
Prophet Muhammad And The Emperor Constantine
The most wonderful and, perhaps, the most manifest prophecy about the
divine mission of the greatest
man and the Messenger of God, contained in the seventh chapter of the Book
of the Prophet Daniel,
deserves to be seriously studied and impartially considered. In it great events
in the history of mankind,
which succeed each other within a period of more than a thousand years, are
represented by the figures
of four formidable monsters in a prophetical vision to Daniel. "Four winds of
heaven were roaring against the great sea." The first beast that comes out
from the deep sea is a winged lion; then comes forth
the second beast in the shape of a bear holding three ribs between its teeth.
This is succeeded by the
third terrible beast in the form of a tiger having four wings and four heads. The
fourth beast, which is
more formidable and ferocious than the former ones, is a monster with ten
horns upon its head, and has
iron teeth in its mouth. Then a little horn shoot up amidst the others, before
which three horns break
down. Behold, human eyes and mouth appear upon this horn, and it begins to
speak great things against

the Most High. Suddenly, in the midst of the firma- ment the vision of the
Eternal is seen amidst a
resplendent light, seated upon His tribune (Arabic: Korsi) of the flames of light
whose wheels were of
shining light (1). A river of light is flowing and going forth before Him; and
millions of celes- tial
beings are worshiping Him and tens and tens of thousands of them are
standing before Him. The
Judgment Court is, as it were, holding its extraordinary session; the books are
opened. The body of the
beast is burnt with fire, but the blaspheming Horn is left alive until a "Bar
Nasha" - that is, a "Son of
Man" - is taken up on the clouds and presented to the Eternal, from whom he
receives power, honor and
kingdom for ever. The stupefied Prophet approaches one of those standing by
and beseeches him to
explain the mean- ing of this wonderful vision. The good Angel gives the
interpretation of it in such a
manner that the whole mystery enveloped in the figurative or allegorical
language and image is brought
to light.
------------ Footnote (1) The original word is nur, and, like the Arabic word, ir
means "light" rather than
"fire," which is represented in the text by "ish." ------------ end of footnote
Being a prince of the royal family, Daniel was taken, together with three other
Jewish youths, to the
palace of the King of Babylon, where he was educated in all the knowledge of
the Chaldeans. He lived

there until the Persian Conquest and the fall of the Babylonian Empire. He
prophesied under
Nebuchadnezzar as well as under Darius. The Biblical critics do not ascribe the
authorship of the entire
Book to Daniel, who lived and died at least a couple of centuries before the
Greek Conquest, which he
mentions under the name of "Yavan = Ionia." The first eight chapters - if I am
not mistaken - are written
in the Chaldean and the latter portion in the Hebrew. For our immediate
purpose it is not so much the
date and the authorship of the book that forms the important question as the
actual fulfillment of the
prophecy, contained in the Septuagint version, which was made some three
centuries before the
Christian era.
According to the interpretation by the Angel, each one of the four beasts
represents an empire. The
eagle-winged lion signifies the Chaldean Empire, which was mighty and rapid
like an eagle to pounce
upon the enemy. The bear represents the "Madai-Paris," or the Medo-Persian
Empire, which extended its
conquests as far as the Adriatic Sea and Ethiopia, thus holding with its teeth a
rib from the body of each
one of the three continents of the Eastern Hemisphere. The third beast, from
its tigrish nature of swift
bounds and fierceness, typifies the triumphant marches of Alexander the
Great, whose vast empire was,
after his death, divided into four kingdoms.

But the Angel who interprets the vision does not stop to explain with details
the first three kingdoms as
he does when he comes to the fourth beast. Here he enters with emphasis into
details. Here the scene in
the vision is magnified. The beast is practically a monster and a huge demon.
This is the formidable
Roman Empire. The ten horns are the ten Emperors of Rome who persecuted
the early Christians. Turn
the pages of any Church history for the first three centuries down to the time
of the so-called conversion
of Constantine the Great, and you will read nothing but the horrors of the
famous "Ten Persecutions." So far, all these four beasts represent the "Power
of Darkness," namely, the kingdom of satan, idolatry.
In this connection let me divert your attention to a luminous truth embodied in
that particularly
important article of the Faith of Islam: "The Good and Evil are from Allah.' It
will be remembered that
the old Persians believed in a "duality of gods," or, in other words, the Principle
of Good and Light, and
the other the Principle of Evil and Darkness; and that these eternal beings were
eternal enemies. It will
be observed that among the four beasts the Persian Power is represented by
the figure of a bear, less
ferocious than, and not so carnivorous as, the other three; and what is more:
inasmuch as it can roam
upon its hind legs it resembles man - at least from some distance.
In all the Christian theological and religious literature I have read, I have never
met with a single

statement of phrase similar to this article of the Muslim Faith: God is the real
author of good and evil.
This article of the Muslim Faith, as the contrary, is extremely repugnant to the
Christian religion, and a
source of hatred against the religion of Islam. Yet this very doctrine is explicitly
announced by God to
Cyrus, whom He calls His "Christ." He wants Cyrus to know that there is no god
besides Him, and
declares: "I am the Fashioner of the light, and the Creator of the darkness, the Maker of
peace, and the Creator of
evil; I am the Lord who does all these" (Isa. xlv. 1-7).
That God is the author of evil as well as of good is not in the least repulsive to
the idea of God's
goodness. The very denial of it is opposed to the absolute Oneness of the
Almighty. Besides, what we
term or understand as "evil" only affects the created beings, and it is for the
development and the
improvement of the creatures; it has not in the least any effect on God.
Now let us examine and find out who the Little Horn is. Having once definitely
ascertained the identity
of this eleventh king, the identity of the Bar Nasha will be settled per se. The
Little Horn springs up after
the Ten Persecutions under the reigns of the emperors of the Roman Power.
The empire was writhing
under four rivals, Constantine being one of them. They were all struggling for
the purple; the other three

died or fell in battle; and Constantine was left alone as the supreme sovereign
of the vast empire.
The earlier Christian commentators have in vain labored to identity this ugly
Little Horn with the AntiChrist, with the Pope of Rome by Protestants, and with
the establisher of Islam. (God forbid!) But the
later Bibical critics are at a loss to solve the problem of the fourth beast which
they wish to identify with
the Greek Empire and the Little Horn with Antiochus. Some of the critics, e.g.
Carpenter, consider the
Medo-Persian Power as two separate kingdoms. But this empire was not more
two than the late AustroHungarian Empire was. The explorations carried on by
the Scientific Mission of the French savant, M.
Morgan, in Shushan (Susa) and elsewhere leave no doubt on this point. The
fourth beast can, therefore,
be no other than the old Roman world.
To show that the Little Horn is no other than Constantine the Great, the
following arguments can safely
be advanced: (a) He overcame Maximian and the other two rivals and assumed the purple,
and put an end to the
persecution of Christianity. Gibbon's, The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire is, I think, the best
history that can instruct us about those times. You can never invent four rivals
after the Ten Persecutions of the Church, other than Constantine and his
enemies who fell before him like the three horns that fell
before the little one.
(b) All the four beasts are represented in the vision as irrational brutes; but the
Little Horn possessed a

human mouth and eyes which is, in other words, the description of a hideous
monster endowed with
reason and speech. He pro- claimed Christianity as the true religion, left Rome
to the Pope and made
Byzantium, which was named Constantinople, the seat of the empire. He
pretended to profess
Christianity but was never baptized till a little before his death, and even this is
a disputed question. The
legend that his conversion was due to the vision of the Cross in the sky has
long since - like the account
about Jesus Christ inserted in the Antiquities of Josephus - been exploded as
another piece of forgery.
The enmity of the beasts to the believers in God was brutal and savage, but
that of the rational Horn was
diabolical and malignant. This enmity was most noxious and harmful to the
religion, because it was
directed to pervert the Truth and the faith. All the previous attacks of the four
empires were pagan; they
persecuted and oppressed the believers but could not pervert the truth and
the faith. It was this
Constantine who entered in the fold of Jesus in the shape of a believer and in
the clothes of a sheep, but
inwardly he was not a true believer at all. How poisonous and pernicious this
enmity was will be seen
from the following: (c) The Horn-Emperor speaks "big things" or "great words" (rorbhan in the
Chaldean tongue) against the

Most High. To speak blasphemous words about God, to associate with Him
other creatures, and to
ascribe to Him foolish names and attributes, such as the "begetter" and
"begotten," "birth" and
"procession" (of the second and the third person), "unity in the trinity" and
"incarnation," is to deny His
Oneness.
Ever since the day when God revealed to Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees until
the Creed and the Acts of
the Council of Nicea were proclaimed and enforced by an imperial edict of
Constantine amidst the
horror and protests of three-fourths of the true believing members in A.D. 325,
never has the Oneness of
God so officially and openly been profaned by those who pretended to be His
people as Constantine and
his gang of the unbelieving ecclesiastic! In the first article of this series I have
shown the error of the
Churches concerning God and His attributes. I need not enter into this
unpleasant subject again; for it
gives me great pain and grief when I see a Holy Prophet and a Holy Spirit, both
God's noble creatures,
associated with Him by those who ought to know better.
lf Brahma and Osiris, or if Jupiter and Vesta were associated with God, we
would simply consider this
to be a pagan belief; but when we see Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth and one
of the millions of the holy
spirits in the service of the Eternal raised equal to the dignity of God, we
cannot find a name for those

who so believe other than what the Muslims have always been obliged to use the epithet "Gawun."
Now, since this hideous Horn speaking great words, uttering blasphemies
against God, is a king - as the
Angel reveals it to Daniel, and since the king was the eleventh of the Caesars
who reigned in Rome and
persecuted the people of God, he cannot be other than Constantine, because it
was his edict that
proclaimed the belief in the trinity of persons in the Deity, a creed which the
Old Testament is a living
document to condemn as blasphemy, and which both the Jews and Muslims
abhor. If it is other than
Constantine, then the question arises, who is he? He has already come and
gone, and not an impostor or
the Anti-Christ hereafter to appear, that we may be unable to know and
identify. If we do not admit that the Horn in question has come already, then
how are we to interpret the four beasts, the first of which is
certainly the Chaldean Empire, the second the MedoPersian, and so forth? If
the fourth beast does not
represent the Roman Empire, how can we interpret the third, with its four
heads, as the Empire of
Alexander, split into four kingdoms after his death? Is there any other Power
succeeding the Greek
Empire before the Roman Empire with its ten potentates persecuting the
believers in God? Sophistry and
illusion are of no use. The "Little Horn" is decidedly Constantine, even if we
may deny the prophecy of
Daniel. It is immaterial whether a prophet, priests or a sorcerer wrote the
seventh chapter of the Book of

Daniel. One thing is certain, that its predictions and descriptions of the events,
some twenty-four
centuries ago, are found to be exact, true, and have been fulfilled in the person
of Constantine the Great,
whom the Church of Rome has always very wisely abstained from beatifying as
a Saint, as the Greek
Church has done.
(d) Not only does the "Little Horn," which grew into something of a more
"formidable vision" than the
rest, speak impious words against the Most High, but also it wages war against
the "Saints of the Most
High, and vanquishes them" (verse 25). In the eyes of a Hebrew Prophet the
people who believed in one
God was a separate and holy people. Now it is indisputably true that
Constantine persecuted those
Christians who, like the Jews, believed in the absolute Oneness of God and
courageously declared the
Trinity to be a false and erroneous conception of the Deity. More than a
thousand ecclesiastics were
summoned to the General Council at Nicea (the modern Izmid), of whom only
three hundred and
eighteen persons subscribed to the decisions of the Council, and these too
formed three opposite factions
with their respec- tive ambiguous and unholy expressions of "homousion" or
"homoousion,"
"consubstantial," and other terms utterly and wholly strangers to the Prophets
of Israel, but only worthy
of the "Speaking Horn."

The Christians who suffered persecutions and martyrdoms under the pagan
emperors of Rome because
they believed in One God and in His worshiper Prophet Jesus were now
doomed by the imperial edict of
the "Christian" Constantine to even severer tortures because they refused to
adore the Prophet Jesus as
consubstantial and coeval with his Lord and Creator! The Elders and Ministers
of the Arian Creed, i.e.
Qashishi and Mshamshani - as they were called by the early Jewish Christians were deposed or
banished, their religious books suppressed, and their churches seized and
handed over to the Trinitarian
bishops and priests. Any historical work on the early Christian Church will give
us ample information
about the service rendered by Constantine to the cause of the Trinitarian
Creed, and tyranny to those
who opposed it. The merciless legions in every province were placed at the
disposal of the ecclesiastical
authorities. Constantine personifies a regime of terror and fierce war against
the Unitarians, which lasted
in the East for three centuries and a half, when the Muslims established the
religion of Allah and
assumed the power and dominion over the lands trodden and devastated by
the four beasts.
(e) The "Talking Horn" is accused of having contem- plated to change "the Law
and the times." This is a
very serious charge against the Horn. Its blasphemies or "great words against
the Most High" may or

may not affect other people, but to change the Law of God and the established
holy days or festivals
would naturally subvert the religion altogether. The first two commandments
of the Law of Moses,
concerning the absolute Oneness of God - "Thou shalt have no other gods
besides Me" - and the strict
prohi- bition of making images and statues for worship were directly violated
and abrogated by the edict
of Constantine. To proclaim three personal beings in the Deity and to confess
that the Eternal Almighty
was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary is the greatest insult to the Law of
God and the grossest
idolatry. To make a golden or wooden image for worship is abominable
enough, but to make a mortal an object of worship, declare him God, and even
adore the bread and the wine of the Eucharist as "the body
and blood of God," is an impious blasphemy.
Then to every righteous Jew and to a Prophet like Daniel, who from his youth
was a most devoted
observer of the Mosaic Law, what could be more repugnant than the
substitution of the Easter for the
Paschal Lamb of the great feast of the Passover and the sacrifice of the "Lamb
of God" upon the cross,
and upon thousands of altars every day? The abrogation of the Sabbath day
was a direct violation of the
fourth command of the Decalogue, and the institution of Sunday instead was
as arbitrary as it is
inimical. True, the Qur'an abrogated the Sabbath day, not because the Friday
was a holier day, but

simply because the Jews made an abuse of it by declaring that God, after the
labor of six days, reposed
on the seventh day, as if He were man and was fatigued. Prophet Muhammad
would have destroyed any
day or object, however holy or sacred, if it were made an object of worship
intending to deal a blow or
injury to God's Greatness and Glory. But the abrogation of the Sabbath by the
decree of Constantine was
for the institution of the Sunday on which Jesus is alleged to have risen from
the sepulcher. Jesus
himself was a strict observer of the Sabbath day, and reprimanded the Jewish
leaders for their objection
to his doing the deeds of charity on it.
(f) The "Horn" was allowed to make war against the Saints of the Most High for
a period of some three
centuries and a half; it only "weakened" them, made "them languid - but could
not extinguish and
entirely root them out. The Arians, who believed in One God alone,
sometimes, e.g. under the reign of
Constantius (the son of Constantine), of Julian and others who were more
tolerant, strongly defended
themselves and fought for the cause of their faith.
The next important point in this wonderful vision is to identify the "Bar Nasha,"
or the Son of Man, who
destroyed the Horn; and we shall undertake to do this in the next article.
Prophet Muhammad Is The Son-Of-Man
In the previous discourse we perused and commented upon the marvelous
vision of the Prophet Daniel

(Dan. vii.). We saw how the four beasts that represented the four king- doms
succeeding one another
were the Powers of Darkness and how they persecuted the Jews and the early
Church of Jesus, which
was constituted of true believers in the One God. We also remarked that those
Powers were pagan and
allegorically described as ferocious brutes. Further, we saw that the "Eleventh
Horn," which had eyes
and mouth, which uttered blasphemies against the Most High had fought and
overcome His Saints had
changed the times and the Law of God, could be no other than the Emperor
Constantine, who in AD.
325, promulgated his imperial rescript proclaiming the creed and the decisions
of the Nicene General
Council.
In this article let us follow our researches patiently with regard to the glorious
BAR NASHA, or the
"Son-of-Man," who was presented-upon the clouds to the Most High, to whom
was given the Sultaneh
(Sholtana in the original text, i.e. "dominion" or "empire") honor and kingdom
for ever, and who was
commissioned to destroy and annihilate the terrible Horn.
Now let us proceed forthwith to establish the identity of this "Bar nasha."
Before finding out who this Son-of-Man is, it is but essential that we should
take into consideration the
following points and observations: (a) When a Hebrew Prophet predicts that "all the nations and peoples of the
earth shall serve him" (i.e.

the Bar nasha) or "the people of the Saints of the Most High," we must
understand that he means thereby
the nations men- tioned in Genesis xv. 18-21, and not the English, the French,
or the Chinese nations.
(b) By the phrase "the people of the Saints of the Most High" it is understood
to mean first the Jews and
then the Christians who confessed the absolute Oneness of God, fought and
suffered for it until the
appearance of the Bar nasha and the destruction of the Horn.
(c) After the destruction of the Horn the people and the nations that will have
to serve the Saints of God
are the Chaldeans, Medo-Persians, Greeks, and the Romans - the four nations
represented by the four
beasts that had trod upon and invaded the Holy Land.
From the Adriatic to the Walls of China all the various nations have either as
Muslims received the
homage or as unbelievers served the Muslims, who are the only true believers
in the One God.
(d) It is remarkable to realize the significant fact that God often allows the
enemies of His true religion
to subdue and persecute His people because of two purposes. First, because
he wants to punish His
people for their lethargy, drawbacks and sins. Secondly, because He wishes to
prove the faith, the
patience and the indestructibility of His Law and Religion, and thus to allow the
infidels to continue in
their unbelief and crime until their cup is full. God in due time Himself
intervenes on behalf of the

believers when their very existence is on its beam-ends. It was a terrible and
most critical time for all
Muslims when the Allied Forces were in Constantinople during those awful
years of the Armistice.
Great preparations were made by the Greeks and their friends to take back the
Grand Mosque of Aya
Sophia; the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople went to London carrying with
him a precious ancient
patriarchal cope set in gems and pearls for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who
was strenuously
advocating the restoration of Constantinople and the grand edifice of St.
Sophia to the Greeks. On the
eve of the celebration of Prophet Muhammad's night journey to Heaven called al-mi'raj - the sacred
building was crammed with a great multitude of the suppliant faithful who till
the dawn most earnestly
supplicated the Almighty Allah to deliver Turkey, and particularly the Sacred
House, from those who
"would fill it with ugly idols and images as before!" In connection with that
patriarchal mantle or cope, I
wrote an article in the Turkish paper the Aqsham, showing the existence of a
schism between the Greek
Orthodox and the Protestant Anglican Churches. I pointed out that the cope
was not meant as a pallium
of investiture and recognition of the Anglican orders, and that a reunion
between the two Churches
could never be accomplished unless one or the other of the parties should
renounce and abjure certain

articles of faith as heretical and erroneous. I also pointed out that the cope was
a diplomatic bribe on
behalf of Greece and its Church. The letter ended with these words: "All
depends upon the grace and
miracle which this bakhskish of a pontifical cope is expected to work!"
The result is too well known to be repeated here. Suffice it to say that the
Patriarch died in England, and
the Almighty, who sent the Bar nasha to crush the Horn and chase out the
legions of Rome from the
East, raised Mustapha Kamal, who saved his country and restored the honor of
Islam! (e) It is to be noted that the Jews were the chosen people of God until
the advent of Jesus Christ. In the
eyes of the Muslims neither the Jews nor the Christians have a right to claim
the title of "the People of
the Saints of the Most High," because the former reject Jesus altogether, while
the latter insult him by
deifying him. Moreover, both are equally unworthy of that title because of
their refusing to recognize the
Last Prophet who has completed the list of the Prophets.
We shall now proceed to prove that the Bar nasha - the Son-of-Man - who was
presented to the "Ancient
of Days" and invested with power to kill the monster, was no other than
Prophet Muhammad, whose
very name literally means "the Praised and Illustrious." Whatever other person
you may try to invent in
order to deprive the august Messenger of Allah of this unique glory and
majesty bestowed on him in the

Divine Court, you will only make yourselves ridiculous; and this for the
following reasons: 1. We know that neither Judaism nor Christianity has any particular name for
its faith and its system.
That is to say, neither the Jews nor the Christians have any special name for
the doctrines and forms of
their faith and worship. "Judaism" and "Christianity" are not Scriptural nor
authoriz- ed either by God or
the founders of those religions. In fact, a religion, if true, cannot properly be
named after its second
founder, for the real author and founder of a true religion is God, and not a
Prophet. Now the proper
noun for the laws, doctrines, forms and practices of worship as revealed by
Allah to Prophet Muhammad
is "Islam," which means "making peace" with Him and among men.
"Muhammadanism" is not the
proper appellation of Islam. For Prophet Muhammad, like Prophet Abraham
and all other Prophets, was
himself a Muslim, and not a Muhammadan! Judaism means the religion of
Judah, but what was Judah
himself? Surely not a Judaist! And similarly was Christ a Christian or a Jesuit?
Certainly neither of
them! What were, then, the names of these two distinct religions? No names
at all!
Then we have the barbarous Latin word "religion," meaning "the fear of the
gods." It is now used to
express "any mode of faith and worship." Now what is the equivalent word for
"religion" in the Bible?

What expression did Moses or Jesus use to convey the meaning of religion? Of
course, the Bible and its
authors make no use of this word at all.
Now the Scriptural term used in the vision of Daniel is the same as applied
repeatedly by the Qur'an to
Islam, namely, "Din" (and in the Qur'an, "Din"), which means "recompense on
the Day of Judgement."
And the tribune is the "Dayyana" or the "Judge." Let us read the description of
this celestial Court of
Judgement: "the tribunes are set, the books are opened, and the 'Dina' recompense of judgment - is
established." By the "Books" is to be understood the "Preserved Tablets"
wherein the decrees of God are
inscribed from which the Qur'an was revealed by the Angel Gabriel to Prophet
Muhammad; and also the
books of accounts of every man's actions. It was according to the decrees and
laws of God contained in
that "Preserved Tablet," and the wicked actions of the Horn, that the Great
"Dayyana" - the Judge condemned it to death and appointed Prophet
Muhammad to be "Adon," i.e. "Commander" or "lord," to
destroy the monster. All this language of Daniel is extremely Qur'anic. The
religion of Islam is called
"Dinu 'I-Islam." It was according to the decrees and laws of this "Dina" that the
"Bar nasha" destroy- ed
the Devil's religion and his lieutenant the Horn. How can it, then, be at all
possible that any man other
than Prophet Muhammad could be meant by the appearance of a "Son- ofMan" in the presence of the

Most High? Islam is, indeed, a "judgment of peace," because it possesses an


authen- ticated Book of
Law, with which justice is administered and iniquity punished, the truth
discerned and the falsehood
con- demned; and above all, the Oneness of God, the eternal rewards for good
deeds, and eternal
damnation for wicked actions are clearly stated and defined. In English a
magistrate is called "Justice of Peace;" that is to say, a "judge of peace." Now
this is in imitation of a Muslim Judge, who settles a
quarrel, decides a case, by punishing the guilty and rewarding the innocent,
thus restoring peace. This is
Islam and the law of the Qur'an. It is not Christianity nor the Gospel, for the
latter absolutely forbids a
Christian to appeal to a judge, however innocent and oppressed he may be
(Matt. v. 25, 26, 38-48).
2. The Son-of-Man, or Bar nasha, is certainly Prophet Muhammad. For he came
after Constantine, and
not before him as Jesus or any other Prophet did. The Trinitarian regime in the
East represented by the
Horn, which we rightly identify with the Emperior Constantine, was permitted
to fight with the
Unitarians and vanquish them for a period described in the figurative,
prophetical language as "time,
times and half a time," which phrase signifies three centuries and a half, at the
end of which all the
power of idolatry on the one hand and the Trinitarian dominion and tyranny on
the other were eradicated
and swept away entirely. There is nothing more absurd than the assertion that
Judah the Maccabaeus

(Maqbhaya) was the Bar nasha on the clouds, and the Horn Antiochus. It is
alleged that (if I remember
aright) Antio- chus, after desecrating the Temple of Jerusalem, lived only three
years and a half - or
three days and a half - at the end of which time he perished. In the first place,
we know that Antiochus
was a successor of Alexander the Great and King of Syria, consequently one of
the four heads of the
winged Tiger and not the eleventh Horn of the fourth Beast as stated in the
vision. In the eighth chapter
of the Book of Daniel, the Ram and the He-goat are explained by a Saint as
representing the Persian and
the Greek Empires respec- tively. It is expressly explained that the Greek
Empire immediately
succeeded the Persian and that it was divided into four kingdoms, as stated in
the first vision. Secondly,
the Horn with the speech indicates that the person who blasphemed and
changed the Law and holy days
could not be a pagan, but one who knew God and associated with Him
purposely the other two persons
whom he had equally known, and perverted the faith. Antiochus did not
pervert the faith of the Jews by
instituting a trinity or plurality of Gods, nor did he change the Law of Moses
and its festival days.
Thirdly, it is childish to give such a magnitude and importance to local and
insignificant events which
took place between a petty king in Syria and a small Jewish chief, so as to
compare the latter with the

glorious man who received the homage of the millions of angels in the
presence of the Almighty. Moreover, the prophetical vision describes and depicts the Bar nasha as the greatest
and the noblest of all
men, for no other human being is reported in the Old Testament to have been
the object of such honor
and grandeur as Prophet Muhammad.
3. It is equally futile to claim for Jesus Christ this celestial honor given to the
Son-of-Man. There are
two main reasons to exclude Jesus from this honor; (a) If he is purely a man
and prophet, and if we
consider his work a success or failure, then he is certainly far behind Muhammad. But if he is believed
to be the third of the three in the Trinity, then he is not to be enlisted among
men at all. You fall into a
dilemma, and you cannot get out of it; for in either case the Bar nasha could
not be Jesus. (b) If Jesus
was commissioned to destroy the fourth Beast, then instead of paying poll-tax
or tribute to Caesar and
submitting himself to be bastinadoed or whipped by the Roman governor
Pilate, he would have chased
away the Roman legions from Palestine and saved his country and people.
4. There has never lived upon this earth a Prince - Prophet like Muhammad,
who belonged to a dynasty
that reigned for a long period of about 2,500 years, was absolutely
independent and never bent its neck
under a foreign yoke. And certainly there has never been seen on earth
another man like Prophet

Muhammad, who has rendered more material and moral service to his own
nation in particular and to
the world in general. It is impossible to imagine another human being so
dignified and so worthy as
Prophet Muhammad for such a magnificent glory and honor as depicted in the
prophetical vision. Let us just compare the great Prophet Daniel with the Bar
nasha he was beholding with awe and wonder.
Daniel was a slave or captive, though raised to the dignity of a vizier in the
courts of Babylon and Susa.
What would, in the presence of the Almighty, be his position when compared
with Prophet Muhammad,
who would be crowned as the Sultan of the Prophets, the Leader of mankind,
and the object of the
angels' homage and admiration? Small wonder that the Prophet David calls
Prophet Muhammad "My
Lord" (Psa, c. 10).
5. It is no wonder to find that on his night journey to Heaven Prophet
Muhammad was received with the
highest honors by the Almighty and invested with power to extirpate idolatry
and the blasphemous Horn
from countries given by God to him and to his people as an everlasting
heritage.
6. Another most amazing feature in this prophetical vision is, according to my
humble belief, that the
sight of a Barnasha upon the clouds and his presentation to the Almighty
corresponds with and is
simultaneous with the Mi'raj - or night journey of the Prophet Muhammad; in
other rds, this second part

of the vision of Daniel is to be identified with the Mi'raj! There are, indeed,
several indications both in
the language of Daniel and in the "Hadith" - the quotations of the Prophet of
Allah - which lead me to
this belief. The Qur'an declares that during that night- journey God transported
His worshiper from the
Sacred Mosque at Mecca to the Father Temple of Jerusalem. He blessed the
precincts of that Temple,
then in ruins, and showed him His signs (chap. xvii).
It is related by the Holy Prophet that at the Temple of Jerusalem he officiated
in his capacity of the
Imam, and con- ducted the prayers with all the company of the Prophets
following him. It is further
related that it was from Jerusalem that he was carried up unto the Seventh
Heaven, being ac- companied
by the spirits of the Prophets and Angels until he was taken to the presence of
the Eternal. The modesty
of the Prophet which forbade him to reveal all that he saw, heard and received
from the Lord of Hosts is
made good by Daniel, who narrates the decision of Gods Judgement. It appears
that the Spirit which
interpreted the vision to Daniel was not an Angel, as thoughtlessly remarked
by me else- where, but the
Spirit or the Soul of a Prophet, for he calls "Qaddish" (in the masculine gender)
and "Qaddush" (iv. 10;
viii. 13 ), which means a Saint or a Holy Man - a very usual name of the
Prophets and Saints. How glad

must have been the holy souls of the Prophets and the Martyrs who had been
persecuted by those four
beasts especially more so when they saw the decree of death being
pronounced by the Almighty against
the Trinitarian regime of Constantine and the Seal of the Prophets being
commissioned to kill and
annihilate the uttering Horn! It will also be remembered that this vision was
seen as well during the
same night in which took place the journey of the Son of Man nasha from
Mecca to the heavens!
From the testimony of Daniel we, as Muslims, must admit that Prophet
Muhammad's journey was
corporeally performed - a thing of no impossibility to the Omnipotent.
There must exist a law in physics according to which a body is not controlled by
the main body to which
it belongs, or by the law of gravitation, but by the law of velocity. A human
body belonging to the earth
cannot escape from it unless a superior force of velocity should detach it from
the force of gravitation.
Then there must also exist another law in physics according to which a light
body can penetrate into a
thick one and a thick body into an even still thicker or harder one through the
means of a superior force,
or simply through the force of velocity. Without entering into the details of this
subtle ques- tion, suffice
it to say that before the force of velocity the weight of a solid body, whether
moved or touched, is of no

concern. We know the rate of the velocity of the light from the sun or a star. If
we discharge a bullet at the rate, say, of 2,500 meters a second, we know it
penetrates and pierces a body of iron plate which is
several inches thick. Similarly, an angel, who can move with an infinitely
greater velocity than that of
the light of the sun and even the thought in the mind, could, of course,
transport the bodies of Prophet
Jesus, to save him from the crucifixion, and Prophet Muhammad in his
miraculous challenge of the
Ascent Journey (Miraj) with an astounding facility and rapidity, and set at
nought the law of gravitation
of the globe to which they belonged.
Paul also mentions a vision he had seen fourteen years before of a man who
had been taken up into the
third heaven and then unto Paradise, where he heard and saw words and
objects that could not be
described. The Churches and their commentators have believed this man to be
Paul himself. Although
the language is such as to convey to us the idea that he himself is the man, yet
out of modesty it is that
he keeps it a secret lest he should be considered a proud man! (2 Cor. xii. 1-4).
Although the Qur'an
teaches us that the Apostles of Jesus Christ were good people, their writings
cannot be relied upon,
because the wrangling and disputant Churches have subjected them to
interpolations. The Gospel of St.
Barnabas states that Paul afterwards fell into an error and misled many of the
believers.

That Paul does not reveal the identity of the person seen by him in the vision,
and that the words which
he heard in Paradise "cannot be spoken and no man is permitted to speak
them," shows that Paul was not
himself the person who was taken up to Heaven. To say that Paul, for reason of
humility and out of
modesty, does not praise himself is simply to mis- represent Paul. He boasts of
having rebuked St. Peter
to his face, and his epistles are full of expressions about himself which do
rather confirm the idea that
Paul was neither humble nor modest.
Besides, we know from his writings to the Galatians and the Romans what a
prejudiced Jew he was
against Hagar and her son Ishmael. The glorious person he saw in his vision
could be no other than the
person seen by Daniel! It was Prophet Muhammad that he saw, and dare not
report the words which
were spoken to him because on the one hand he was afraid of the Jews, and
because on the other he
would have contradicted himself for having glorified himself so much with the
Cross and the crucified. I
am half convinced that Paul was allowed to see the Barnasha whom Daniel had
seen some six centuries
before, but "the angel of satan who was continually pouring blows upon his
head" (2 Cor. xii 7) forbade
him to reveal the truth! It this an admission by Paul that "the angel of Satan,"
as he calls him, prohibited

him from revealing the secret of Prophet Muhammad, whom he had seen in
his vision. If Paul was a true
righteous worshiper of God, why was he delivered into the hands of the "angel
of the Devil" who was
continually beating him on the head? The more one reflects on the teachings
of Paul, the less one doubts
that he was the prototype of Constantine the Great!
In conclusion, I may be permitted to draw a moral for the non-Muslims from
this wonderful vision of
Daniel. They should take to heart a lesson from the fate which befell the four
beasts, and particularly the
Horn, and to reflect that Allah alone is the One True God; that the Muslims
alone faithfully profess His
absolute Oneness; that He is Aware of their oppressions, and that they have
their Caliph of the Prophets near to the Throne of the Most High. King David Calls Him: "My Lord"
The history of David, his exploits and prophetical writings, are found in two
books of the Old Testament, Samuel and the Psalms. He was the youngest son of Yishai (Jessie) from
the tribe of Judah. While
still a young shepherd, he had killed a bear and torn into halves a lion. The
valiant young man swung a
small stone right through the forehead of Goliath, an armed Philistine
champion and saved the army of
Israel. The highest reward for a successful feat displaying valor was the hand of
Michal, a daughter of

King Saul. David played on a harp and flute, and was a good singer. His flight
from his jealous fatherin-law, his adventures and attributed exploits as a
bandit, are well known in the Bible. On the death of
Saul, David was invited by the people to assume the reins of the kingdom, for
which he had long before
been anointed by the Prophet Samuel. He reigned for some seven years at
Hebron. He took Jerusalem
from the Jebusites and made it the capital of his kingdom. Its two hills, or
mounts, were named
"Moriah" and "Sion." Both these words have the same signi- fication and
import as the famous mounts
of "Marwa" and "Sapha" in Mecca, which words respectively mean "the place
of the vision of the Lord,"
and "the rock" or "stone." David's wars, his very grave family troubles, his sin
against the faith- ful
soldier, Uriah, and his wife, Bathsheba, was not left with impunity. He reigned
forty years; his life was
marked with wars and family griefs. In the Bible there are some contradictory
accounts about him which
are evidently to be ascribed to the two opposite sources.
The alleged crime of David claimed in the Bible in connection with Uriah and
his wife (2 Sam. xi.) is
not even alluded to in the Qur'an, rather the Qur'an refers to his excellent
pious character and that he was
one of the top ranking Messengers. It is one of the superiorities of the Holy
Qur'an that it teaches us that
all prophets are born sinless and die sinless. It does not, like the Bible, impute
to them crimes and sins -

e.g. the double crime of David, mentioned in the Bible, which, according to the
Law of Moses, is
punishable by death - which, let alone a prophet who is a chosen worshiper of
God the Almighty, we
would not even think of attaching to the name of an ordinary human being.
The story of David committing adultery and two angels having come to him
thus to remind him of the
sin is a puerile falsehood - wherever it may be found. It has been repudiat- ed
by the best Muslim
opinion. Razl says: "Most of the learned, and those who have searched for the
truth among them, declare
this charge false and condemn it as a lie and a mischievous story. The words
istaghfora and ghafarna
occurring in the text of verse 24, chap. 38 of the Holy Qur'an by no means
indicate that David had
committed a sin, for istighfar really signifies the seeking of protection; and
David sought Divine
protection when he saw that his enemies had grown so bold against him; and
by ghafarana is meant the
rectification of his affairs; for David, who was a great ruler, could not succeed
in keeping his enemies
under com- plete control.
The Old Testament does not mention the time when the gift of prophecy was
granted to David. We read
there that after David had committed the two sins it was Nathan the Prophet
who was sent by God to
chastise David. Indeed, until late in his life we find him always having recourse
to other prophets.

According to the Biblical accounts, there- fore, it would seem that the gift of
prophecy came to him after
he had thoroughly repented of his sin.
In one of the previous articles I remarked that after the split of the Kingdom
into two independent States
which were often at war with each other, the ten tribes which formed the
Kingdom of Israel were always
hostile to the dynasty of David and never accepted any other portion of the
Old Testament except the Torah - or the Law of Moses as contained in the
Pentateuch. This is evident from the Samaritan version
of the first five books of the Old Testament. We do not meet with a single word
or prophecy about
David's posterity in the discourses of the great prophets, like Elijah, Elisha, and
others, who flourished
in Samariah during the reigns of the wicked kings of Israel. It is only after the
fall of the King- dom of
Israel and the transportation of the ten tribes into Assyria that the Prophets of
Judeah began to predict
the ad- vent of some Prince from the House of David who was soon to restore
the whole nation and
subdue its enemies. There are several of these obscure and ambiguous sayings
in the writings or
discourses of these later prophets which have given a rapturous and exotic
exultation to the Fathers of
the Church; but in reality they have nothing to do with Jesus Christ. I shall
briefly quote two of these
prophecies. The first is in Isaiah (Chap. vii., verse 14), where that Prophet
predicts that "a damsel

already pregnant with child shall bear forth a son, and thou shalt name him
Emmanuel." The Hebrew
word a'lmah does not mean "virgin," as generally interpreted by the Christian
theologians and therefore
applied to the Virgin Mary, but it signifies "a marriageable woman, maiden,
damsel." The Hebrew word
for "virgin" is bthulah. Then the child's name is to be Emmanuel, which means
"God- is-with-us." There
are hundreds of Hebrew names which are composed of "el" and another noun,
which forms either the
first or the last syllable of such compound nouns. Neither Isaiah, nor King Ahaz,
nor any Jew, ever
thought that the newly born infant would be himself "God-with-us." They
never thought anything else
but that his name only would be as such. But the text expressly says that it was
Ahaz (who seems to
have known the maiden with child), that would give the boy that name. Ahaz
was in danger, his enemies
were pressing hard against Jerusalem, and this pro- mise was made to him by
showing him a sign,
namely, a pregnant maiden, and not a Virgin Mary, that would come into the
world more than seven
hundred years later! This simple prediction of a child that would be born
during the reign of Ahaz was
equally misunderstood by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew (Matt. i. 23).
The name "Jesus" was given
by the Angel Gabriel (Matt. i. 21), and he was never called "Emmanuel." Is it
not scandalous to take this

name as an argument and proof of the Christian doctrine of the "Incarnation"?


The other strange interpretation of a prophetic predic- tion is from Zachariah
(ix. 9), which is misquoted
and utterly misunderstood by the writer of the first Gospel (xxi. 5). The
Prophet Zachariah says:
"Rejoice much, O daughter of Sion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold,
thy King is coming unto
thee; righteous and with salvation is he; meek and mounted upon an ass; and
upon a colt, son of a sheass."
In this poetical passage the poet simply wishes to describe the male ass - upon
which the King is seated by saying that it was a young ass, and this colt, too, is described as the son of a
female ass. It was only
one male colt or young donkey. Now Matthew quotes this passage in the
following way: - "Tell the
daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King is coming unto thee; Meek, and mounted on
a female ass, And on a
colt, the son of a female ass."
Whether or not the person who wrote the above verse did really believe that
Jesus, when making his
triumphal entry into Jerusalem by mounting or sitting at the same time both
upon the mother ass and her
young colt, worked a miracle is not the question; nevertheless it is true to say
that the majority of the
Christian Fathers so believed; and it never occurred to them that such a show
would look rather a
comedy than a royal and pompous procession. Luke, how- ever, is careful, and
has not fallen into

Matthew's mistake. Were these authors both inspired by the same Spirit?
Zachariah foretells in Jerusalem, after the return of the Jews from captivity, the
coming of a king.
Though meek and humble, mounted upon a colt of an ass, still he is coming
with salvation and would
rebuild the house of God. He pro- phesies this at a time when the Jews are
endeavoring to rebuild the
Temple and the ruined town; their neighboring peoples are against them; the
work of building is stopped
until Darius, King of Persia, issues a firman for the cons- truction. Although no
Jewish king had ever
appeared since the sixth century before Christ, nevertheless they had had
autonomous governments
under foreign sovereigns. The sal- vation here promised, be it noted, is
material and immediate, and not
a salvation to come five hundred and twenty years afterwards, when Jesus of
Nazareth would ride upon
two asses simultaneously and enter into Jerusalem, already a large and
wealthy city with a magnificent
temple, simply to be captured and crucified by the Jews themselves and by
their Roman masters, as the
present Gospels tell us! This would be no solace at all for the poor Jews
surrounded with enemies in a
ruined city. Consequently, by the word "king" we may understand one of their
chief leaders - Zerobabel,
Ezra, or Nehemiah.
These two examples are intended to show chiefly to my Muslim readers - who
may not be well

acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures - how the Christians have been
misguided by their priests and
monks in giving stupid interpretations and meanings to the prophecies
contained therein.
Now I come to David's prophecy: - "YahwaH said to my ADON, Sit at my right
until I place Thine
enemies a footstool under thy feet."
This verse of David is written in Psalm cxi, and quoted by Matthew (xxii. 44),
Mark (xii. 36), and Luke
(xx 42). In all languages the two names contained in the first unstitch are
rendered as "The Lord said
unto my Lord." Of course, if the first Lord is God, the second Lord is also God;
nothing more
convenient to and suitable an argument for a Christian priest or pastor than
this, namely, the speaker is
God, and also the spoken to is God; therefore David knows two Gods! Nothing
more logical than this
reasoning! Which of these two Domini is "the Lord" of David? Had David
written, "Dominus meus dixit
Domino meo," he would have made himself ridiculous, for then he would have
admitted himself to be a
slave or worshiper of two Lords, without even men- tioning their proper
names. The admission would go
even farther than the existence of two Lords; it would mean that David's
second Lord had taken refuge
with his first Lord, who ordered him to take a seat on his right side until he
should put his enemies a

footstool under his feet. This reasoning leads us to admit that, in order to
understand well your religion,
you are obliged to know your Bible or Qur'an in the original language in which
it was written, and not to
depend and rely upon a translation.
I have purposely written the original Hebrew words YaHWaH and Adon, in
order to avoid any
ambiguity and misunderstanding in the sense conveyed by them. Such sacred
names written in religious
Scripture should be left as they are, unless you can find a thoroughly
equivalent word for them in the
language into which you wish to translate them. The tetragram Yhwh used to
be pronounced Yehovah
(Jehovah), but now it is generally pronounced Yahwah. It is a proper name of
God the Almighty, and it
is held so holy by the Jews that when reading their Scriptures they never
pronounce it, but read it
"Adon" instead. The other name, "Elohim," is always pronounced, but Yahwah
never. Why the Jews
make this distinction between these two names of the same God is a question
for itself, altogether
outside the scope of our present subject. It may, however, in passing, be
mentioned that Yahwah, unlike
Elohim, is never used with pronominal suffixes, and seems to be a special
name in Hebrew for the Deity
as the national God of the people of Israel. In fact, "Elohim" is the oldest name
known to all Semites; and in order to give a special character to the conception of the true God, this tetragram is often

conjointly with Elohim applied to Him. The Arabic form, Rabb Allah,
corresponds to the Hebrew form,
Yahwah Elohim.
The other word, "Adon," signifies a "Commander, Lord, and master," or the
same as the Arabic and
Turkish nouns Amir, Sayyid, and Agha. Adon stands as the opposite term of
"soldier, slave, and
property." Consequently the first part of the distich is to be rendered as "God
said to my Lord."
David, in his capacity of a monarch, was himself the Lord and Commander of
every Israelite and the
Master of the Kingdom. Whose "servant" was he, then? David, being a
powerful sovereign, could not
be, as a matter of fact, a slave or worshiper of any living human being
whatsoever. Nor is it imaginable
that he would call "his Lord" any dead prophet or saint, such as Abraham or
Jacob, for whom the usual
and reasonable term was "Father." It is equally con- ceivable that David would
not use the appellation
"my Lord" for any of his own descendants, for whom, too, the usual term
would be "son." There
remains, besides God, no other conceivable being who could be David's Lord,
except the noblest and the
highest man of the race of mankind. It is quite intelligible to think that in the
sight and choice of God
there must be a man who is the noblest, the most praised, and the most
coveted of all men. Surely the

Seers and the Prophets of old knew this holy personage and, like David, called
him "my Lord."
Of course, the Jewish Rabbins and commentators of the Old Testament
understood by this expression
the Messiah, who would descend from David himself, and so replied they to
the question put to them by
Jesus Christ as quoted above from Matthew (xxii.), and the other Synoptic.
Jesus flatly repudiated the
Jews when he asked them a second question: "How could David call him 'my
Lord' if he were his son?"
This question of the Master put the audience to silence, for they could find no
answer to it. The
Evangelists abruptly cut short this important subject of discussion. To stop
there without a further
explanation was not worthy either of the Master or of his reporters. For,
leaving the question of his godhead, and even of his prophetical character,
aside, Jesus as a teacher was obliged to solve the problem
raised by him- self when he saw that the disciples and the hearers were unable
to know who then that
"Lord," could be!
By his expression that the "Lord," or the "Adon," could not be a son of David,
Jesus excludes himself
from that title. This admission is decisive and should awaken the religious
teachers of the Christians to
reduce Christ to his due status of a high and holy worshiper of God, and to
renounce the extravagant
divine character ascribed to him much to his own disgust and displeasure.

I cannot imagine a teacher who, seeing his pupils unable to answer his
question, should keep silent,
unless he is him- self ignorant like them and unable to give a solution to it. But
Jesus was not either
ignorant or a malevolent teacher. He was a prophet with a burning love to God
and man. He did not
leave the problem unsolved or the question with- out an answer. The Gospels
of the Churches do not
report the answer of Jesus to the question: "Who was the Lord of David?" But
the Gospel of Barnabas
does. This Gospel has been rejected by Churches because its language is more
in accordance with the
revealed Scriptures and because it is very expressive and explicit about the
nature of Jesus Christ's
mission, and above all because it records the exact words of Prophet Jesus
concerning Prophet
Muhammad. A copy of this Gospel can easily be procured. There you will find
the answer of Jesus
himself, who said that the Covenant between God and Prophet Abraham was
made on Ishmael, and that
"the most glorious or praised" of men is a descendant of Prophet Ishmael and
not of Prophet Isaac through Prophet David. Prophet Jesus repeatedly is
reported to have spoken of Prophet Muhammad,
whose spirit or soul he had seen in heaven.
I shall have, if God wills, an occasion to write on this Gospel later.
There is no doubt that the prophetical eye of Daniel that saw in a wonderful
vision the great Barnasha,

who was Prophet Muhammad, was also the same prophetical eye fo David. It
was this most glorious and
praised of men that was seen by the Prophet Job (xix 25) as a "Savior" from the
power of the Devil.
Was it, then, Prophet Muhammad who Prophet David calls "my Lord" or my
Adon"? Let us see.
The arguments in favor of Prophet Muhammad, who is styled "Sayyidu 'lMursalin." the same as "Adon
of the Prophets," are decisive; they are so evident and explicit in the words of
the Old Testament that
one is astonished at the ignorance and the obstinacy of those who refuse to
understand and obey.
1. The greatest Prophet and Adon,in the Eyes of God, and man, is not a great
conqueror and destroyer of
mankind, nor a holy recluse who spends his life in a cave or cell to meditate
upon God only to save
himself, but one who renders more good and service to mankind by bringing
them into the light of
knowledge of the One True God,and by utterly destroying the power of the
devil and his abominable
idols and wicked institutions. It was Prophet Muhammad who "bruised the
head of the serpent," and that
is why the Qur'an rightly calls the devil, iblis, namely the bruised one"!! He
purged the Temple of the
Ka'aba and all Arabia of the idols, and gave light, religion, happiness, and
power to the ignorant Arab
idolaters, who in a short time spread that light into the four directions of the
earth. In the service of God,

the works and the success of Prophet Muhammad are incomparable and
unrivalled.
The Prophets, Saints, and Martyrs form the army of God against the Power of
the Devil; and Prophet
Muhammad alone is decidedly the Commander-in-Chief of them all. He is
indeed, alone the Adon and
Lord not only of David but of all the Prophets, for he has purified Palestine and
the countries visited by
Abraham of idolatry.
2. Since Jesus Christ admits that he himself was not the "Lord" of David nor
that the Messiah was to
descend from David, there remains none other than Prophet Muhammad
among the Prophets to be the
Adon or Lord of David. And when we come to compare the praiseworthy
religious revolution that the
Nobel Son of Ishmael brought about in the world, with what all the thousands
of prophets put together
have achieved, we have to come to the conclusion that it is alone Prophet
Muhammad who deserves the
meritorious title of Adon.
3. How did David know that "Wahwah said to Adon, 'Sit thou at my right until I
put thine enemies a
footstool under they feet'?" and when did David hear this word of God? Christ
himself gives the answer,
namely "David in spirit wrote this." He saw the Adon Muhammad just as Daniel
had seen him (Dan.
vii), and Paul had seen him (2 Cor. xii) and many others had. Of course, this
mystery of "Sit thou at my

right" is hidden from us. Yet we may safely conjecture that this official
investiture with the honor of
seating himself at the right of the Throne of God, and therefore raised to the
dignity of the "Adon." not
only of the Prophets but of all the Creatures, took place on the famous night of
his Mi'raj to Paradise. 4. The only principle objection to Prophet Muhammad's
Divine mission and superiority is his
condemnation of the trinity. But the Old Testament knows no other God
besides Allah, and the Lord of
David did not sit at the right hand of a triple god, but at that of the One Allah.
Hence among the
Prophets who believed in and worshiped Allah none was so great, and
accomplished such a stupendous
service for Allah and mankind, as Prophet Muhammad, upon whom be peace
and blessings.
The Lord And The Prophet Of The Covenant
The last book of the Canonical Jewish Code of the Bible bears the name of
"Malachai," which looks to
be more a sur- name than a proper noun. The correct pronunciation of the
name is Malakh, which means
"my angel" or "my mes- senger." The Hebrew word, "mal'akh," like the Arabic
"malak," like the Greek
term "anghelos" from which the English name "angel" is derived, signifies "a
messenger," one
commissioned with a message or news to deliver to some- body.
Who this Malakhi is, in what period of the Jewish his- tory he lived and
prophesied, is not known either

from the book itself or from any other portion of the Old Testament. It begins
with the words: "The
'missa' of the Word of Yahweh the El of Israel by the hand of Malakhi," which
may be translated: "The
discourse of the Word of Yahweh God of Israel, by the hand of Malakhi." It
contains four short chapters.
The oracle is addressed, not to a king and his courtiers, but to a people already
settled in Jerusalem with
the Temple and its services. The sacrifices and oblations are of the meanest
and worst kind; the sheep
and cattle offered at the altars are not of the best quality; they are blind, lame,
and lean animals. The
tithes are not regularly paid, and if at all paid are of the inferior material. The
priests, too, natu- rally,
cannot devote their time and energy to perform their sacred duty. For they
cannot chew the beefsteaks
and roasted mutton-chops of the lean old, crippled sacrifices. They cannot live
on the scanty tithes or
insufficient stipends. Yahweh, as usual with this incorrigible people, now
threatens, now holds out
promises, and at times complain.
This discourse, or oracle, seems to have been delivered by the Prophet Malakhi
in about the beginning
of the fourth century before the Christian era, when the people of Israel were
also tired of Yahweh; and
used to say: "The Table of the Lord (Yahweh) is an abomination, and His meal is
con- temptible" (Mal.

i. 12). "He who doeth evils is good in the eyes of Yahweh, and He is pleased
with them; or, where is the
God of the judgment?" (Mal. ii. 17).
The Book of Malakhi, notwithstanding its being of a post captivitatem date, is,
however, written in a
seemly good Hebrew style. To say that this "misa," or discourse, has come
down to us intact and
unadulterated is to confess ignor- ance of the language. There are several
mutilated sentences, so that it
is almost impossible to understand the exact sense they intend to convey.
The subject of our discussion in this article is the famous prediction couched in
Mal. iii. 1. The prophecy
runs thus: - "Behold, I send My Messenger, and he shall prepare the way
before Me; and suddenly shall come to his
temple the Adon whom ye are seeking, and the Messenger of the Covenant
whom ye desire. Behold, he
cometh, says the Lord of Hosts" (Mal. iii. 1).
This is a well-known Messianic prophecy. All Christian Saints, Fathers, Popes,
Patriarchs, Priests,
monks, nuns, and even the Sunday-school children, will tell us that the first
messenger mentioned in the
text is St. John the Baptist, and the second messenger, whom their vernacular
versions have rendered
"Angel of the Covenant," is Jesus Christ!
A definite determination of the subject of this prophecy is of extreme
importance, because the Christian
Churches have ever since believed that two distinct persons are indi- cated
therein; and the author of this

erroneous belief is a singularly remarkable blunder of St. Matthew's. One of


the characteristic features of
the First Gospel - Matthew - is to show and prove the fulfillment of some
particular state- ment or
prediction in the Old Testament concerning nearly every event in the life of
Jesus Christ. He is very
careless to guard himself against contradictions, and less scrupulous in his
quotations from the Hebrew
Scriptures. He is cer- tainly not well versed in the literature of his own
language. I had occasion to refer
in the preceding article of this series to one of his blunders concerning the ass
upon which Jesus
mounted. This is a most serious point directly touch- ing the authenticity and
the validity of the Gospels.
Is it possible that the Apostle Matthew should himself be ignorant of the true
character of the prophecy
of Malakh, and ignor- antly ascribe to his master a misquotation which would
natu- rally put to question
his very quality of a divinely inspired Prophet? Then, what should we think of
the author of the Second
Gospel - of St. Mark - who ascribes the passage in Malakh-l to Isaiah? (Mark i.
2). Jesus is reported by
Matthew (xi. 1-15), and this too is followed or copied by Luke (vii. 18-28), to
have declared to the
multitude that John the Baptist was "more than a Prophet," that it was he
"about whom it was written:
Behold, I am sending My Angel before thy face, and he shall prepare thy way
before thee;" and that

"none among those born by women was greater than John, but the least in the
kingdom of heaven is
greater than he." The corruption of the text of Malakh is plain and deliberately
made. The original text
tells us that Yahweh Sabaoth, i.e. God of Hosts, is the speaker and the
believers are the people
addressed, as can be readily seen in the words "whom ye are seeking ... whom
ye desire." God says:
"Behold, I send My Messenger, and he shall prepare the way before My face."
But the Gospels have
interpolated the text by effacing the personal pronoun of the first person
singular, and inserted "before
thee" (or "thy face," as in Hebrew) twice. It is generally believed that Matthew
wrote his Gospel in the
then vernacular Hebrew or Aramaic in order to prove to the Jews that God,
addressing Jesus Christ, said:
"Behold, I send My messenger (Angel) [such is the version in Matthew xi. 10]
before thee, and he shall
prepare thy way before thee;" and wishes to show that this angel or
messenger was John the Baptist.
Then a contrast between the Prophets John and Jesus is left to Prophet Jesus,
who describes John as
above every prophet and greater than the sons of all human mothers, but the
least in the Kingdom of
Heaven - of which Jesus is meant to be the King - is greater than John.
I do not believe for a second that Jesus or any of his disciples could have made
use of such language

with the object of perverting the Word of God, but some fanatical monk or an
ignorant bishop has
forged this text and put into the mouth of Jesus the words which no prophet
would speak.
The traditional idea that the Messenger commissioned to prepare or repair the
way before the "Adon"
and the "Messenger of the Covenant" is a worshiper and subordinate of the
latter, and therefore to
conclude that two distinct persons are predicted is a creation of the ignorance
concerning the importance of the mission and the magnitude of the work
assigned to that messenger. He is not to be supposed as a
pioneer or even an engineer appointed to construct roads and bridges for the
passing of a royal
procession. Let us there- fore pore over this subject more deeply and in a
courageous, impartial, and
dispassionate manner.
1. In the first place, we must well understand that the Messenger is a man, a
creature of human body and
soul, and that he is not an Angel or a superhuman being. In the second place,
we should open our eyes of
wisdom and judg- ment to see that he is not dispatched to prepare the way
before another Messenger
called "Adon" and the "Messenger of the Promise," but he is commissioned to
establish a straight, safe,
and good Religion. He is commissioned to remove all the obstacles in the way
between God and His
creatures; and to fill up all the gaps and chasms in this grand path, so that it
may be smooth, easy to walk

on, well lighted, and protected from all danger. The Hebrew phrase, "u pinna
derekh," means to say that
the Messenger "will put straight and clear the worship or the religion." The
verb "darakh" of the same
root as the Arabic "daraka," means "to walk, reach, and comprehend;" and the
substantive "derekh"
signifies, "road, way, step," and metaphorically "worship and religion." It is
used in this spiritual sense
all through the Psalms and the Prophets. Surely this high Messenger of God
was not coming to repair or
reform a way, a religion for the benefit of a handful of Jews, but to establish a
universal and an
unchangeable religion for all men. Though the Jewish religion inculcates the
existence of one true God,
still their conception of Him as a national Deity of Israel, their priesthood,
sacrificial rites and ceremonies, and then the non-existence of any positive articles of belief in the
immortality of the soul, the
resurrection of the dead, the last judgment, the eternal life in heaven or hell,
and many other deficient
points, make it absolutely unfit and insufficient for the peoples of diverse
languages, races, di- mates,
temperaments, and habits. As regards Christianity, it, with its meaningless
seven sacraments, its beliefs
in original sin, the incarnation of a god - unknown to all previous reli- gious and
mythological literature
- and in a trinity of indivi- dual gods, and finally because it does not possess a
single line in scripto from

its supposed founder, Jesus Christ, has done no good to mankind. On the
contrary, it has caused divisions and sects, all inbued with bitter feelings of hatred and rancor against
each other.
The Messenger, then, was commissioned with the abro- gating of both those
religions and the
establishing of the ancient religion of Prophets Abraham and Ishmael and the
other Prophets, with new
precepts for all men. It was to be the shortest road to "reach" God; the
simplest religion to worship Him,
and the safest Faith to remain ever pure and unadul- terated with superstition
and stupid dogmas. The
Messenger was commissioned to prepare a road, a religion that will conduct au
who wish to believe in
and love the One God without having need of the leadership of hundreds of
self- appointed guides and
pretenders. And above all, the Mes- senger was to come suddenly to his
temple, whether it be the one in
Jerusalem or the one in Mecca; he was to root out all idolatry in those
countries, not only by the destruction of idols and images, but also inculcating in their former worshipers the
faith in one true Allah. And
the accom- plishment of this stupendous task, namely, to construct a new
Path, a universal religion, that
teaches that between God and man no absolute mediator, no priest, saint or
sacrament, is at all
permissible, has only been done by a Prophet whose name is Muhammad alMustapha!

2. John the Baptist was not the Messenger foretold by Malakhi The accounts
given about him by the
four Evange- lists are very contradictory, but the one thing that they together
agree on is that he prepared
no way at all; for he was not accredited with a sacred scripture: he neither
founded a religion nor
reformed the old one. He is reported to have left his parents and home while
still a youth; he lived in the
desert on honey and the locust; and spent there his life until he was about
thirty years old, when he showed himself to the multitudes on the banks of the
River Jordan, where he used to baptize the penitent
sinners who confessed their sins to him. While Matthew knows nothing of his
re- lationship with Jesus,
or does not care to report it, Luke, who wrote his Gospel, not from a
revelation, but from the works of
the disciples of the Master, records the homage rendered by John to Jesus
when both in the wombs of
their mothers (Luke i. 39-46). He baptizes Jesus in the waters of the River
Jordan like everybody else,
and is reported to have said that he (John) was "not worthy to bow down to
untie the laces of the shoes"
(Mark i. 7) of Jesus, and ac- cording to the Fourth Gospel he (John) exclaimed
that Jesus was "the Lamb
of God that takes away the sins of the world" (John i. 29). That he knew Jesus
and recognized him to be
the Christ is quite evident. Yet when he was imprisoned he sends his disciples
to Jesus, asking him: "Art
thou he who is to come, or should we anticipate another one?" (Matt. xi. 3,
etc.). The Baptist was

martyred in the prison because he reprimanded an infidel Edomite, King Herod


the Tetrarch, for having
married the wife of his own brother. Thus ends, according to the narrative of
the Evangelists, the life of
a very chaste and holy prophet.
It is strange that the Jews did not receive John as a prophet. It is also stranger
still to find that the Gospel
of Barnabas does not mention the Baptist; and what is more, it puts the words
said to have been uttered
by John concern- ing Christ into the mouth of the latter about Muhammad, the
Prophet of Allah. The
Qur'an mentions the miraculous birth of John under the name of "Yahya," but
does not refer to his
mission of baptism.
The description of his sermon is given in the third chapter of Matthew. He
seems to have announced the
approach of the Kingdom of Heaven and the advent of a Great Messenger and
Prophet of God who
would baptize the believers, not with water, "but with fire and with the holy
spirit."
Now, if John the Baptist were the Messenger appointed by God to prepare the
way before Jesus Christ,
and if he was his herald and subordinate, there is no sense and wisdom
whatever in John to go about
baptizing the crowds in the waters of a river or a pond and to occupy himself
with half a dozen disciples.
He ought to have immediately followed and adhered to Jesus when he had
seen and known him! He did

nothing of the kind! Of course, a Muslim always speaks of a prophet with


utmost respect and reverence,
and I am not expected to comment further, as an Ernest Renan or an
indifferent critic would do! But to
say that a prophet whom they describe as a dervish (Sufi) of the wilderness
clad in the skins of animals,
and a dervish who comes forth and sees his "Adon" and the "Angel of the
Covenant," and then does not
follow and cleave to him, is ridiculous and incredible. To think and believe that
a prophet is sent by God
to pre- pare the way, to purify and clear the religion for the coming of his
superior, and then describing
him as living all his life in the desert among the animals, is to tell us that he was
constructing chaussees,
causeways or railways, not for men, but for beasts and genii.
3. Nor was John the Baptist the Prophet Elijah or Elias, as Christ is made to
have said. The Prophet
Malakhi, in his fourth chapter (verses 5, 6), speaks of the coming of Elijah,
which fact is foretold to take
place some time before the day of the Resurrection and not before the
Appearance of the Messenger in
question. Even if Christ had said that John was Elijah, the people did not know
him. What Jesus meant
to say was that the two were similar in their ascetical life, their zeal for God,
their courage in scolding
and admonishing the kings and the hypocrite leaders of the religion.
I cannot go on discussing this untenable claim of the Churches concerning John
being the Messenger "to

prepare the way." But I must add that this Baptist did not abrogate one iota of
the Law of Moses, nor add to it a tittle. And as to baptism, it is the old Jewish
ma'muditha or ablution. Washing or ablution could
not be considered a "religion" or "way" whose place has been taken by the
famous and my- sterious
Church institution of the sacrament of Baptism!
4. If I say that Jesus Christ is not intended in the prophecy of Malakhi, it would
seem that I was
advancing an argumentum in absurdum, because nobody will contradict or
make an objection to my
statement. The Churches have al- ways believed that the "Messenger of the
way" is John the Baptist, and
not Jesus. The Jews, however, accept neither of the two. But as the person
foretold in the prophecy is
one and the same, and not two, I most conscientiously declare that Prophet
Jesus is not, and could not
be, that person. If Jesus was a god, as he is now believed to be, then he could
not be employed to prepare
the way before the face of Yahweh Sabaoth! If Prophet Jesus were the Yahweh
Sabaoth who made this
prophecy, then who was the other Yehweh Sabaoth before whose face the
way was to be prepared? If he
were a simple man, made of flesh and blood, and worshiper of the Lord of
Hosts, then the claim falls to
the ground. For Jesus as a simple human being and prophet could not be the
founder of the trinitarian
Churches. Whichever form of the Christian religion we may take, whether it be
the Orthodox, Catholic,

Protestant, Salvationist, Quaker, or any of the multitudinous sects and


communities, none of them can be
the "way," the "religion" indicated by Malakhi; and Prophet Jesus is not its
founder or preparer. So long
as we deny the absolute Oneness of God, we are in error, and Jesus cannot be
our friend nor can he help
us.
5. The person indicated in the prophecy has three qualifications, namely, the
Messenger of Religion, the
Lord Commander, and the Messenger of the Convent. He is also described and
distinguished by three
conditions, namely "he is suddenly coming to his Mosque or Temple, he is
looked for and sought by
men, and is greatly desired and coveted."
Who can, then, be this glorious man, this Great Bene- factor of humanity, and
this valiant Commander
who rendered noble services in the cause of Allah and His religion other than
Prophet Muhammad? upon whom may rest God's peace and blessing.
He brought to the world an unrivalled Sacred Book, Al-Qur'an, a most
reasonable, simple, and beneficial
religion of Islam, and has been the means of guidance and conversion of
millions and millions of the
heathen nations in all parts of the globe, and has transformed them all into
one universal and united
Brotherhood, which constitutes the true and formal "Kingdom of Allah" upon
the earth announced by

Prophets Jesus and John the Baptist. It is futile and childish to com- pare either
Jesus or John with the
great Messenger of Allah, when we know perfectly well that neither of these
two did ever attempt to
convert a single pagan nor succeeded in persuading the Jews to recognize his
mission.
Genuine Prophets Preach Only Islam
There is no nation known to history like the people of Israel, which during a
period of less than four
hundred years, was infested with myriads of false prophets, not to mention the
swarms of sorcerers,
soothsayers and all sorts of witchcrafts and magicians. The false prophets were
of two kinds: those who
professed the religion and the Torah (Law) of Yahweh and pretended to
prophesy in His Name, and
those who under the patronage of an idolater Israelite monarch prophesied in
the name of Baal or otherdeities of the neighboring heathen peoples.
Belonging to the former category there were several
impostors as contemporaries with the true prophets like Mikha (Micah) and
Jeremiah, and to the latter
there were those who gave much trouble to Elijah, and caused the massacres
of the true prophets and
believers during the reign of Ahab and his wife Jezebel. Most dangerous of all
to the cause of true faith
and religion were the pseudo-prophets, who conducted the divine services in
the temple as well as in the
Misphas and pretended to deliver the oracles of God to the people. No
prophet, perhaps, received at the

hands of these impostors more of persecution and hardships than the Prophet
Jeremiah.
While still a young man, Jeremiah began his prophetic mission about the latter
quarter of the seventh
century before the Christian era, when the Kingdom of Judah was in great
danger of invasion by the
armies of the Chaldeans. The Jews had entered into alliance with the Pharaoh
of Egypt, but as the latter
had been badly defeated by the troops of Nebuchadnezzar, Jerusalem's doom
was merely a question of
time. In these critical days, during which the fate of the remnant of the people
of God was to be decided,
the Prophet Jeremiah was stoutly advising the king and the leaders of the Jews
to submit and serve the
King of Babylon, so that Jerusalem might be saved from being burnt down to
ashes and the people from
being deported into captivity. He poured out all his eloquent and fiery
discourses into the ears of the
kings, the priests, and the elders of the people, but all of no avail. He delivered
message after message
from God, saying that the only remedy for saving the country and the people
from the imminent
destruction was to submit to the Chaldeans; but there was no one to lend ear
to his warnings.
Nebuchadnezzar comes and takes the city, carries away with him the king, the
princes, and many
captives, as well as all the treasures of the temple, including the gold and silver
vessels. Another prince,

and a third one, is appointed by the Emperor of Babylon to reign as his vassal
in Jerusalem. This king,
instead of being wise and loyal to his master of Babylon, revolts against him.
Jeremiah incessantly
admonishes the king to remain loyal and to abandon the Egyptian policy. But
the false prophets continue
to harangue in the temple, saying: "Thus says the Lord of hosts, Behold, I have
broken the yoke of the
King of Babylon, and in two years' time all the Jewish captives and the vessels
of the House of God will
be returned to Jerusalem." Jeremiah makes a wooden yoke round his own
neck and goes to the temple
and tells the people that God has been pleased to place in this way the yoke of
the monarch of Babylon
upon the neck of all the Jews. He is struck on the face by one opponent
prophet, who breaks to pieces
the wooden yoke from Jeremiah's neck and repeats the harangue of the false
prophets. Jeremiah is
thrown into a deep dungeon full of mire, and is fed only on a dry loaf of barley
a day until a famine
prevails in the city, which is besieged by the Chaldeans. The pseudo-prophet
Hananiah dies as Jeremiah
had foretold. The wall of the city is thrown down somewhere, and the
victorious army rushes into the
city, the fleeing King Zedekiah and his retinue are seized and taken to the King
of Babylon. The city and
the temple, after being pillaged, are set on fire and all the inhabitants of
Jerusalem are carried into

Babylonia; only the poorer classes are left to cultivate the land. By order of
Nebuchadnezzar, Jeremiah
is granted a favor of staying in Jerusalem, and the newly appointed governor,
Gedaliah, is charged to
guard and well look after the prophet. But Gedaliah is killed by the rebellious
Jews, and then they all
flee to Egypt, carrying Jeremiah with them. Even in Egypt he prophesies against
the fugitives and the
Egyptians. He must have ended his life in Egypt.
His books, as it now stands, is quite different from the text of the Septuagint;
evidently the copy from
which the Greek text was written by the Alexandrian translators had a
different order of chapters. The Biblical critics consider that Jeremiah was the
author, or, at any rate, a compiler, of the fifth book of
the Pentateuch called Deuteronomy. I myself am of the same opinion.
Jeremiah was a Levite and a priest
as well as a prophet. There is much of Jeremiah's teachings in Deuteronomy
which are unknown in the
rest of the Old Testament writings. And I take one of these teachings for my
present subject, which I
consider as one of the gems or golden texts of the Old Testament and must be
esteemed very precious
and holy.
After this detailed explanation I hasten to the main point which I have selected
for the topic of this
article: How to distinguish a genuine prophet from a false prophet. Jeremiah
has supplied us with a fairly
satisfactory answer, namely:

"THE PROPHET WHO TEACHES ISLAM"


In the Book of Deuteronomy (xiii. 1- 5, xviii. 20 - 22) God the Almighty gives
some instructions
concerning the false prophets who may prophesy in the Name of the Lord and
in such an insidious way
that they could mislead His people. Further, he tells us that the best way to
find out the impostor's
perfidy was to anticipate the fulfillment of his predictions, and then to put him
to death when his fraud
was divulged. But, as is well known, the ignorant cannot well distinguish
between the genuine prophet
and the imposter, just as much as they to-day are unable to definitely discover
which of the two, a
Roman Catholic priest or a Calvinist minister, is a genuine follower of Jesus
Christ! A false prophet
would also foretell events, work wonders, and do other religious things similar
- at least in appearance to those performed by a true one. The competition between the Prophet
Moses and the magicians of
Egypt is an apt illustration of this statement. Thus it is Jeremiah who gives us
the best way of testing the
veracity, the genuineness, of a prophet, and that way is the sign of Islam.
Please read the whole chapter
xxviii. of Jeremiah, and then ponder and reflect on the ninth verse: "The prophet which foretells the Islam (Shalom), at the coming of the word of
the Prophet, that prophet
will be recognized to have been sent by God in truth" (Jer. xviii. 9).

This translation is strictly literal. The original verb naba, usually translated as
"to foretell" or "to
prophesy," and the noun nabi, "a prophet" has given the impression that a
prophet is a person who
foretells the future or past events by the aid of divine revelation. This
definition is only partially true.
The complete definition of the word "Prophet" must be: "one who receives
oracles or messages from
God, and delivers them faithfully to the person or people intended." It is
evident that a divine message
need not necessarily be a foretelling of past and future events. In the same
way verb "prophesy" does not
necessarily mean to reveal the past or future occurrences, but rather to preach
or promulgate the message
from God. Consequently to prophesy is to deliver and utter a new oracle, its
nature or character being
quite immaterial. To read the words of a prophet would be to prophesy no
more than would a prophet
deliver an oracle when making a discourse or public speech of his own accord.
In the Qur'an God orders
His beloved worshiper Prophet Muhammad to declare: "Say: 'I am only human
like you, revealed to
me is that your God is One God....'" Ch. 18:110 so that we may be careful not
to attribute to any of the
prophets the quality of knowing and saying everything through the Revelation.
The Divine Revelations
used to come at intervals, while the prophets in their personal intercourse and
knowledge might be liable

to mistakes and errors. A prophet is not appointed by God to teach humanity


physics, mathematics, or
any other positive science. It would be very unjust on our part to blame a
prophet for a slip of language
or a mistake committed as a man. A prophet, therefore, is the subject of test
and examination only when he officially and formally delivers
the Message he has received from his Lord. His private affairs, his family
concerns, and his personal
attainments do not concern us so much as his mission and office. In order to
find out whether a prophet
is genuine or an impostor, it is not fair to give a verdict against his prophetical
character because he is
reported to have been a little harsh or rude to his mother or because he
believed in the literal inspiration
and the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. While making this observation, I
have in mind the case of
Jesus Christ, and many others in the history of Israel on other points.
It is mala fides and ill will to accuse prophets of sensuality, rudeness, ignorance
in sciences, and of other
personal frailties. They were men like ourselves and subject to the same
natural inclinations and
passions. They were protected from mortal sins and from the perversion of the
message they had to hand
further. We must be extremely careful not to exalt the prophets of God too
high in our imagination, lest
God be displeased with us. They are all His creatures and worshipers; they
accomplished their work and

returned to Him. The moment we forget God and concentrate our love and
admiration upon the person
of any of the messengers of God we are in danger of falling into the sin of
polytheism.
Having so far explained the nature and the signification of the prophet and the
prophecy, I shall now
endeavor to prove that no prophet could be genuine unless, as Jeremiah
expressly says, he preaches and
propagates the religion of Islam.
In order to understand better the sense and the importance of the passage
under our contemplation we
should just cast a glance over the preceding verse where Jeremiah tells his
antagonist Prophet Hananiah:
"The prophets that have been before me and before thee from old (times)
prophesied against many lands,
and against great kingdoms, concerning war and evil and pestilence." Then he
proceeds: "The prophet that prophesies concerning Islam as soon as the word of the
prophet comes, that prophet is
known to have been sent by the Lord in truth."
There can be raised no serious objection to the English wording of this passage
excepting the clause "l
shalom" which I have translated as "concerning Islam." The preposition "l"
before "shalom" signifies
"concerning" or "about," and places its subject in the objective case and not in
the dative, as it would be
if the predicate were a verb like "come," "go," or "give."

That "shalom" and the Syriac "Shlama," as well as the Arabic "salam" and
"Islam," are of one and the
same Semitic root, "shalam," and mean the same thing, is an admitted truth by
all the scholars of the
Semitic languages. The verb "shalam" signifies "to submit, resign oneself to,"
and then "to make peace;"
and consequently "to be safe, sound, and tranquil." No religious system in the
world has ever been
qualified with a better and more comprehensive, dignified, and sublime name
than that of "Islam.' The
true Religion of the True God cannot be named after the name of any of His
worshipers, and much less
after the name of a people or country. It is, indeed, this sanctity and the
inviolability of the word "Islam"
that strikes its opponents with awe, fear, and reverence even when the
Muslims are weak and unhappy.
It is the name and title of a religion that teaches and commands an absolute
submission and resignation
of will and self to the Supreme Being, and then to obtain peace and tranquillity
in mind and at home, no
matter what tribulations or passing misfortunes may threaten us that fills its
opponents with awe (1). ------------- Footnote (1) It is interesting and significant
to note how the observations of the learned
professor coincide with those of the ex-Kaiser of Germany who on the occasion
of his seventieth
birthday celebrations at Doorn, Holland, was reported to have said in his
speech: "And understand this if ever the Muhammadans should conceive the idea that it is the command of
Allah to bring order into a

declining West and subjugate to His will, then - with faith in God - they will
come upon the godless
Europeans like a tidal wave, against which even the reddest Bolshevist, full of
eagerness for combat,
will be helpless." (Evening Standard, London, January 26, 1929.) ------------- End
of footnote
It is the firm and unshaking belief in the Oneness of Allah and the unswerving
confidence in His Mercy
and justice that makes a Muslim distinguishable and prominent among nonMuslims. And it is this
sound faith in Allah and the sincere attachment to His Holy Qur'an and the
Prophet that the Christian
missionaries have been desperately attacking and have hopelessly failed.
Hence, Jeremiah's words that
"the Prophet who prophesies, namely, who preaches and speaks concerning
the affairs of Islam as his
religion, he will at once be known to have been sent by the Lord in truth." Let
us, therefore, take into
serious consideration the following points:1. The Prophet Jeremiah is the only prophet before Christ who uses the word
Shalom in the sense of a
religion. He is the only prophet who uses this word with the object of setting or
proving the veracity of a
messenger of God. According to the Qur'anic revelation, Prophets Abraham,
Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob,
Moses, and all the prophets were Muslims, and professed Islam as their
religion. The term "Islam" and

its equivalents, "Shalom" and Shlama," were known to the Jews and Christians
of Mecca and Medina
when Prophet Muhammad appeared to perfect and universalize the religion of
Islam. A prophet who
predicts "peace" as an abstract, vague and temporary condition cannot
succeed in proving his identity
thereby. In fact, the point of dispute, or rather the critical national question,
controverted by the two
eminent prophets known to the court and the nation like Jeremiah and
Hananiah (Jer. xxviii.), could not
be solved and definitely settled by the affirmation of the one and the denial of
the other, of the imminent
catastrophe. To predict "peace" by Jeremiah when he had all the time been
predicting the great national
disaster - either by the submission of the King Sidaqia to the Chaldean
sovereign or by his resistance would not only involve his failure, not to talk of his being a success in proving
his veracity, but also it
would make him even ridiculous. For, in either case, his presumed "peace"
would mean no peace at all.
On the contrary, if the Jews resisted the Chaldean army, it meant a complete
national ruin, and if they
submitted, an unconditional servitude. It is evident, therefore, that Jeremiah
uses the term "Shalom" in
the sense of a tangible, concrete, and real religious system which Islam
comprises. To make it more
clear, we should attentively listen to the arguments of the two opponent
prophets discussing and

disputing the national question in the presence of a wicked king and his court
of vile flatterers and
depraved hypocrites. Jeremiah has at heart the cause of God and His religion
of peace, and in the vital
interests of the religion of peace, or Islam, he advises the wicked king and his
courtiers to submit to the
yoke of Babylon and serve the Chaldeans and live. For there was no other
alternative open to them.
They had abandoned the God of their forefathers, polluted His temple, mocked
and reviled His prophets,
and committed evil and treachery (2 Chron. xxxvi. etc.). So God had delivered
them into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar, and would not save them. For a true and sincere worshiper
of God, the religion comes
first and the nation after. It is the government and the nation - especially when
they have forsaken God that are to be sacrificed for the cause of religion, and not vice versa! The other
Prophet of Gibeon, called
Hananiah, sought to please his master the king; he was a courtier and favorite,
rich and in splendor,
whereas his antagonist was always languishing and starving in the prisons and
dungeons. He cares not a
fillip for the religion and the real welfare of the people. He is also a prophet,
for so says the Book of Jeremiah, yet he is a villain, and has exchanged God for
a depraved king! He prophesies in the name of
the same God as does Jeremiah, and announces the return of the booty and
the captives from Babylon in
two years' time.

Now, from the above imperfect description of the prophets, which of the two
would you qualify as the
true worshiper of God and as the loyal defender of God's religion? Surely
Jeremiah would at once attract
your sympathy and choice.
2. It is only the religion of Shalom, of Islam, that can testify to the character
and the office of a true
prophet, Imam, or any minister of God on earth. God is One, and His religion is
one. There is no other
religion in the world like Islam, which professes and defends this absolute
Oneness of the Deity. He
who, therefore, sacrifices every other interest, honor and love for the cause of
this Holy Religion, he is
undoubtedly the genuine prophet and the minister of God. But there is still
one thing more worthy of our
notice, and that thing is this. If the religion of Islam is not the standard and the
measure by which to test
the veracity of a prophet or minister of God, then there is no other criterion to
answer that purpose. A
miracle is not always a sufficient proof, for the sorcerers also work wonders.
The fulfillment of a
prophecy or prediction, too, is not in itself a sufficient proof; for just as one
holy Spirit reveals a future
event to a true prophet, so does sometimes an evil spirit the same to an
imposter. Hence it is clear that
the prophet who "prophesies concerning Shalom - Islam - as being the name of
Faith and path of life, as

soon as he receives a message from God he will be known to have been sent
by Him." Such was the
argument which Jeremiah had recourse to and with which he wished to
convince his audience of the
falsity of Hananiah. But the wicked king and his entourage would not listen to
and obey the Word of
God.
3. As argued in the preceding paragraph, it should be noted that neither the
fulfillment of a prediction
nor the work- ing of a miracle was enough to prove the genuine character of a
prophet; that the loyalty
and strict attachment to the religion is the best and the decisive proof for the
purpose; that "Shalom" was
used to express the religion of peace. Once again we repeat the same assertion
that Shalom is no other
than Islam. And we demand from those who would object to this
interpretation to produce an Arabic
word be- sides Islam and Salam as the equivalent of the Shalom, and also to
find for us another word in
Hebrew besides Shalom that would convey and express the same meaning as
Islam. It is impossible to
produce another such an equivalent. Therefore we are forced to admit that
Shalom is the same as
"salam" or "peace" in the abstract, and "Islam" as a religion and faith in the
concrete.
4. As the Qur'an in chap. ii expressly reminds us that Abraham and his sons and
grandsons were the

followers of Islam; that they were neither Jews nor Christians; that they
preached and propagated the
worship and the faith in the one God to all the peoples among whom they
sojourned or dwelt, we must
admit that not only the Jews, but several other nations that descended from
the other sons of Abraham
and many tribes converted and absorbed by them, were also Muslims; that is
to say, believers in Allah
and resigned to His Will. There were the people of Esau, the Edomites, the
Midianites, and numerous
other peoples living in Arabia, who knew God and worshipped Him like the
Israelites. These peoples
had also their own prophets and religious guides like Job, Jethro (the father-inlaw of the Prophet
Moses), Balaam, Hud, and many others. But they, like the Jews, had taken to
idolatry until it was totally
eradicated by the Prince of the prophets. The Jews, in about the fifth century
B.C., produced the greater
portion of their canonical books of the Old Testament, when the memories of
the conquest of the land of
Canaan by Joshua, the temple and Jerusalem of Solomon, were events buried
in the past epochs of their wondrous history. A nationalistic and Judaistic spirit
of solicitude and seclusion reigned among the
small remnant of Israel; the belief in the coming of a great Savior to restore the
lost throne and crown of
David was regnant, and the old meaning of "Shalom" as the name of the
religion of Abraham and
common to all the different peoples descended from him was no longer
remembered. It is from this point

of view that I regard this passage of Jeremiah as one of the golden texts in the
Hebrew sacred writ.
Islam Is The Kingdom Of God On Earth
In examination of that marvelous vision of the Prophet Daniel (Chap. vii.) we
saw how Prophet
Muhammad was escorted by the myriads of celestial beings and conducted to
the glorious presence of
the Eternal; how he heard the words of honor and affection which no creature
had ever been favor- ed
with (2 Cor. xii.); how he was crowned to the dignity of the Sultan of the
Prophets and invested with
power to destroy the "Fourth Beast" and the "Blasphemous Horn." Further, we
saw how he was
authorized to establish and proclaim the Kingdom of God on earth; how all
that human genius can
possibly imagine of the highest honors accorded by the Almighty to a beloved
worshiper and to His
most worthy Messenger could be ascribed to Prophet Muhammad alone. It
should be re- membered that
among all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah, Prophet Muhammad alone
figures like a tower above
all; and the grand and noble work he accomplished stands a permanent
monument of his honor and
greatness. One cannot appreciate the value and importance of Islam as the
unique bulwark against
idolatry and polytheism unless the absolute Oneness of God is earnestly
admitted. When we fully realize

that Allah is the same God whom Adam and Abraham knew, and whom Moses
and Jesus worshipped,
then we have no difficulty in accepting Islam as the only true religion and
Prophet Muhammad as the
Prince of all the Prophets and Worshipers of God. We cannot magnify the
greatness of Allah by conceiving Him now as a "Father," now as a "Son," and now as a "Holy Ghost," or
to imagine Him as
having three persons that can address each other with the three singular
personal pronouns: I, thou, he.
By so doing we lose all the true con- ception of the Absolute Being, and cease
to believe in the true God.
In the same way, we cannot add a single iota to the sanctity of the religion by
the institution of some
meaningless sacraments or mysteries; nor can we derive any spiritual food for
our spirits from feeding
upon the corpse of a prophet or an incarnate deity; for by so doing we lose all
idea of a true and real
religion and cease to believe in the religion altogether. Nor can we in the least
promote the dignity of
Prophet Muhammad if we were to imagine him a son of God or an incarnate
deity; for by so doing we
would entirely lose the real and the historical Prophet of Mecca and fall unconsciously into the abyss
of polytheism. The greatness of Prophet Muhammad consists in his
establishing such a sound, plain, but
true religion, and in the practical application of its precepts and principles with
such precision and

resolution that it has never been possible for a true Muslim to accept any
other creed or faith than that
which is professed in the for- mula: "I believe there is no god except Allah, and
that Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah." And this short creed will continue to be the faith of every
true believer in Allah to
the Day of the Resurrection.
The great destroyer of the "Eleventh Horn," that personified Constantine the
Great and the Trinitarian
Church, was not a Bar Allaha ("Son of God"), but a Bar Nasha ("Son of Man")
and none other than
Prophet Muhammad al-Mustapha who actually established the Kingdom of
God upon earth. It is this
Kingdom of God that we are now to examine and expound. It would be
remembered that it was during
the Divine audience of the Sultan of the Prophets, as given in Daniel, that it
was promised that: "The kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the
kingdom under all heaven shall be given to the
people of the Saints of the Most High; its (the people's) kingdom (shall be) a
kingdom for ever, and all
dominions shall serve and obey it" (Dan. vii. 22 and 27).
The expressions in this prophetical passage that the Kingdom of God shall
consist of "the People of the
Saints of the Most High," and that all other dominions or powers shall serve
and obey that people,
clearly indicate that in Islam the Religion and State are one and the same body,
and consequently

inseparable. Islam is not only the Religion of God, but also His earthly empire
or kingdom. In order to
be able to form a clear and true idea concerning the nature and the
constitution of the "Kingdom of God
on earth" it is necessary to cast a glance upon the history of the religion of
Islam before it was perfected,
completed, and formally established by God Himself under His Messenger
Muhammad.
1. ISLAM BEFORE PROPHET MUHAMMAD WAS NOT THE KINGDOM OF
GOD UPON EARTH, BUT ONLY GOD'S TRUE RELIGION
Those who believe that the true religion of Allah was revealed only to Abraham
and preserved by the
people of Israel alone, must be very ignorant students of the Old Testament
literature, and must have a
very erroneous notion of the nature of that religion. Abraham himself offered
tithes to the King and
Imam (l.) of Jerusalem and was blessed by him (Gen. xiv. 18). The father-in-law
of Moses was also an
Imam and a Prophet of Allah; Job, Balaam, Ad, Hud, Loqman, and many other
prophets were not Jews.
The various tribes and nations like the Ishmaelites, Moabites, Ammonites,
Edomites, and others which
descended from the sons of Abraham and Lot, knew God the Almighty though
they too, like the
Israelites, fell into idolatry and ignorance. But the light of Islam was never
entirely extinguished or
substituted by idolatry. Idols or images, which were considered as "sacred" and
as household gods by

the Jews, as well as their kindred nationalities, and usually called "Traphim"
(Gen. xxxi.) in the Hebrew,
were, in my humble opinion of the same nature and character as the images
and idols which the
Orthodox and Catholic Christians keep and worship in their houses and
temples. In those olden times of
ignorance the idols were of the kind of "identity card" or of the nature of a
passport. Is it not remarkable
to find that Rachel (Rahil), the wife of Jacob and the daughter of Laban, should
steal the "traphim" of
her father? (Gen. xxxi). Yet Laban as well as her husband were Muslims, and on
the same day raised the
stone "Mispha" and dedicated it to God!
------------- Footnote (1) In Hebrew these old Imams are called Cohen,' and
rendered by Christians as
"Priest." A Jewish priest can never be identified with a Christian
Sacramentarian priest. ------------- end
of footnote
The Jews in the wilderness, inebriate with the wonders and miracles worked
day and night - their camp
shadowed by a miraculous cloud at daytime and illuminated by a pillar of fire
at night, themselves fed
with the "manna" and "Salwai" - as soon as the Prophet Moses disappeared for
a few days on the misty
top of Mount Sinai, made a golden calf and worshipped it. The history of that
stubborn people from the
death of Joshua to the anointment of King Saul, covering a period of more than
four centuries, is full of

a series of scan- dalous relapses into idolatry. It was only after the close of the
revelation and the Canon
of their holy Scriptures in the third century before Christ that the Jews ceased
to worship idols, and have
since remained monotheists. But their belief in the Oneness of God, though it
makes them Unitarians,
does not entitle them to the qualification of being called "Muslims," because
they have stubbornly
rejected both the persons and the revelations of Prophets Jesus and
Muhammad. It is only through submission to the Will of God that a man can
attain peace and become Muslim, otherwise the faith
without obedience and submission is similar to that of the devils who believe
in the existence of Allah
and tremble.
As we possess no records concerning the other peoples who were favored with
Divine Revelations and
with the Prophets and Imam sent to them by God, we shall only content
ourselves with the declaration
that the religion of Islam existed among Israel and other Arab peoples of old,
sometimes more luminous,
but mostly like a flickering wick or like a dim spark glimmering in a dark room.
It was a religion
professed by a people who soon forgot it, or neglected it, or transformed it
into pagan practices. But all
the same there were always individuals and families who loved and
worshipped God.
It seems that the Jews, especially the masses, had no true conception of God
and of religion as the

Muslims have had of Allah and Islam. Whenever the people of Israel prospered
and was successful in its
wars, then Jahwah was acknowledged and worshipped; but in adverse
circumstances He was abandoned
and the deity of a stronger and more prosperous nation was adopted and its
idol or image worshipped. A
careful study of the Hebrew Scripture will show that the ordinary Jew
considered his God sometimes
stronger or higher, and sometimes weaker, than those professed by other
nations. Their very easy and
reiterated relapse into idolatry is a proof that the Israelites had almost the
same notion about their El or
Yahwah, as the Assyrians had of their own Ashur, the Babylonians of Mardukh,
and the Phoenicians of
their Ba'al. With the exception of the Prophets and the Sophis, the Muslims of
Torah, the Israel of the
Mosaic Law, never rose equal to the height of the sanctity of their religion nor
of the true conception of
their Deity. The faith in Allah and a firm conviction and belief in a future life
was not ingrained and
implanted in the spirit and in the heart of that people.
What a contrast, then, between the Muslims of the Qur'an, the believers of the
Islamic Law, and the
Muslims of Torah or the Mosaic Law! Has it ever been seen and proved that a
Muslim people
abandoned its Mosque, Imam, and the Qur'an, and embraced any other
religion and acknowledged that

Allah was not its God? Never! It is extremely unlikely that a Islamic Muslim
community, so long as it is
provided with the Book of Allah, the Mosque and the Mullah, could relapse
into idolatry or even into
Christianity.
I am aware of the certain so-called Tartar families who embraced the Orthodox
Christian Faith in
Russia. But I can assure my readers, on authentic authority, that these
"Tartars" were those Mongols
who, long after the subjugation of Russia and the establishment of the "Altin
Ordu" by Batu Khan, were
either still pagans or newly converted to Islam and seem to have been forced
or induced to join the
Russian Church. And in this connection it should not be ignored that this
happened after the Muslim
power of the "Golden Horde" ("Altin Ordu") tumbled down at the tremendous
invasion of Timur Lang
(Tamerlane). On the contrary, Muslim traders and merchants, in China as well
as in the dark continent of
Africa, have always propagated their Holy Religion; and the millions of Chinese
and negro Muslims are
the fruit of these unpaid and unofficial Mussulman missionaries. It is evident
from the above that the
true religion of God before Prophet Muhammad was only in its infancy, that it
remained immature and
undeveloped amongst the Hebrews, although it shone brilliantly in the life of
the true worshipers of

Yahwah. Under the direction of the God-fearing Judges and the pious Kings of
Israel, the government
was always theocratic, and as long as the oracles of the Prophets were
favorably received and their
injunctions duly executed, both the religion and the nation prospered. But the
True Religion of God never took the form of the Kingdom of God as it did under
the Qur'anic
regime. Allah in His Infinite Wisdom had decreed that four great Powers of
Darkness should succeed
each other before His own Kingdom was to be established. The great ancient
civilizations and empires
of the Assyro-Chaldeans, of the Medo-Persians, of the Greeks and of the
Romans, had to appear and
flourish, to persecute and oppress the people of God, and to perpetrate all the
evil and wickedness that
the Devil could devise. All the glory of these great powers consisted in their
worshipping the Devil; and
it was this "glory" that the "Prince of the Darkness" promised to grant to Jesus
Christ from the top of a
high mountain if he were only to follow him and worship him.
2. CHRIST AND HIS DISCIPLES PREACHED THE KINGDOM OF GOD
They were, it is true, the harbingers of the Kingdom of God upon earth. The
soul and the kernel of the
Gospel of Jesus is contained in that famous clause in his prayer: "Thy Kingdom
come." For twenty
centuries the Christians of all denominations and shades of belief have been
praying and repeating this

invocation, "Thy Kingdom come," and God alone knows how long they will
continue to pray for and
vainly anticipate its coming. This Christian anticipation of the coming of the
Kingdom of God is of the
same nature as the anticipation of Judaism for the coming of Messiah. Both
these anticipation exhibit an
inconsiderate and thoughtless imagination, and the wonder is that they
persistently cling to this futile
hope. If you ask a Christian priest or parson what he thinks of the Kingdom of
God, he will tell you all
sorts of illusory and meaningless things. This Kingdom is, he will affirm, the
Church to which he
belongs when it will overcome and absorb all the other heretical Churches.
Another parson or priest will
harangue on the "millennium." A Salvationist or a Quaker may tell you that
according to his belief the
Kingdom of God will consist of the new-born and sinless Christians, washed
and cleansed with the
blood of the Lamb; and so forth.
The Kingdom of God does not mean a triumphant Catholic Church, or a
regenerated and sinless Puritan
State. It is not a visionary "Royalty of the Millennium." It is not a Kingdom
composed of celestial
beings, including the departed spirits of the Prophets and the blessed
believers, under the reign of a
divine Lamb; with angels for its police and gendarmes; the Cherubs for its
governors and judges; the

Seraphs for its officers and commanders; or the Archangels for its Popes,
Patriarchs, Bishops, and
evangelical preachers. The Kingdom of God on earth is a Religion, a powerful
society of believers in
One God equipped with faith and sword to fight for and maintain its existence
and absolute
independence against the Kingdom of Darkness, against all those who do not
believe that God is One, or
against those who believe that He has a son, a father or mother, associates and
coevals.
The Greek word euangelion, rendered "Gospel" in English, practically means
"the enunciation of good
news." And this enunciation was the tidings of the approaching Kingdom of
God, the least among whose
citizens was greater than John the Baptist. He himself and the Apostles after
him preached and
announced this Kingdom to the Jews, inviting them to believe and repent in
order to be admitted into it.
Jesus did not actually abrogate or change the Law of Moses, but interpreted it
in such a spiritual sense
that he left it a dead letter. When he declared that hatred was the root of
murder, lust the source of
fornication; that avarice and hypocrisy were as abominable sins as idolatry;
and that mercy and charity
were more acceptable than the burntofferings and the strict observance of the
Sabbath, he practically
abolished the letter of the Law of Moses in favor of its spiritual sense. These
spurious and much

interpolated Gospels report frequent parables and references of Christ to the


Kingdom of God, and to
Bar-Nasha or the Son of Man, but they are so corrupted and distorted that
they have succeeded, and still succeed, in misleading the poor Christians to
believe that by "Kingdom of God" Jesus only meant his
Church, and that he himself was the "Son of Man."
These important points will be fully discussed, if Allah wills, later on; but for
the present I have to
content myself with remarking that what Prophet Jesus announced was, it was
Islam that was the
Kingdom of God and that it was Prophet Muhammad who was the Son of Man,
who was appointed to
destroy the Beast and to establish the powerful Kingdom of the People of the
Saints of the Most High.
The religion of God, until Jesus Christ, was consigned chiefly to the people of
Israel; it was more
material and of a national character. Its lawyers, priests, and scribes had disfigured that religion with a
gross and superstitious literature of the traditions of their forefathers. Christ
condemned those traditions,
denounced the Jews and their leaders as "hypocrites" and "the children of the
Devil." Although the
demon of idolatry had left Israel, yet later on seven demons had taken
possession of that people (Matt.
xii. 43-45; Luke xi. 24-26).
Christ reformed the old religion; gave a new life and spirit to it; he explained
more explicitly the

immortality of the human soul, the resurrection and the life in the next world;
and publicly announced
that the next Messiah whom the Jews were expecting was not a Jew or a son
of David, but a son of
Ishmael whose name was Ahmad, and that he would establish the Kingdom of
God upon earth with the
power of the Word of God and with sword. Consequently, the religion of Islam
received a new life, light
and spirit, and its adherents were exhorted to be humble, to show forbearance
and patience. They were
beforehand informed of persecutions, tribulations, martyrdoms, and prisons.
The early "Nassara," as the
Qur'an calls the believers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, suffered ten fearful
persecutions under the
Roman Emperors. Then comes the Emperor Constantine and proclaims liberty
for the Church; but after
the decisions and the Trinitarian Creed of the Nicene Council in 325 A.C., the
Unitarian Muslims (l)
were submitted to a series of new and even more cruel persecutions by the
Trinitarians, until the advent
of Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings).
----------- Footnote 1. Jesus Christ has never authorized his followers to call
themselves "Christians".
There is no better title for the early Unitarians than "Muslims." AD. ----------end of footnote
3. THE NATURE AND CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD
There is a call to prayer repeated aloud five times a day from the minarets and
the mosques in every part

of the globe where the Muslims live. This anthem is followed by a most solemn
worship of Allah by His
faithful worshipers. This call to prayer is called Adhan (Azan). This is not all;
every action, enterprise
and business, however important or trifling it may be, is begun with the words
Bismi 'l-Lah, which
means "in the Name of Allah," and ends with an Al-Hamdu li'l-Lah, meaning
"praise be to Allah!" The
bond of faith which binds a Muslim to his Eternal King is so strong, and the
nearness between the
Sovereign and His worshiper is so close, that nothing, however powerful or
seductive, can separate him
from Allah. The Qur'an declares that Allah is nearer to one than the life-vain.
Never was there a favorite courtier who, in his sentiments of affection,
devotion, obedience, and respect
for his beneficent monarch, could ever equal those which a Muslim entertains
towards his Lord. Allah is the Owner of the Heavens, Earth and Universe, He is
the King of kings and the Lord of lords. He is the
King and the Lord of every Muslim in particular, for it is a Muslim alone who
thanks and praises the
Almighty King for all that happens and befalls him, be it prosperity or adversity.
Nearly three hundred million Muslims or more are endowed with the same
feelings of faith and trust in
Allah.
It is evident, therefore, that the nature of Islam consists in its being the only
real and truly Theocratic
Kingdom on earth. Allah need no longer send Messengers or Prophets to
convey His Messages to the

Muslims as He used to do to Israel and other Hebrew peoples; for His will is
fully revealed in the Holy
Qur'an and imprinted on the minds of His faithful worshipers.
As to the formation and the constitution of the Kingdom of God, inter alia, the
following points should
be noted: (a) All Muslims form one nation, one family, and one brotherhood. I need not
detain my readers to study
the various quotations from the Qur'an and the Hadith (Quotations of the
Prophet) on these points. We
must judge the Muslim society, not as it presents itself now, but as it was in
the time of Prophet
Muhammad and his immediate successors. Every member of this community is
an honest worker, a
brave sol- dier, and a fervent believer and devotee. All honest fruit of the toil
belongs by right to him
who earns it; nevertheless the law makes it impossible for a true Muslim to
become excessively wealthy.
One of the five foundations of Islam is the duty of almsgiving, which consists of
sadaqa and zakat, or
the voluntary and the obligatory alms. In the days of the Prophet and the first
four Caliphs, no Muslim
was known to be enormously rich. The national wealth went into the common
treasury called "Baitu 'IMal," and no Muslim was left in need or want.
------------- Footnote (1) The Jihad or "Holy War" is also an obligatory practice of
piety. ------------- end
of footnote

The very name "Muslim" signifies literally "a maker of peace." You can never
find another human being
more docile, hospitable, inoffensive and peaceful a citizen than a good Muslim.
But the moment his
religion, honor, and property are attacked, the Muslim becomes a formidable
foe. The Qur'an is very
precise on this point: "Wa la ta'tadu" - "And you must not transgress" (or take
the offensive). The Holy
Jihad is not a war of offence, but of self-defense. Though the robbers, the
predatory tribes, the semibarbarous nomad Muslims, may have some religious
notions and believe in the existence of Allah, it is
the lack of knowledge and of religious training which is the root-cause of their
vice and depravity. They
are an exception. One can never become a good Muslim without the religious
training and education.
(b) According to the description of the Prophet Daniel, the citizens of the
Kingdom of God are "the
People of the Saints." In the original Chaldish or Aramaic text, they are
described as "A'mma d'
qaddishid' I'lionin," an epithet worthy only of the Prince of the Prophets and of
his noble army of the
Muhajirm (Emigrants) and the Ansar (Helpers), who uprooted idolatry from a
great part of Asia and
Africa and destroyed the Roman Beast.
All the Muslims, who believe in Allah, in His angels, Books, and Prophets; in the
Day of the
Resurrection and Judgment; that the good and evil are from Allah; and perform
their pious practices according to their ability and with good will, are holy
saints and blessed citizens of the King- dom.

There is no grosser religious ignorance than the belief that there is a person
called the Holy Ghost who
fills the hearts of those who are baptized in the names of three gods, each the
third of the three, or the
three of the third, and thus sanctifies the believers in their absurdities. A
Muslim believes that there is
not one Holy Spirit, but innumerable holy spirits all created and ministers of
the One Allah. The
Muslims are sanctified, not by baptisms or ablution, but their spirits are
purified and sanctified by the
light of faith and by the fire of zeal and courage to defend and fight for that
faith. John the Baptist, or
rather Christ himself (according to the Gospel of Barnabas), said: "I baptize you
with water unto
repentance, but he who comes after me, he is stronger than I; he will baptize
you with fire and with the
holy spirit." It was this fire and this spirit with which Prophet Muhammad
baptized the semi-barbarian
nomads, the heathen Gentiles, and con- verted them into an army of heroic
saints, who transformed the
old waning synagogue and the decaying church into a permanent and strong
Kingdom of Allah in the
promised lands and elsewhere.
4. THE PERMANENCE AND THE DIGNITY OF THE KINGDOM OF ALLAH
This is doubly assured by an Angel to Daniel. It is stated that "all the nations
under the heaven shall
serve the People of the Saints of the Most High." It requires no proof to say
that all the Christian Powers

show a particular respect, and even deference when necessary, not only to
Muslim Powers, to Muslim
sacred places and mosques, but also to the local institutions of their Muslim
subjects. The mystery of
this "service" lies in this: in the first place, the Muslims always inspire respect
and fear through their
dignified behavior, attachment to their religion and obedience to just laws, and
their peacefulness; and
secondly, because the Christian Governments, as a rule, treat the Muslims with
justice and do not
interfere with their laws and religion.
Space does not permit us to extend our observations over other points of this
Divine Religion and
Kingdom, such as the Muslim Caliphas, Sultans, etc. Suffice it to say that the
Muslim Sovereigns are
subject to the same Qur'anic laws as their compatriots; that justice and
modesty are the best safeguards
for the prosperity and stability of every State, Muslim or non-Muslim; and that
the spirit and the
principles of the Book of Allah are the best guidance for all legislation and
civilization. Muhammad in the New Testament
Islam And Ahmadiyat Announced By Angels
Two very extraordinary events have been recorded by two Evangelists in
connection with the birth of
Prophet Jesus Christ (upon whom be peace and the blessings of Allah). The
Evangelist Mattai
(Matthew) has left to us an account of the wonderful pilgrimage of the Magi,
who were guided by a star

from Persia to the manger at Bethlehem, where the new-born Jesus, whom
they "worshipped" and
presented with rich gifts of gold, myrrh, and incense, was lying. The condensed
material in this
historical event or fictitious story of the "Wise Men" from the East is in itself a
plausible legend
consisting of more than half a dozen miracles, which the Christian Church
alone has been able to create
and to believe in. The Church has preserved the very names of the Magi, who,
headed by the King
Caspar, were "inspired by God," and knew that the little Babe of Bethlehem
was God, Lamb, and King,
and therefore they offered him incense as to a deity, myrrh for his burial as a
sacrifice, and gold for his
royal treasury! That the Zoroastrian magicians, or the astrologian Chaldees,
through the astral divination
and guidance, traversed all that distance to Jerusalem, and there lost the sight
of the star; that the Jewish
reigning sovereign Herod and the inhabitants of Jerusalem shook and trembled
at the news of the birth
of a new king; that only an incoherent passage in the writings of the Prophet
Micah (v. 2) could solve
the problem of the locality where the nativity had taken place; and finally that
the astrologers were
informed by God in a dream not to return to Herod, are indeed some
wonderful miracles which only the
Christian superstition can swallow. The royal retinue of the pilgrims proceeds
to Bethlehem only at a

few miles' distance from Jerusalem, and, lo! the old guiding star again appears
and leads them on until it
stops exactly above the spot where the infant was born. The prodigious
rapidity with which the long
journey from Persia to Bethlehem was completed while the babe was still in
the stable (Luke ii. 4-7)
shows the importance of the miracle.
Another miracle connected with the birth of Christ is the fact, or the fiction,
that after all those
demonstrations at the Court of Herod and in the educated classes at
Jerusalem, nobody knew the address
of the Holy Family; and that this mystifying ignorance cost the massacre by
Herod of hundreds of
infants at Bethlehem and its suburbs. The last but not the least miracle
insinuated in this narrative is the
fulfillment of another prophecy from Jeremiah (xxxi. 15), where Rachel is
represented as weeping and
lamenting over the slaughter of the Ephraimites at Ramah and not at
Bethlehem, and this, too, some
seven hundred years ago, when the descendants of Rachel were deported into
Assyria while she herself
was dead long before Jacob her husband descended into Egypt! St. Matthew,
who alone among all the
ancient archivists and historians knows this event, does not tell us what the
impressions of King Caspar
and his astrologers after their visit of pilgrimage to the manger of Bethlehem
were. Were they convinced

that the son of Mary was a king, or were they not? If they were persuaded that
Jesus was a king, why then did Persia persecute Christianity until it was
converted to Islam in the seventh century? Is it not true
that the Persians received no light and information about Jesus of Nazareth
from their magicians, but
only from the Muslim army sent by Hazrat Omar, the second caliph?
It is not my intention to deny altogether the truth of the visit of some Eastern
Magi to the crypt of Jesus,
but simply to show the avidity or the ambition of the Church to exaggerate
simple events in the life of
Jesus Christ and to exhibit in them some supernatural characteristics.
The other equally wonderful event which concerns our present discourse is
recorded by the Evangelist
Luke (ii. 1-20). Some shepherds were watching their flocks in a field near
Bethlehem on the very night
when Jesus was born in a manger. An angel announces the birth of the "Savior
Lord," and suddenly a
host of angels appear in the sky and sing aloud the following hymn:
Glory be to God in the Highest, And on earth peace, And among men good will.
[Verse 14.]
This famous angelic anthem, known as Gloria in excelsis deo, and sung in all
the sacerdotalist churches
during their celebration of the sacraments, is, unfortunately, only a vague
translation from the Greek
text, which cannot be considered at all reliable or truth worthy because it does
not show us the original
words in the language in which the angels chanted and which the Hebrew
shepherds understood. That

the heavenly hosts sang their joyous song in the language of the shepherds,
and that that language was
not Greek but the vernacular Hebrew - or rather the Aramaic - is an admitted
truth. All the scriptural
names of Allah, angels, heaven, prophets, etc., are revealed to us in the Semitic
tongues (Hebrew,
Aramaic, Arabic); and to imagine that the celestial hosts sang in Greek to the
ignorant Jewish shepherds
in the suburbs of Bethlehem would be equivalent to the belief that such an
angelic army, in the
firmament above the mountains of Kurdistan, sang a similar hymn in Japanese
for the digestion, or
puzzle, of some Kurdish herdsmen!
The appearance of an angel to the humble shepherds of Bethlehem and the
annunciation of the birth of a
great Prophet that very night, and the hearing of the angelic Hallelujah
(Allilujah) by them alone and not
by the haughty priests and the scribes, is one of the innumerable miracles
recorded in the history of the
people of Israel. There is nothing in the story which might be considered to be
such a contradictory
nature as to expose the narrative to incredi- bility. An angel can appear to a
prophet or to a holy
worshiper of God and communicate to him a message from Allah in the
presence of other people, yet be
quite imperceptible to them. The good shepherds had good hearts and good
faith, therefore they were

worthy of the divine favor. So from a religious point of view there is nothing
incompatible or incredible
in this wonderful event as recorded by St. Luke. The author of this narrative
exhibits precision of
diction, he is discreet and cautious in his statements, and throughout his
Gospel he uses a very good
Greek style. Considering the fact that he wrote his book long after the death of
all the Apostles, and that
he had "very carefully" examined numer- ous works concerning Jesus and his
Gospel, it seems very
probable that he was aware of the legend of the Magi and abstained
altogether from including it in his
own book (l).
------------ Footnote (1) Readers are advised to very carefully read the preface,
or the introductory
passage, at the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel. ------------ end of footnote It is
precisely stated in the first four verses with which the third Gospel opens that
the Apostles, whom
he calls "the eyewitnesses and the ministers of the Word," had not written
themselves any account about
the Master and his teachings, but only by way of tradition had delivered them
orally to their followers or
successors. It is also clearly stated that the sources to which St. Luke had
recourse for the composition of
his Gospel were various "stories" composed by persons who had heard them
narrated by the Apostles
and others who were the eyewitnesses of those events and doctrines, and that
the author very attentively

examined them all and chose only such as he considered true or trust- worthy.
Moreover, it is quite
evident from the confession of St. Luke himself, as it may be easily deducted
from his preface, that he
claims no direct revelation made to himself, nor does he attribute any
inspiratory character to his book.
It may, too, be safely assumed that the first and the fourth Gospels were either
not written when Luke
compiled his own narrative, or that he had not seen them; for he could not
have ventured to counterpoise
or contradict the Gospels written by the two Apostles, Matthew and John.
These brief observations, which can be multiplied, must convince every
impartial reader that the socalled "Four Gospels" do not exhibit the necessary
features which are indispensable for any Scripture
claiming a divine inspiration.
The Churches have believed that the author of the third Gospel is the Physician
Luke (Col. iv. 14) who
accompanied St. Paul in his missionary journeys and was with him a prisoner at
Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11;
Philem. 24, etc.). However, this is not the place to discuss the question of the
authorship of the book, nor
its other important peculiarities. Suffice it to say that St. Luke has recorded
some beautiful parables and
teachings of the Holy Master, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan (x.
25-37); the Avaricious Rich
Man (xii. 15-21); the Self-righteous Pharisee and the Publican (xiii. 9-18); the
Perseverance in Prayer

(xi. 1-13); the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Prodigal Son (xv); the Dives
and Lazarus (xvi. 19-31);
the Mite of the Poor Widow (xxi); the Wicked Husbandman (xx 9-16); the
Unjust Judge (xviii. 1-8); the
Conversion of Zacchaeus (xix 1-10); and several others. But the most important
among all the contents
of the third Gospel is the angelic hymn, which forms the topic of our present
study and contemplation.
This hymn, like all the contents of the New Testament, is presented to us not in
the original language in
which it was sung, but only in its Greek version; and God alone knows the
source from which our
Evangelist copied, translated, or simply narrated it from hearsay.
Is it possible that Prophet Jesus or his Apostles did not leave a real and
authentic Gospel in the language
in which it was revealed? If there were such a true Gospel, what became of it?
Who lost it? Was it
destroyed? And by whom and when? Was it ever translated into Greek or into
another foreign language?
Why has not the Church preserved to us the original text of the real Gospel, or
its translation? If the
answer to these questions is in the negative, then we venture to ask another
series of questions of equal
importance; namely, why did these Jewish Apostles and Evangelists write not
in their own language but
all of them in the Greek language? Where did the fisherman Shimon Kipha
(Simon Peter), Yohannan

(John), Ya'qub (James), and the publican Mattai (Matthew) learn the Greek
language in order to write a
series of holy Scriptures"? If you say the "Holy Ghost taught them," you simply
make yourselves
ridiculous. The Holy Ghost is not a teacher of grammar and languages. It would
require another
Revelation to expound the reason or wisdom why the Holy Ghost should make
a revelation in the Jewish
language to an Israelite in Nazareth, then cause it to be destroyed, and finally
teach half a dozen Jews
the Greek tongue and inspire each one to write in his own style and way a
portion of the same
Revelation! If it is argued that the Gospels and the Epistles were written for
the benefit of the Jews of Dispersion,
who knew the Greek language, we venture to inquire: What benefit at all did
those Jews of the
Dispersion derive from the New Testament; and why a copy of it should not
have been made for the
Jews of Palestine in their own language, considering the fact that Jerusalem
was the center of the new
Faith, and James, the "brother of the Lord" (Gal. i. 19), was the President or
Head of the Church and
residing there (Acts xv.; Gal.ii. 11-l5, etc.).
It would be a desperately hopeless effort to find a single parable, oracle, or any
revealed message of
Jesus Christ in his own language. The Synod of Nicea must be for ever held
criminally responsible as

the sole cause of this irreparable loss of the Sacred Gospel in its original
Aramaic text.
The reason why I so pertinently insist on the indispensable necessity of the
intact preservation of the
revealed message of Allah is obvious; it is because only such a document can
be considered as reliable
and valid. A translation, no matter how faithfully and ably it may have been
made, can never maintain
the exact force and the real sense as contained in the original words and
expressions. Every version is
always liable to be disputed and criticized. These four Gospels, for instance, are
not even a translation,
but the very original text in the Greek language; and the worst of it is that they
are badly corrupted by
later interpolations.
Now, we have before us a sacred song, undoubtedly sung in a Semitic dialect,
but as it is, presented to us
in a Greek version. Naturally we are very curious to know its words in the
original language in which it
was sung. Here I draw the serious attention of the reader to the exact
equivalent Semitic term rendered
into the Greek language "eudokia" and translated into English "good will". The
hymn is composed of
three clauses. The subject of the first clause is Allaha (in Aramaic), rendered
"Theos" in Greek. The
subject of the second clause is Shlama (in Aramaic), and translated "Eiriny" into
Greek. And the subject

of the third clause is eudokia in Greek, and rendered "Bona voluntas" by the
Vulgate and "Sobhra
Tabha" (pronounced sovra tava) by the Pshittha (al-Basit).
Both these versions, which have been followed by all other versions, have
failed to convey the exact
meaning and the sense of the word "eudokia," and consequently the second
and the third clauses remain
meaningless and even senseless, if not altogether untrue. Disappointed as we
may be for not having the
exact words of this heavenly anthem in their original forms, yet we need not
despair in our endeavor to
find out and discover the true sense contained in it.
We shall therefore proceed to find out the true etymological significations of
the Greek words "Eiriny"
and "Eudokia," and the real sense and interpretation of the Angelical Doxology.
The Christian interpretation of the terms "Eiriny" and "Eudokia" is wrong and
utterly untenable.
According to the interpretation of this hymn by all the Christian Churches and
sects, the faith in the
divinity of Jesus Christ, in the redemption from sin and hell-fire through his
death upon the Cross, and in
holding a continual communication with the Holy Ghost, brings "peace" and
tranquillity to the heart,
and makes the believers entertain towards each other "good will,"
benevolence, and mutual love. This
interpretation, thus far, is commonly accepted by the Sacramentarian and the
Evangelical groups. But

they do not stop at these three principal points, and very discreetly too; for
thus far no general peace, no
reconciliation, no concord and union, no good will and mutual love is felt
among them. Then they part with each other and try other means to ascertain
this "peace" and this "good will." The Sacrament- arians
insist on the belief in seven sacraments and many dogmas which neither
common sense nor the simple
doctrine of Jesus could tolerate. The Church, having been cleansed by the
blood of the Redeemer
through the mysteriously sancti- fied waters of Baptism, has become the Bride
of the Lamb and his
body; the Church, being herself the body of the Lamb, feeds upon his body in
the mysteriously hallowed
bread and wine, and transubstantiated into the real flesh and blood of the
Bridegroom. The Bride Church - has particular devotions to the "sacred hearts" of Jesus, of Mary, and
of St. Joseph; to the
fourteen stages or mansions of the Crucifixion; to the statues and images of
hundreds and hundreds of
saints and martyrs; to thousands of authentic or fictitious bones and relics of
the same; and adoration to
the consecrated wafer exactly as to God the Almighty! Still there is no peace;
all sins, grave or
otherwise, must be confessed to the priest; and it is the absolution that the
sinner obtains from that
"spiritual father" that produces peace and tranquillity in his heart, and fills it
with good will!!!
If we turn to the evangelical group of diverse creeds and tenets, we shall find
them endeavoring to

procure an internal peace by praying directly to the three persons of the deity
individually - now to
Jesus, now to the Spirit, then to the Father - with closed eyes, but with
oratorical gestures and
movements; by reading the Bible, and by other practices private or in public;
and then they believe that
they are filled with the Holy Spirit and are at peace! But I assure the reader
that all these "penitent"
Christians, who through their real or artificial devotions pretend to have
obtained "peace," and to have
possessed "good will" towards their neighbors, instead of becoming docile,
meek, and peaceful like their
pretended Master, become extremely bigoted and intolerant. Whether an
orthodox or a heterodox, when
a Christian comes out from the church where he has "shared" the "Lord's
Communion" which they call
the "Institution of the Eucharist,(1)" they become so hypocritically fanatical
and unsocial as to prefer to
meet a dog rather than a Muslim or a Jew, because these do not believe in the
Trinity and in the "Lord's
Supper." I know it. I used to be of the same sentiments when I was a Catholic
priest. The more I thought
myself spiritual, holy, and sinless, the more I hated the heretics, especially the
non- believers in the
Trinity.
------------- Footnote (1) I forgot to mention above that St. Luke, according to
the ancient Pshittha

Version, does not contain verses 17-19 of chapter xxii; nor are these so-called
"essential words" existing
in the Liturgy of the Nestorians. ------------- end of footnote
When the Christians, especially their priests and pastors, become fervent and
zealous in their peculiar
devotions and practices, they become exceedingly excited, furious, and
offensive towards their religious
adversaries! Show me a single Catholic, Schismatic, or a heretical Saint after
the Nicene Council, who
was not a tyrant, either in his writings, or preachings, or in his deeds against
those whom he considered
"heretics." The Roman Inquisition is an immortal witness to the fulfillment of
this Angelical hymn of
"Peace upon earth and good will among men"!
It is apparent that the true peace cannot be acquired by artificial means. There
are only three means that
can pro- cure the true and perfect peace; namely, a firm belief in the absolute
Oneness of Allah; a
complete submission and resignation to His Holy Will; and frequent meditation
and contemplation on
Him. He who has recourse to these three means is a real and practical Muslim,
and the peace that he
acquires thereby is true and unartificial. He becomes to- lerant, honest, just,
and compassionate; but at
the same time quite equipped to fight heart and soul in defense of all that
appertains to the Glory of

Allah and to his own honor when threatened or attacked. It is obvious that the
acquisition of this perfect peace is accomplished by an inward faith and an
inflexible submission to the Creator, and not by
outward ostentatious practices and rituals. These latter will benefit us only
when the faith is genuine, and
the submission voluntary and unconditional.
But surely the angels did not sing in honor of private or individual peace, which
is, after all, limited to a
comparatively small number of pious men; nor did they do so in praise of an
imaginary universal peace,
which would mean a total disarmament of nations and a cessation of wars and
hostilities. No; neither of
these two specific peaces was the object of this melody. The spiritual peace is
a tranquillity of heart and
conscience granted by Allah as a grace and blessing only to those few believers
who have made great
progress in piety and spiritual life, and love Him, above all, and sacrifice every
other love for His.
It was neither a social nor political peace for the people of Israel; for the
history of the last twenty
centuries shows the very contrary. The angels could not, therefore, sing and
announce a peace which
could never be realized or accomplished. We are forced, then, in face of the
subsequent historical facts
on the one hand, and by the importance of the occasion, as well as the quarter
from which this remarkable announcement was made, on the other, to
conclude that this "peace upon earth" was none other than
the approaching establishment of the Kingdom of Allah upon earth, which is
Islam. The Greek word

"Eiriny" stands for the Semitic "Shalom," "Shlama," and "Islam." That is all!
The very mention of "a multitude of heavenly hosts" gives the hymn a martial
or triumphal character. It
is indeed a singular indication of joy on the part of the armies belonging to the
Kingdom of Heaven, in
favor of their future allies belonging to the Kingdom of God on earth, of which
the newly born Babe of
Bethlehem was the greatest Evangelist and Herald.
On various occasions, in the course of these articles, we have explained that
Shalom, in its concrete and
practical sense, has the signification of the religion that is good, sound, safe,
salutary, and the way of
peace, in opposition to the religion that is evil, bad, harmful, destructive, and
the way that conducts
towards misery and perdition. It was in this sense that Allah, in His Message
through the prophecy of
Isaiah (xiv.) to Cyrus, used the word Shalom, as synonymous with good in
opposition to evil. This is
precisely the literal, etymological, moral, and practical interpretation of Islam
as the true religion, the
powerful Kingdom of Allah on earth, with its permanent and sound laws and
directions inscribed in the
Holy Qur'an.
Beyond Islam, which literally signifies "making peace," any other interpretation
or imaginary peace is
irrelevant with the sense in which "Eiriny" is used in this triumphal angelic
anthem. It was in this

Islamic sense of the word that Jesus Christ, in his grand sermon on the Mount,
said: "Blessed are the
Muslims (literally, "the peacemakers"); for they shall be called the children of
God" (1) (Matt. v. 9).
And it was precisely the imaginary peace which Prophet Jesus Christ
repudiated when he exclaimed:
"Think not that I came to establish peace upon earth; I did not come to set
peace but a sword" (Matt. x.
34-6); or, as Luke declares: "I came to set fire on the earth . . . Do you think
that I came to establish
peace? I tell you, no; but divisions . . . " (Luke xii. 49-53).
------------ Footnote (1) The expression "children of God" will be treated later
on. ------------ end of
footnote Unless "Eiriny" be understood in the sense of the Religion of Islam,
these two crucial and contradictory
statements of Jesus must remain a riddle, if not an irretrievable injury which
the Christian Church has
committed in having accepted these Gospels as the "inspired Word of God."
"Eudokia" Means "Ahmadiyeh" [LUKE ii. 14]
To retranslate a masterpiece of an eminent author from a foreign version if he
left other writings in his
own language would not be very difficult. For thus the translator could study
the mind, the
technicalities, and the expressions in his works, and do his best to retranslate
the book into its original
language. But how far he would be successful is a question which only able
translators can decide and

determine. Similarly, if there were at least a couple of epistles or writings of St.


Luke in the Hebrew, his
Gospel could with comparatively less difficulty be translated into that tongue
than it can now be done.
But unfortunately even such is not the case. For nothing is extant of the
ancient writings in the language
of Jesus from which St. Luke translated the angelic hymn; nor has he himself
left us another book in a
Semitic dialect.
To make myself better understood, and in order to make the English readers
better appreciate the
extreme importance of this point, I venture to challenge the best scholar in
English and French literature
to retranslate from a French edition the dramatic work of Shakespeare into
English without seeing the
original English text, and to show the grace and the elegance of the original as
well.
The great Muslim philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna) wrote in the Arabic, and
some of his works were
afterwards retranslated from the Latin into the Arabic because the originals
were lost. Are these
reproductions the exact texts of that Muslim Aristotle? Certainly not!
In the previous article in this series, on "Eiriny," we discussed this translational
point to a certain extent;
and we had no difficulty in finding its equivalent Hebrew word "Shalom,"
because both are identical in
the Septuagint and Hebrew texts. But the Greek compound word "Eudokia"
does not occur, to the best

of my knowledge, in the Septuagint Version, and it is extremely difficult to find


out its equivalent or
synonymous term in the original. St. Barnabas does not mention in his Gospel
this angelic hymn and the
story of the Shepherds of Bethlehem; nor do the other Synoptics or the
Epistles in the New Testament.
The modern Greeks frequently adopt "Eudokia" and "Eudoxia" for their
feminine proper nouns; and
both these nouns are composed of two elements; "eu" and "dokeo," from the
later being derived "doxa"
which means "glory" or "praise" and so on.
In order to discover the original Semitic word in the song that the pious
Shepherds heard and related,
and which the evangelist Luke has formulated into "Eudokia," we are
compelled to examine and trace it
right from its Greek root and derivation. But before doing so, it is necessary to
criticize and expose the
erroneous versions which have eclipsed the true meanings of Eudokia and
concealed its prophetical
bearing upon Ahmad or Muhammad.
There are two principal versions of the New Testament from the Greek text,
one being in the so-called
"Syriac" language, and the other in the Latin. Both bear the same significant
title of "Simplex" or "Simple," which both the "Pshittha" and the "Vulgate"
signify. There is much new material of
information about these two famous ancient versions which must embarrass
the most erudite Christian

historians and the most dogmatic theologians. But for the present it may
suffice to say that the Aramaic
(1) Version, called the Pshittha, is older than the Latin Vulgate. It is common
knowledge that the Church
of Rome for the first four centuries had no Scriptures or Liturgy in the Latin but
in the Greek. Before the
Nicene Council in 325 A.C., the Canon of the books of the New Testament was
not completed, or rather
established. There were dozens of Gospels and Epistles bearing the names of
different Apostles and
other companions of Jesus, which were held by various Christian communities
as sacred, but they were
rejected by the Nicene Council as spurious. As the seat or center of the Syriac
language and learning
was Orhai, i.e. Edessa, and never Antioch, it was here that the books of the
New Testament were
translated from the Greek, after the notorious Assembly of Nicea.
------------Footnote (1). The Pshittha Version of the Old Testament never uses
the words "Syria" and
"Syriac," but "Aram" and "Aramaic." ------------- end of footnote
A profound examination and study of the early Christian literature and history
will show that the first
preachers of the Gospel were Jews who spoke Aramaic or the old Syriac
language. Whether this
"Gospel" was a written document, or an unwritten doctrine or religion taught
and propagated orally, is a
question for itself and lies outside the sphere of our present subject. But one
thing is certain and does

really fall within the periphery of our subject - namely, the early Christians
conducted their religious
services in the Aramaic language. That was the common language spoken by
the Jews, the Syrians, the
Phoenicians, the Chaldeans, and the Assyrians. Now it is but clear that the
Christians belonging to the
Aramaic-speaking nationalities would certainly prefer to read and pray in their
own language, and
consequently various Gospels, Epistles, prayer-books, and liturgies were
written in the Syriac. Even the
Armenians, before the invention of their alphabet in the fifth century, had
adopted the Syriac characters.
On the other hand, the proselytes from the non-Semitic "Gentiles" to the "new
way" read the Old
Testament in its Greek Version of the "Seventy." As a matter of course, the
scholars of the Greek
philosophy and the ex-ministers of the Greek mythology, once converted to
the new faith and with the
Septuagint before them, could have no difficulty in the production of a "New
Testament" as a
completion or a continuation of the old one.
How the simple Gospel of the Nazarene Messenger of Allah became a source
of two mighty currents of
the Semitic and the Hellenic thought; and how the Greek polytheistic thought
finally overpowered the
monotheistic Semitic creed under the most tyrannical Greco-Latin Emperors,
and under the most

intolerant and superstitious Trinitarian Bishops of Byzantium and Rome, are


points of extreme moment
for a profound study by the Muslim savants.
Then there are the questions of the unity of faith, of doctrine, and of the
revealed text. For more than
three centuries the Christian Church had no New Testament as we see it in its
present shape. None of the
Semitic or Greek Churches, nor did Antioch, Edessa, Byzantium, and Rome
possess all the books of the
New Testament, nor even the four Gospels before the Nicene Council. And I
wonder what was or could
be the belief of those Christians who were only in possession of the Gospel of
St. Luke, or of St. Mark,
or of St. John, concerning the dogmas of the Eucharist, Baptism, the Trinity, the
miraculous conception
of Christ, and of dozens of other dogmas and doctrines! The Syriac Version of
the Pshittha does not
contain the so-called "Essential" or "Institutional Words," now extant in St.
Luke (xxii. 17, 18, 19). The last twelve verses of the sixteenth chapter of the
Second Gospel are not to be found in the old Greek
manuscripts. The so-called "Lord's prayer" (Matt. vi. 9; Luke xi. 2) is unknown
to the authors of the
Second and Fourth Gospels. In fact, many important teachings contained in
one Gospel were unknown
to the Churches which did not possess it. Consequently there could possibly be
no uniformity of
worship, discipline, authority, belief, commandments, and law in the Early
Church, just as there is none

now. All that we can gather from the literature of the New Testament is that
the Christians in the
Apostolical age had the Jewish Scriptures for their Bible, with a Gospel
containing the true revelation
made to Jesus, and that its substance was precisely the same as announced in
this Seraphic Canticle namely, ISLAM and AHMADIYEH. The special mission assigned by Allah to His
Prophet Jesus was to
revert or convert the Jews from their perversion and erroneous belief in a
Davidic Messiah, and to
convince them that the Kingdom of God upon earth which they were
anticipating was not to come
through a Messiah of the Davidic dynasty, but of the family of Ishmael whose
name was AHMAD, the
true equivalent of which name the Greek Gospels have preserved in the forms
"Eudoxos" and
"Periclytos" and not "Paraclete" as the Churches have shaped it. It goes
without saying that the
"Periclyte" will form one of the principal topics in this series of articles. But
whatever be the
signification of the "Paraclete" (John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26, and xvi. 7) or its true
etymological
orthography, there still remains the shining truth that Jesus left behind him
and unfinished religion to be
completed and perfected by what John (ubi supra) and Luke (xxiv. 49) describe
as "Spirit." This "Spirit"
is not a god, a third of the three in a trinity of gods, but the holy Spirit of
Ahmad, which existed like the

Spirits of other Prophets in Paradise (cf. the Gospel of Barnabas). If the Spirit of
Jesus, on the testimony
of an Apostle, John (xvii. 5, etc.), existed before he became a man, the Muslim,
too, are perfectly
justified in believing in the existence of the Spirit of Prophet Muhammad on
the testimony of another
Apostle, Barnabas! And why not? As this point will be discussed in the course
of the succeeding
articles, for the present all I want to ask the Christian Churches is this: Did all
the Christian Churches in
Asia, Africa, and Europe possess the Fourth Gospel before the Nicene Council?
If the answer is in the
affirmative, pray, bring your proofs; if it is in the negative, then it must be
admitted that a large portion
of the Christians knew nothing about St. John's "Paraclete," a corrupt word
which does not mean either a
"comforter" or "mediator" or anything at all! These are certainly very serious
and grave charges against
Christianity.
But to turn to the point. The Pshittha had translated the Greek word "Eudokia"
(the Greeks read the word
"Ivdokia," or rather pronounce it "Ivthokia") as "Sobhra Tabha" (pronounced
"Sovra Tava"), which
signifies "good hope," or "good anticipation;" whereas the Latin Vulgate, on
the other hand, renders
"Eudokia" as "Bona Voluntas," or "good will."
I fearlessly challenge all the Greek scholars, if they dare, to contradict me when
I declare that the

translators of the Syriac and Latin Versions have made a serious error in their
interpretation of
"Eudokia." Nevertheless, I must confess that I cannot conscientiously blame
those translators of having
deliberately distorted the meaning of this Greek term; for I admit that both the
Versions have a slight
foundation to justify their respective translations. But even so, it must be
remarked that they have
thereby missed the prophetical sense and the true meaning of the Semitic
vocabulary when they
converted it into the Greek word "Eudokia."
The exact and literal equivalent of "good hope" in the Greek language is not
"eudokia," but "eu elpis, or
rather "euelpistia." This exposition of "evelpistia" (the proper Greek
pronunciation) is enough to silence
the Pshittha. The precise and the exact corresponding term to the Latin "bona
voluntas," or "good will," in the Greek tongue is certainly not "eudokia," but
"euthelyma." And this short but decisive explanation
again is a sufficient reprimand to the priests of the Vatican, of Phanar
(Constantinople), and of
Canterbury, who chant the "Gloria in Excelsis" when they celebrate Mass or
administer other
sacraments.
1. THE ETYMOLOGY AND SIGNIFICATION OF "EUDOKIA"
Now let us proceed to give the true meaning of "Eudokia."
The adjectival prefix "eu" signifies "good, well, more, and most," as in
"eudokimeo" - "to be esteemed,

approved, loved," and "to acquire glory"; "eudokimos" - "very esteemed, most
renowned and glorious";
"eudoxos" - "most celebrated and glorious"; "eudoxia" - "celebrity, renown."
The Greek substantive
"doxa," used in the compound nouns "orthodox," "doxology," and so on, is
derived from the verb
"dokeo." Every student of English literature knows that "doxa" signifies "glory,
honor, renown." There
are numerous phrases in the classical Greek authors where "doxa" is used to
signify "glory": "Peri doxis
makheshai" - "to fight for glory." The famous Athenian orator Demosthenes
"preferred glory to a
tranquil life," "glory equal to that of the gods." I am cognizant of the fact that
"doxa" is, although
seldom, used to signify (a) opinion, belief; (b) dogma, principle, doctrine; and
(c) anticipation or hope.
But all the same, its general and comprehensive sense is "glory." In fact, the
first portion of the Canticle
begins with: "Doxa [Glory] be to Allah in the highest."
In the Dictionnaire Grec-Francais (published in 1846 in Paris by R. C. Alexandre)
the word "eudokia" is
rendered "bienveillence, tendresse, volunte, bon plaisir," etc.; and the author
gives "dokeo" as the root of
"doxa," with its various significations I have mentioned above.
The Greeks of Constantinople, among whose teachers I have had several
acquaintances, while
unanimously understanding by "eudokia" the meaning of "delight, loveliness,
pleasantness, and desire,"

also admit that it does signify "celebrity, renown, and honorability" in its
original sense as well.
2. THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE HEBREW FORMS OF MaHMaD AND HiMDaH,
AND THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS
I am convinced that the only way to understand the sense and the spirit of the
Bible is to study it from an
Islamic point of view. It is only then that the real nature of the Divine
Revelation can be understood,
appreciated, and loved. It is only then, too, that the spurious, the false, and the
heterogeneous elements
interpolated in it can be discovered in their blackest features and eliminated.
And it is from this point of
view that I welcome this Greek word "eudokia," which in its true and literal
signification admirably
corresponds to the Hebrew "Mahmad, Mahamod, Himdah," and "Hemed" so
frequently used in the Old
Testament.
(a) Hamad. This verb, which is constituted of three essential consonants hmd,
and common to all the
Semitic dialects, everywhere in the Sacred Writ of the Hebrews signifies: "to
covet, fall in love, long for,
take pleasure and delight in," and "to desire ardently." Those who know Arabic
will naturally understand
the comprehensive sense of the word Shahwat, which is rendered in English as
"lust, cupidity, ardent
desire, and appetite." Well, this is the precise sense and signification of the
verb "hamad" in the Hebrew

Scriptures. One of the commands in the famous Decalogue of the Torah


(Arabic "Taurat") or the Law contains this clause: "Lo tahmod ish reikha" "Thou shalt not covet the wife of thy neighbor" (Exod. xx.
17.)
(b) Hemed. The substantive in the masculine gender, and "Himdah" in the
feminine, signifies: "lust,
desire, pleasantness, delight, object of longing and of desire, loveliness" (Hag.
ii. 7; Jerem. xxv. 34,
etc.).
(c) MaHMaD, MaHaMoD (Lam. i. 7, 10; ii. 4, etc.). These participles forms are
also derivatives from
the verb "hamad" and mean: "most covetable, delightful, pleasant, delicious,
charming, precious,
beloved."
That the Arabic form MuHaMmaD and the Hebrew MaHMaD and MaHaMoD
are derived from one and
the same verb or root, and that they, notwithstanding the slight orthographic
difference between the
forms, have one common origin and signification, there cannot be a jot or iota
of doubt. I have given the
meanings of the Hebrew forms as the Jews and the lexicographers have
understood them.
(d) It will therefore be observed that the Greek word "eudokia" must be a
literal representation of the
Hebrew substantive HiMDah, and that both signify: "delight, pleasantness,
good pleasure (bon plaisir),
desire, loveliness, preciousness," and some other synonymous words.

Now it would follow from the above that the corresponding equivalent to the
Hebrew "Mahamod" can
be none other than "eudoxos" which was the object of desire and longing, the
most delightful, pleasant,
and coveted, and the most precious, approved, loved, and esteemed.
That among all the sons of Adam the name Muhammad should be given for
the first time alone to the
son of 'Abdullah and Amina in the town of Mecca, is a unique miracle in the
history of religions. There
could be no artificial device, attempt, or forgery in this respect. His parents and
relatives were people of
"fitr" uprighteous but knew nothing of the prohecies in the Hebrew or
Christian Scriptures concerning a
great Prophet who was promised to come to restore and establish the religion
of Islam. Their choice of
the name Muhammad or Ahmad could not be explained away as a coincidence
or an accidental event. It
was surely providential and inspired.
Whether the Arabian poets and men of letters had preserved the archaic
signification of the Hebrew
passive participle of the pi'el form of the verb hamad, or not, I have no means
to prove one way or
another. But the Arabic passive participle of the pi'el conjugation of the verb
hammida is Muhammad,
and that of the Hebrew himmid Mahmad or Mahamod. The affinity between
the similarity and the
identity of the two forms is unquestionable.

I have faithfully reproduced the significations of the Hebrew forms as given by


the lexicographers and
translators. But the intrinsical or spiritual sense of "Himdah" and "Mahamod"
is: "praise and
praiseworthy, celebrity and celebrated, glory and glorious." For among the
created beings and things,
what can be "more glorious, honorable, illustrious, and praised than that which
is most coveted and
desired." It is in this practical sense that the Qur'an uses the word hamdu from
which Ahmad and
Muhammad are derivations, and hamdu is the same word as the Hebrew
hemed. The glory of Prophet
Muhammad surpasses that of any other creatures, as illustrated by Daniel
(vii.), and in the oracle of
Allah: "Law la ka lama Khalaqna 'l-Aflaka" - "Were it not for thee, were is not
for thee (O beloved Muhammad), We would not have created the worlds" (or
heavens ). But the highest honor and glory
granted by Allah to His most esteemed Messenger was that he was
commissioned to establish and to
perfect the true religion of Allah, under the name of "Islam," which, like the
name of Prophet
Muhammad, has so very many consolating and salubrious significations;
"peace, security, safety,
tranquillity, salvation," and "the Good" in opposition to "the Evil"; besides
those of submission and
resignation to the Will of Allah. The vision by which the pious Shepherds were
honored on the occasion
of the birth of Jesus Christ was timely and opportune. For a great Missioner of
Allah, a holy Evangelist

of Islam was born. As Jesus was the Herald of the Kingdom of Allah, so was his
Gospel an Introduction
to the Qur'an. The advent of Jesus was the beginning of a new era in the
history of religion and morals.
He himself was not the "Mahamod" who was to come afterwards to destroy
the Evil One and his
Kingdom of Idolatry in the Promised Lands. The "Fourth Beast," the mighty
Roman Power, was still
growing and expanding its conquests. Jerusalem, with its gorgeous temple and
priesthood, was to be
destroyed by that Beast. Jesus "came to his own people; but that people
received him not." And those
among the Jews who received him were made "children of the Kingdom," but
the rest dispersed in the
world. Then followed the ten terrible persecutions under the pagan Roman
Emperors which were to
crown thousands with the diadem of martyrdom; and Constantine the Great
and his successors were
allowed to trample upon the true believers in the Oneness of Allah. And then it
was that Prophet
Muhammad - not a god or son of a god, but "the glorious, the coveted, the
most illustrious Son of Man,
the perfect Bar nasha" - was to come and destroy the Beast.
John The Baptist Announces A Powerful Prophet
John the Baptist, according to the narratives of the four Evangelists, was a
cousin and contemporary of
Jesus, being only about six months older than the latter. The Qur'an does not
mention anything about the

life and work of this Prophet except that God, through the angels, announced
to his father Zachariah:
"And the angels called out to him when he was standing in the sanctuary
worshipping, saying: 'Allah
gives you glad tidings of John, who shall confirm a Word of Allah. He shall be a
master and caste,
a Prophet and from the righteous.'" Ch:3:39 Qur'an. Nothing is known about
his infancy, except that
he was a Nazarite living in the wilderness, eating locusts and wild honey,
covering his body with a cloth
made of camel's hair, tied with a leather girdle. He is believed to have
belonged to a Jewish religious
sect called the "Essenes," from whom issued the early Christian "Ibionites"
whose principal
characteristic was to abstain from worldly pleasures. In fact, the Qur'anic
descriptive term of this hermit
Prophet - "hasura," which means "chaste" in every sense of the word - shows
that he led a celibate life of
chastity, poverty, and piety. He was not seen from his early youth until he was
a man of thirty or more,
when he began his mission of preaching repentance and baptizing the penitent
sinners with water. Great
multitudes were drawn to the wilderness of Judea to hear the fiery sermons of
the new Prophet; and the
penitent Jews were baptized by him in the water of the River Jordan. He
reprimanded the educated but
fanatical Pharisees and the Priests, and threatened the learned but rationalistic
Saduqees (Saducees) with

the coming vengeance. He declared that he was baptizing them with water
only as a sign of purification
of the heart by penance. He promulgated that there was coming after him
another Prophet who would
baptized them with the Holy Spirit and fire; who would gather together his
wheat into his granaries and
burn the chaff with an inextinguishable fire. He further declared that he who
was coming afterwards was to such an extent superior to himself in
power and dignity that the Baptist confessed to be unfit or unworthy to bow
down to untie and loose the
laces of his shoes. It was on one of these great baptismal performances of
Prophet Yahya (St. John the
Baptist) that Jesus of Nazareth also entered into the water of the Jordan and
was baptized by the Prophet
like everybody else. Mark (i. 9) and Luke (iii. 21), who report this baptism of
Jesus by John, are
unaware of the remarks of John on this point as mentioned in Matthew (iii),
where it is stated that the
Baptist said to Jesus: "I need to be baptized by thee, and didst thou come to
me?" To which the latter is
reported to have replied: "Let us fulfill the righteousness"; and then he
baptized him. The Synoptics state
that the spirit of prophecy came down to Jesus in the shape of a dove as he
went out from the water, and
a voice was heard saying: "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."
The Fourth Gospel knows nothing about Jesus being baptized by John; but tells
us that the Baptist, when

he saw Jesus, exclaimed "Behold the Lamb of God," etc. (John i). This Gospel
pretends that Andrew
was a disciple of the Baptist, and having abandoned his master brought his
brother Simon to Jesus (John
i) - a story flagrantly contradicting the statements of the other Evangelists
(Matt. iv. 18-19, Mark i. 1618). In St. Luke the story is altogether different: here Jesus knows Simon Peter
before he is made a
disciple (Luke iv. 38, 39); and the circumstance which led the Master to enlist
the sons of Jonah and of
Zebedee in the list of his disciples is totally strange to the other Evangelists
(Luke vi 1-11). The four
Gospels of the Trinitarian Churches contain many contradictory statements
about the dialogs between
the two cousin prophets. In the Fourth Gospel we read that the Baptist did not
know who Jesus was until
after his baptism, when a Spirit like a pigeon came down and dwelt in him
(John i); whereas St. Luke
tells us that the Baptist, while a foetus in the womb of his mother, knew and
worshipped Jesus, who was
also a younger foetus in the womb of Mary (Luke i. 44). Then, again, we are
told that the Baptist while
in prison, where he was beheaded (Matt. xi. xiv), did not know the real nature
of the mission of Jesus!
There is a mysterious indication hidden in the questions put to the Prophet
Yahya by the Priests and the
Levites. They ask the Baptist: "Art thou Messiah? art thou Elijah?" And when he
answers "No!" they

say: "If thou art neither the Messiah, nor Elijah, and nor that Prophet, why
then dost thou baptize?"
(John i). It will therefore be noticed that, according to the Fourth Gospel, John
the Baptist was neither
the Messiah nor Elijah, nor that Prophet! And I venture to ask the Christian
Churches, who believe that
the inspirer of all these contradictory statements is the Holy Ghost - i.e. the
third of the three gods whom did those Jewish Priests and the levites mean by "And that Prophet"?
And if you pretend not to
know whom the Hebrew clergy meant, do your popes and patriarchs know
who "and that Prophet" is? If
not, than what is the earthly use of these spurious and interpolated Gospels?
If, on the contrary, you do
know who that Prophet is, then why do you keep silent?
In the above quotation (John i) it is expressly stated that the Baptist said he
was not a Prophet; whereas
Jesus is reported to have said that "no men born of women were ever greater
than John" (Matt. xi). Did
Jesus really make such a declaration? Was John the Baptist greater than
Abraham, Moses, David, and
Jesus himself? And in what did his superiority and greatness consist? If this
testimony of Jesus about the
son of Zachariah be authentic and true, then the greatness of the "Eater of the
Locusts in the wilderness"
can only consist in his absolute abnegation, self-denial, and refraining from the
world with all its

luxuries and pleasures; his ardent wish to invite the people to penance; and his
good tidings about "that
Prophet." Or did his greatness consist - as the Churches will have it - in being a
cousin, contemporary and witness
of Jesus? The value and greatness of a man, as well as of a Prophet, can be
determined and appreciated
by his work. We are absolutely ignorant of the number of persons converted
through the sermons and
purified by the baptism of John. Nor are we informed with regard to the effect
of that conversion upon
the attitude of the penitent Jews towards the "Lamb of God!"
Christ is said to have declared that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of
the Prophet Elijah (Matt. xi.
14, xvii. 12; Luke i. 17), whereas John expressly told the Jewish deputation that
he was not Elijah, nor
Christ, nor that Prophet (John i).
Now can one, from these Gospels full of statements opposing and denying
each other, form a correct
conclusion? Or can one try to find out the truth? The charge is exceedingly
grave and serious, because
the persons concerned are not ordinary mortals like ourselves, but two
Prophets who were both created
in the womb by the Spirit and born miraculously - one had no father, while the
parents of the other were
sterile and an impotent nonagenarian couple. The gravity of the charge is even
more serious when we
come to consider the nature of the documents in which these contradictory
statements are written. The

narrators are the Evangelists, persons alleged to be inspired by the Holy Spirit,
and the record believed
to be a revelation! Yet there is a lie, a false statement, or a forgery somewhere.
Elijah (or Elias) is said to
come before "that Prophet" (Mal. iv. 5, 6); Jesus says, "John is Elijah"; John
says, "I am not Elijah", and
it is the sacred Scripture of the Christians which makes both these affirmative
and negative statements!
It is absolutely impossible to get at the truth, the true religion, from these
Gospels, unless they are read
and examined from an Islamic and Unitarian point of view. It is only then that
the truth can be extracted
from the false, and the authentic distinguished from the spurious. It is the
spirit and the faith of Islam
that can alone sift the Bible and cast away the chaff and error from its pages.
Before proceeding farther
to show that the Prophet foretold by the Baptist could be none other than
Prophet Muhammad, I must
draw the serious attention of my readers to one or two other important points.
It may, in the first place, be remarked that the Muslims have the highest
reverence and veneration for all
the Prophets, particularly for those whose names are mentioned in the Qur'an,
like John ("Yahya") and
Jesus (" 'Isa"); and believe that the Apostles or Disciples of Jesus were holy
men. But as we do not
possess their genuine and unadulterated writings we consequently cannot for
a moment imagine the

possibility that either of these two great Worshipers of Allah could have
contradicted each other.
Another important matter to be noted is the very significant silence of the
Gospel of Barnabas about
John the Baptist. This Gospel, which never mentions the name of Yahya, puts
his prophecy about the
"more powerful Prophet" into the mouth of Jesus Christ. Therein Christ, while
speaking of the Spirit of
Prophet Muhammad as having been created before that of other Prophets,
says that it was so glorious
that when he comes Jesus would consider himself unworthy to kneel and undo
the laces of his shoes.
The great "Crier" in the wilderness, in the course of his sermons to the
multitudes, used to cry aloud and
say: "I baptize you with water unto repentance and the forgiveness of sins. But
there is one that comes
after me who is stronger than I, the laces of whose shoes I am not worthy to
untie; he will baptize you
with the Spirit and with fire." These words are differently reported by the
Evangelists, but all show the
same sense of the highest respect and consideration in regard to the imposing
personality and the
majestic dignity of the powerful Prophet herein foretold. These words of the
Baptist are very descriptive of the Oriental manner of hospitality and honor
accorded to a dignified visitor. The moment the visitor
steps in, either the host or one of the members of the family rushes to take off
his shoes, and escorts him
to a couch or cushion. When the guest leaves the same respectful performance
is repeated; he is helped

to put on his shoes, the host on his knees tying the laces.
What John the Baptist means to say is that if he were to meet that dignified
Prophet he would certainly
consider himself unworthy of the honor of bowing to untie the laces of his
shoes. From this homage paid
beforehand by the Baptist one thing is certain: that the foretold Prophet was
known to all the Prophets as
their Adon, Lord, and Sultan; otherwise such an honorable person, chaste and
sinless Messenger of
Allah as Prophet Yahya, would not have made such a humble confession.
Now remains the task of determining the identity of "that Prophet." This
article, therefore, must be
divided into two parts, namely:
A. The foretold Prophet was not Jesus Christ; and
B. The foretold Prophet was Muhammad.
Everybody knows that the Christian Churches have always regarded John the
Baptist as a subordinate of
Jesus, and his herald. All the Christian commentators show Jesus as the object
of John's witness and
prophecy.
Although the language of the Evangelists has been distorted by interpolators to
that direction, yet the
fraud or error cannot for ever escape the searching eye of a critic and an
impartial examiner. Jesus could
not be the object of John's witness because:
(1) The very preposition "after" clearly excludes Jesus from being the foretold
Prophet. They were both

contemporaries and born in one and the same year. "He that is coming after
me" says John, "is stronger
than I." This "after" indicates the future to be at some indefinite distance; and
in the prophetical
language it expresses one or more cycles of time. It is well known to the Sufis
and those who lead a
spiritual life and one of contemplation that at every cycle, which is considered
to be equivalent of five or
six centuries, there appears one great Luminary Soul surrounded by several
satellites who appear in
different parts of the world, and introduce great religious and social
movements which last for several
generations until another shining Prophet, accompanied by many disciples and
companions, appears
with prodigious reforms and enlightenment. The history of the true religion,
from Prophets Abraham to
Muhammad, is thus decorated with such epoch-making events under Prophets
Abraham, Moses, David,
Zorobabel, Jesus, and Muhammad. Each of these epochs is marked with special
characteristic features.
Each one makes a progress and then begins to fade away and decay until
another luminary appears on
the scene, and so on down to the advent of John, Jesus, and the satellite
Apostles.
John found his nation already toiling under the iron yoke of Rome, with its
wicked Herods and their
pagan legions. He beheld the ignorant Jewish people misled by a corrupt and
arrogant clergy, the

Scriptures corrupted and replaced by a superstitious ancestral literature. He


found that that people had
lost all hope of salvation, except that Prophet Abraham, who was their father,
would save them. He told
them that Abraham did not want them for his children because they were
unworthy of such father, but
that "God could raise children for Abraham from the stones" (Matt. iii). Then
they had a faint hope in a Messiah, a descendant from the family of David,
whom they expected then, as they do to-day, to come
and restore the kingdom of that monarch in Jerusalem.
Now when the Jewish deputation from Jerusalem asked, "Art thou the
Messiah?" he indignantly replied
in the negative to this as well as to their subsequent questions. God alone
knows what rebukes and
reprimands they heard from those fiery utterings of the Holy Prophet of the
Wilderness which the
Church or the Synagogue have been careful not to let appear in writing.
Leaving aside the exaggerations, which have been evidently added to the
Gospels, we fully believe that
the Baptist introduced Jesus as the true Messiah, and advised the multitudes
to obey him and follow his
injunctions and his gospel. But he clearly told his people that there was
another, and the last, great
Luminary, who was so glorious and dignified in the presence of Allah that he
(John) was not fit to undo
the laces of his shoes.
(2) It was not Jesus Christ who could be intended by John, because if such were
the case he would have

followed Jesus and submitted to him like a disciple and a subordinate. But such
was not the case. On the
contrary, we find him preaching baptizing, receiving initiates and disciples,
chastizing King Herod,
scolding the Jewish hierarchy, and foretelling the coming of another Prophet
"more powerful" than
himself, without taking the least notice of the presence of his cousin in Judea
or Galilee.
(3) Although the Christian Churches have made of Jesus Christ a god or son of a
god, the fact that he
was circumcised like every Israelite, and baptized by St. John like an ordinary
Jew, proves the case to be
just the reverse. The words interchanged between the Baptist and the baptized
in the River Jordan appear
to be an interpolation or a commonalty for they are contradictory and of a
deceptive character. If Jesus
were in reality the person whom the Baptist foretold as "more powerful" than
himself, so much so that
he was "not worthy to kneel and unloose his shoes," and that "he would
baptize with the Spirit and fire,"
there would be no necessity nor any sense in his being baptized by his inferior
in the river like an
ordinary penitent Jew! The expression of Jesus, "It behoves us to fulfill all the
justice," is
incomprehensible. Why and how "all the justice" would be accomplished by
them if Jesus were
baptized? This expression is utterly unintelligible. It is either an interpolation or
a clause deliberately

mutilated. Here is another instance which presents itself to be solved and


interpreted by the Islamic
spirit. From a Muslim point of view the only sense in this expression of Jesus
would be that John,
through the eye of a Seer or "Sophi," perceived the prophetical character of
the Nazarene, and thought
him for a moment to be the Last Great Prophet of Allah, and consequently
shrank from baptizing him;
and that it was only when Jesus confessed his own identity that he consented
to baptize him.
(4) The fact that John while in prison sent his disciples to Jesus, asking him: "Art
thou that Prophet who
is to come, or shall we expect another one?" clearly shows that the Baptist did
not know the gift of
prophecy in Jesus until he heard - while in the prison - of his miracles. This
testimony of St. Matthew
(xi. 3) contradicts and invalidates that of the Fourth Gospel (John i), where it is
stated that the Baptist,
on seeing Jesus, exclaimed: "Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away (or
bears) the sin of the world!"
The fourth Evangelist knows nothing of the cruel martyrdom of John (Matt. xiv;
Mark vi. 14-29).
From Muslims and unitarian point of belief, it is a moral impossibility that a
Prophet like the Baptist,
whom the Holy Qur'an describes, Sayyidan, Master wa Hasuran, chaste, wa
Nabiyyan, a prophet, mina
from 's-Salihlina, the righteous" should use such a paganish expression about
Jesus Christ. The very nature and essence of John's mission was to preach
penance - that is to say, every man is responsible for

his sin and must bear it, or take it away himself by repentence. The baptism
was only an outward
ablution or washing as a sign of the remission of sins, but it is the contribution,
the confession (to God,
and to him who is injured by that sin - if absolutely necessary) and the promise
not to repeat it, that can
take it away. If Jesus were the "Lamb of God," to take away the sin of the
world, then John's preaching
would be - God forbid! - ridiculous and meaningless! Besides, John better than
anyone else knew that
such words from his lips would have caused - as has been the case - an
irreparable error which would
entirely disfigure and deform the Church of Christ. The root of the error which
has soiled the religion of
the Churches is to be sought and found out in this silly "vicarious sacrifice"
business! Has the "Lamb of
God" taken away the sin of the world? The dark pages of the "Ecclesiastical
History" of any of the
numerous hostile and "heretical" Churches will answer with a big No! The
"lambs" in the confessionalboxes can tell you by their groanings under the
tremendous weight of the multi-colored sins loaded upon
their shoulders that the Christians, notwithstanding their science and
civilization, commit more horrible
sins, murders, thefts, intemperances, adulteries, wars, oppressions, robberies,
and insatiable greed for
conquest and money than all the rest of mankind put together.
(5) John the Baptist could not be the precursor of Jesus Christ in the sense in
which the Churches

interpret his mission. He is presented to us by the Gospels as a "voice crying


aloud in the wilderness," as
the fulfillment of a passage in Isaiah (xl. 3), and as a herald of Jesus Christ on
the authority of the
Prophet Malakhi (Mal. iii. 1). To assert that the mission or duty of the Baptist
was to prepare the way for
Jesus - the former in the capacity of a precursor and the latter in that of a
triumphant Conqueror coming
"suddenly to his temple," and there to establish his religion of "Shalom" and
make Jerusalem with its
temple more glorious than before (Hag. ii. 8) - is to confess the absolute failure
of the whole enterprise.
Nevertheless one thing is as true as two and two make four - that the whole
project, according to the
extravagant view of the Christians, proves a total failure. For, from whatever
point of view we examine
the interpretations of the Churches, the failure appears to be obvious. Instead
of receiving his prince in
Jerusalem at the Gate of the Temple clad in diadem and purple, amidst the
frantic acclamations of the
Jews, the precursor receives him, naked like himself, in the middle of the River
Jordan; and then to
introduce him, after immersing or plunging his master into the water, to the
crowds as "behold, this is
the Messiah!" or "this is the Son of God!" or elsewhere "behold the Lamb of
God!" would either be
tantamount to simply insulting the people of Israel or to blaspheming; or to
purely mocking Jesus as

well as making himself ridiculous.


The true nature of the austere ascetic's mission, and the true sense of his
preaching, is altogether
misunderstood by the Churches, but understood by the Jewish priests and
casuists who obstinately
rejected it. I shall deal with this in my next article, and show that the nature of
John's mission as well as
the object of Christ's message to the Jews was quite different to what the
Churches pretend to believe.
The Prophet Foretold By The Baptist Was Certainly Prophet Muhammad
There are two very significant remarks about John the Baptist made by Jesus
Christ, but recorded in a
mysterious way. The first remark about the Baptist is that in which John is
presented to the world as the
reincarnate Eliah (Elijah) the Old Testament. The mystery with which this
appellation is enveloped consists in the significant silence of Christ about the
identity of the person whom Eliah (not Elias) was
expected to officially announce and introduce to the world as the Last Prophet.
The language of Jesus in
this respect is exceedingly obscure, ambiguous, and mysterious. If John was
Eliah, as is expressly and
fearlessly declared, why, then, is the person whose precursor was Eliah not
expressly and fearlessly
mentioned? If Jesus were the "Messenger of the Covenant" and the Dominator
[as the Vulgate translates
the Hebrew Adon (Mal. iii. 1)], why does he not openly say so? If he
courageously declared that it was

not he himself but another Prophet who was that 'Dominator' it must, indeed,
have been a criminal hand
which erased and effaced the words of Jesus from the original Gospel. At all
events, it is the Gospels
that are responsible for this ambiguity and obscurity. It cannot but be
described as diabolical tampering
with the text that has misled billions of Christians for so many centuries. Jesus,
whatever he believed he
represented, ought to have, to say the least, shown himself straightforward,
and to have frankly declared:
"John is the Eliah who was sent as a precursor to prepare the way for me!" Or
if such was not the case,
then he could have made the following declaration: "John is the Eliah who was
sent to prepare the way
for Prophet Muhammad." Perhaps this is due to the love of Jesus for
ambiguity. There are, in fact,
several instances - as reported in the Gospels - where Jesus gives an answer or
makes a statement which
is obscure and entirely unintelligible. Leaving his godhead aside, as a Prophet,
no, even as a teacher, he
was expected to be a straightforward teacher and leader.
The other remark is shrouded in still a thicker mystery. "No man born of
woman was ever greater than
John the Baptist," says Jesus, "but the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is
greater than John." Does Jesus
Christ mean to teach us that John the Baptist and all the Prophets and the
righteous men were outside the

Kingdom of God? Who is the "least" that was "greater" than John, and
consequently than all the people
of God preceding the Baptist? Does Jesus mean by the "least" himself, or the
"least" among the baptized
Christians? It cannot be himself, because in his time that Kingdom was not yet
established on earth; if it
is, then he could not be the "least" in it since he was its founder. The Churches
- rather each Church,
orthodox or heterodox, from its own peculiar point of view - have discovered a
very abstruse or a very
absurd solution for this problem; and that solution is that the "]east" Christian
washed with the blood of
Jesus - either through the Sacrament of Baptism, according to the belief of the
Sacerdotalists, or through
the regeneration of some kind, according to the superstition of the
Evangelicals - becomes "greater" than
the Baptist and all the army of the holy men and women, including Prophets
Adam, Noah, Abraham,
Moses, David, Eliah, Daniel, and John the Baptist! And the reason or proof of
this marvelous claim is
that the Christian, however, sinful, ignorant, low, and poor he may be,
providing he has faith in Jesus as
his Savior, has the privileges which the holy Prophets coveted to have but did
not enjoy. These
privileges are innumerable; purification from original sin through the Christian
Baptism; the knowledge
of the "Holy Trinity" (!!! hasha! astaghfiru 'llah! - Allah forbid and pardon this
term); the feeding upon

the flesh and the blood of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; the grace of
making the sign of a
cross; the privilege of the keys of Heaven and of Hell delivered to the Sovereign
Pontiff; and the
rapturous ecstasies of the Puritans, Quakers, Brethren, and all other sects
called Nonconformists who,
each in its own way, while claiming the same privileges and perogatives, all
agree that each good
Christian will become on the Day of Resurrection a pure virgin and present
herself as a bride to the
"Lamb of God"!
Do you not think, then, that the Christians are right to believe that the "least"
among them is "greater"
than all the Prophets? Do you not think, then, that a sturdy Patagonian monk
and a penitentiary Parisian
nun are higher than Adam and Eve, because the mystery of the Trinity is
revealed to these confused
people and not to our first parents who lived in the Paradise of Allah before
their fall? Or, don't you think that this sort of belief is most unbecoming and
undignified in these lofty times of advanced science
and civilization? To claim that an English prince or an orphan negro is "greater"
that John the Baptist
because they are Christians is, to say the least, abominable!
Yet all these diverse beliefs and creeds are derived from the New Testament
and from the words put into
the mouth of Jesus and of his Apostles. For us Muslim, however, there are a
few scintillating sparkles

left in the Gospels; and they are enough for us to discover the truth about the
real Jesus and his cousin,
Yohannan Ma'mdana (John-Baptist).
JOHN THE BAPTIST FORETOLD PROPHET MUHAMMAD
1. According to the testimony of Prophet Jesus, no man born of woman was
ever greater than John the
Baptist. But the "least" in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John. The
comparison made by the
"Spirit of Allah" (Ruhu 'llah, i.e. Jesus) is between John and all the preceding
Prophets as the officers
and administrators of the Kingdom of Heaven. Now in chronological order the
last Prophet would be the
least of them all, he would be their junior and their youngest. The word "zira"
in the Aramaic, like the
Arabic "saghir," signifies "little, small young." The Pshittha Version uses the
word "zira or "z'eira" in
apposition to "rabba" for "great, old." Every Christian will admit that Jesus is
not the "last" Prophet, and
therefore he cannot be the "least." Not only were the Apostles themselves
endowed with the gift of
prophecy, but also many other holy men in the apostolic age were favored
with it according to (Acts xi.
27, 28; xiii. 1; xv. 32; xxi, 9, 10, etc)!
And as we cannot determine which of these numerous Church Prophets was
the "last", we are naturally
forced to seek elsewhere a Prophet who is indisputably the Last and the Seal of
the Prophetic List. Can

we imagine a stronger and more brilliant evidence in favor of Prophet


Muhammad than the fulfillment,
in his holy person, of this wonderful prophecy of Jesus Christ?
In the long list of the prophetic family, certainly the "youngest," the "least" is
Prophet Muhammad; he is
the "Benjamin" of the Prophets; yet he is their Sultan, their "Adon" and their
"Glory." To deny the
prophetical and apostolical character and nature of Prophet Muhammad's
mission is a fundamental
denial of the whole Divine Revelation and all the Prophets who preached it. For
all other Prophets put
together had not accomplished the gigantic work which the Prophet of Mecca
did alone in the short
period of but twenty-three years of his mission.
The mystery of the pre-existence of the spirits of the Prophets has not been
revealed to us, but every true
Muslim believes it. It was that pre-existing spirit that by the power of the Word
of Allah "Kun" ("Be!") a
Sarah, a Hanna, and a Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Isaac, to the Baptist,
and to Jesus. There are
several other names as recorded in the Old Testament - for instance, Samson,
Jeremiah.
The Gospel of Barnabas reports Jesus as speaking of the Spirit of Prophet
Muhammad which he declares
to have been created before everything else. Hence the Baptist's witness about
the Prophet whom he
foretold: "He who comes after me has become before me, for he was before
me" (John i. 15).

It is useless to interpret these wonderful words of the Baptist about Prophet


Muhammad as referring to
Prophet Jesus as the author of the Fourth Gospel attempts to do. There is a
remarkable chapter about John the Baptist in the well-known book of Ernest
Renan on La vie
de Jesu. Long ago I carefully read this work. If the learned French writer had
the least consideration for
Prophet Muhammad's claim in the world of Prophets, I am sure his profound
investigations and
comments would have led him entirely to a different conclusion. He, like all
other dissident and Biblical
critics, instead of finding out the truth, criticizes religion adversely and leads
his readers to skepticism.
I am happy to say that it is my privilege, by the Grace of Allah, to solve the
problem, to ring up the
curtain of mystery which has covered the true sense and meaning of "the Least
in the Kingdom of
Heaven!"
2. John the Baptist recognizes Prophet Muhammad as superior and more
powerful than himself. That
significant expression made to the Jewish multitudes, "He that cometh after
me" reminded their Scribes,
Pharisees, and lawyers of the ancient prophecy of their great ancestor Prophet
Jacob, in which that
patriarch uses the unique title of "Shilokhah" for the "Rasul Allah," the epithet
frequently used by
Prophet Jesus for the Messenger Muhammad as preserved in the Gospel of
Barnabas. At the time of

writing my article on the "Shiloh" (l) I said that the word might be a corruption
of "shiloukh" or
"Shilokhah," (2) which means the Messenger of Allah, but I did not then
recollect that St. Jerome, as
well, had understood the Hebrew form in that sense, for he has translated it as
"qui mittendis est."
------------Footnotes: (1). Cf. Islamic Review for September, 1928, p. 313 et seq.
(2). The Oriental
Hebrews and Assyrians pronounce the word "Shilokha" or "Shiloakh." It is very
difficult to write or
transliterate the Semitic languages in the Latin characters. ------------- end of
footnotes
We have only an epitome of John's sermon in a few lines, written not by
himself but by an unknown
hand - at least not in his own original tongue - and much tampered with by
transcribers and redactors
who had already made his disciple Jesus an idol or a god. But when we come to
compare this sermon
preached in the wilderness of Judea and on the shores of the Jordan with the
marvelous grace, elegance,
eloquence, and power so manifest in every verse and page of the Holy Qur'an,
we understand the sense
of the words, "He is more powerful than I!"
When I picture to myself the ascetic Baptist preaching aloud in the wilderness,
or on the banks of the
Jordan, to the masses of the Jewish believers, with a theocratic history of some
four thousand years old

behind them, and then make a brief review of the quiet, orderly, and dignified
manner in which Prophet
Muhammad proclaimed the celestial verses of the Qur'an to the unbelieving
Arabs; and, finally, when I
examine and behold the effect of the two preachings upon the hearers and the
final result, I understand
the magnitude of the contrast between them, and of the significance of the
words "He is more powerful
than I!"
When I contemplate the seizure and imprisonment of the helpless Baptist by
Herod Antipas (l) and his
cruel decapitation - or when I peruse the confused but tragical biblical
accounts of the flagellation of
Jesus (or Judah Ishariot) by Pilate, his coronation with a crown of thorns by
Herod, and the catastrophe
upon the Calvary - and then turn my eyes upon the triumphal entry of the
great Adon - the Sultan of the
Prophets - into Mecca, the total destruction of all the ancient idols and the
purification of the Holy
Ka'ba; upon the thrilling scene of the vanquished deadly enemy headed by Abu
Sufyan at the feet of the
victorious Shilohah - the Prophet of Allah - begging his clemency and making
the profession of faith;
and upon the glorious worship, devotion, and the final sermon of the Seal of
the Prophets in these solemn Divine words: "Al-yauma akmaltu lakum
dmakum." "This day I have perfected your
Relgion and completed My favor to you. I have approved Islam to be your
Religion..." Ch.5:3

Qur'an then I fully understand the weight and value of the Baptist's confession,
"He is more powerful
than I!"
-----------Footnote: (1). There is anachronism in the account of John's
martyrdom concerning the family
of Herod the Great in the Gospels (Matt. xiv, etc.), the reader can consult the
Antiquities of Joseph
Flavius. ------------ end of footnote
3. "The Coming Wrath." Have you ever met with a sensible, judicious, and
convincing interpretation of
this phrase in any of the numerous commentaries on the Gospels? What does
John mean, or wish his
audience to understand, by his expression: "Behold the axe is already set at the
root of the tree"? Or his
remark: "He holds the van in his hand to purge out his threshing-floor"? Or
when he reduced the title
"Children of Abraham" to nothing?
I will not detain you on the vagaries of the commentators, for they are reveries
which neither John nor
his hearers had ever dreamed of. Could John ever teach those haughty
Pharisees, and those rationalistic
Saduqees (1) who denied the corporeal resurrection, that on the day of the last
judgment Jesus of
Nazareth would pour down upon them his wrath and burn them like the
fruitless trees and like the chaff
in the fire of Hell? There is not a single word in all the literature of the
Scriptures about the resurrection

of bodies or about Hell-fire. These Talmudistic writings are full of


eschatological material very similar
to those of the Zardushtees, but have no distinct origin in the canonical books.
The Prophet of
repentance and of good tidings does not speak about the remote and
indefinite wrath which certainly
awaits the unbelievers and the impious, but of the near and proximate
catastrophe of the Jewish nation.
He threatened the wrath of Allah awaiting that people if they persisted in their
sins and the rejection of
his mission and that of his colleague, the Prophet Jesus Christ. The coming
calamity was the destruction
of Jerusalem and the final dispersion of Israel which took place some thirty
years afterwards during the
lifetime of many among his hearers. Both he and Jesus announced the coming
of the Great Prophet of
Allah whom the Patriarch Jacob had announced under the title of Shiloha, and
that at his advent all
prophetic and royal privileges and authority would be taken away from the
Jews; and, indeed, such was
the case some six centuries later, when their last strongholds in the Hijaz were
razed to the ground and
their principalities destroyed by Prophet Muhammad. The increasingly
dominating power of Rome in
Syria and Palestine was threatening the quasiautonomy of the Jews, and the
emigration current among
the Jews had already begun. And it was on this account that the preacher
inquires, "Who has informed

you to flee from the coming wrath?" They were warned and exhorted to bear
good fruits and good
harvest by repentance and belief in the true Messengers of God, especially in
the Rasul Allah, who was
the true and the last powerful Commander.
------------Footnote: (1). This Hebrew name is wrongly written "Saducees." ------------ end of footnote
4. The Jews and the Christians have always charged Prophet Muhammad of
having established the
religion of Islam by force, coercion, and the sword. The Muslim modernists
have always tried to refute
this charge. But this does not mean to say that Prophet Muhammad never
wielded the sword. He had to
use it to preserve the Name of Allah. Every patience has limits, every favor has
an end. It is not that the
Patience or Favor of Allah is finite; with Him all is settled, defined and fixed.
The chance and the time
graciously granted by Allah to the Jews, to the Arabs, and to the Gentiles lasted
for more than four thousand years. It was only after the expiry of this period
that Allah sends His beloved Prophet
Muhammad with power and sword, with fire and spirit, to deal with the
wicked unbelievers, with the
ungrateful children of Prophet Abraham - both the Ishmaelites and the
Israelites - and to deal with the
power of the devil, once for all.
The whole of the Old Testament is a tale of theocracy and of idolatry. Now and
then a little sparkle of

Islam - that is, the Religion of Allah - glittered in Jerusalem and in Mecca; but it
was always persecuted
by the power of the devil. The four diabolical Beasts had to come and trample
under their feet the
handful of believers in Allah. Then comes Prophet Muhammad to crush and kill
the Venemous Serpent
and to give him the opprobrious title of "Iblis" - the "Bruised" Satan. Certainly
Prophet Muhammad was
a fighting Prophet, but the object of that fighting was victory not vengeance,
defeat of the enemy and not
his extermination, and, in a word, to establish the Religion of Islam as the
Kingdom of God upon the
earth. In fact, when the Crier in the desert shouted, aloud, "Prepare the way of
the Lord, and make
straight His paths," he was alluding to the Religion of the Lord in the form of a
Kingdom which was
drawing nigh. Seven centuries before, the Prophet Isaiah had cried out and
pronounced the same words
(Isa. xl. 1-4); and a couple of centuries later Allah Himself paved the way for
Cyrus by raising and
filling up every valley, and by lowering every hill and mountain, in order to
make the conquest easy and
the march rapid (xlv. 1-3). History repeats itself, they say; the language and its
meaning is the same in
both cases, the former being a prototype of the latter. Allah had smoothed the
path for Cyrus, subdued
his enemies to the Persian conqueror because of His House in Jerusalem and
His chosen people in the

captivity. Now again He was repeating the same providence, but on a larger
and wider scale. Before the
preaching of Prophet Muhammad, idols and falsehood disappeared; before his
sword empires tumbled
down; and the children of the Kingdom of Allah became equals and formed a
"people of the Saints of
the Most High." For it is only in Islam that all the believers are equal, no priest,
no sacrament; no
Muslim high as a hill, or low like a valley; and no caste or distinction of race
and rank. All believers are
one, except in virtue and piety, in which they can excel each other. It is only
the religion of Islam that
does not recognize any being, however great and holy, as an absolute
mediator between Allah and man.
The Baptism Of John And Jesus Only A Type Of Religious Marking
"Sibghatullah" (1)
"The (indelible religious) marking of Allah. And who marks better than Allah!
And for Him we
are worshipers." (Qur'an 2:138)
It is a great pity that the Evangelists have not left us a complete and detailed
account of the sermon of
John the Baptist; and assuming they ever did, it is nothing short of a crime on
the part of the Church not
to have preserved its text. For it is impossible to imagine the mysterious and
enigmatic words of the
Baptist in their present shape could have been understood even by the most
erudite among his audience

We know that the Jewish doctors and lawyers asked him to explain himself
upon various points and to
make his declarations more explicit and plain (John i. 19-23 and v. 33). There is
no doubt that he
elucidated those vital points to his hearers, and did not leave them in
obscurity; for he was "a burning
and enlightening candle," who "gave witness concerning the truth" (John v. 33,
35). What was this
witness, and what was the nature of the truth about which that witness was
given? And what makes it
still more obscure is the fact that each Evangelist does not report the same
points in identical terms.
There is no precision about the character of the truth; was it about the person
of Christ and the nature of his mission, or was it about the Messenger of Allah
as foretold by Jacob (Gen. xlix.)? What were the
precise terms of John's witness about Jesus, and about the future Prophet who
was his superior?
In the third article of this series (1) I offered ample proofs that the Prophet
foretold by the Baptist was
other than Jesus Christ; and in the fourth article (2) we find several arguments
in favor of the Messenger
of Allah as being a superior and more powerful Prophet than John. Those
arguments, in my humble
opinion, and in my solid conviction, are logical, true, and conclusive. Each of
those arguments could be
easily developed so as to make a voluminous book. I am fully conscious of the
fact that these
argumentations will present a jarring sound to the fanatical ears of many a
Christian. But truth exalts

itself and extols him who propagates it. The truth about which John gave
witness, as quoted above, we
unhesitatingly believe to be concerning Prophet Muhammad. Prophet John
gave two witnesses, one
about the "Shliha d'Allaha" - according to the then Palestinian dialect, which
means the "Messenger of
Allah" - and the other about Jesus, whom he declared to have been born of the
Holy Spirit and not of an
earthly father; to be the true Messiah who was sent by Allah as the last great
Jewish Prophet to give a
new light and spirit to the Law of Moses; and to having been commissioned to
teach the Jews that their
salvation rested on submitting to the great son of Ishmael. Like the old Jews
who threw into disorder
their Scriptures, the new Jews of the Christian Church, in imitation of their
forefathers, have corrupted
their own. But even these corruptions in the Gospels cannot conceal the truth.
------------Footnote: (1). Vide Islamic Review for March - April, 1930. (2). Ibid.,
May, 1930. -----------end of footnote
The principal point which constitutes the power and the superiority of the
Prince of the Messengers of
Allah is the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The admission by the
author of the Fourth
Gospel that Prophet Jesus and his disciples also used to baptize with water
simultaneously with John the
Baptist is an abrogation de facto of the parenthetical note that "Jesus did not
baptize himself, but his

disciples only" (John iii. 23 and iv. 1, 2). But granting that he himself did not
baptize, the admission that
his disciples did, while yet initiates and unlearned, shows that their baptism
was of the same nature as
that of John's. Considering the fact that Jesus during the period of his earthly
mission administered that
rite exactly as the Baptist was doing at the streams or pools of water, and that
he ordered his disciples to
continue the same, it becomes as evident and as clear as a barn door that he
was not the person intended
by the Crier in the Wilderness when he foretold the advent of a powerful
Prophet with the baptism of the
Spirit and fire. It does not require much learning or an extraordinary
intelligence to understand the force
of the argument - namely, Jesus during his lifetime baptized not a single person
with the Holy Spirit and
with fire. How, then, can he be regarded as the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit
and with fire, or be
identified with the Prophet foretold by John? If words, sermons, and
prophecies mean anything, and are
uttered in order to teach anything at all, then the words of the Baptist mean
and teach us that the baptism
with water would continue to be practiced until the Appearance of the
"Shilohah" or the Messenger of
Allah, and then it would cease and give place to the exercise of the baptism
with the Spirit and fire. This
is the only logical and intelligible conclusion to be deduced from the preaching
as recorded in the third

chapter of the First Gospel. The continuation of the Christian baptism and its
elevation to the dignity of
a Sacrament is a clear proof that the Church does not believe in a baptism
other than that which is
performed with water. Logic, common sense, and respect for any sacred writ
ought to convince every
impartial reader that the two baptisms are quite different things. The Prophet
of the desert does not
recognize the baptism with fire in the baptism with water. The nature and the
efficacy of each baptism is
distinctly stated and defined. The one is performed by immersing or washing
the body with water as a sign or mark of repentance; and the other is
performed no longer by water but by the Holy Spirit and the
fire, the effect of which is a thorough change of heart, faith, and feeling. One
purifies the body, the other
enlightens the mind, confirms the faith, and regenerates the heart. One is
outward, it is Judaism; the
other is inward, it is Islam. The baptism of Prophets John and Jesus washes the
shell, but the baptism of
the Messenger of Allah washes the kernel. In short, the Judaeo-Christian
baptism is substituted by the
Islamic "Ghusl" and "Wudhu" - or the ablutions which are performed, not by a
prophet or priest, but by
the believing individual himself. The Judaeo-Christian baptism was necessary
and obligatory so long as
the baptism of Allah - the Qur'anic "Sibghatullah" - was anticipated; and when
Prophet Muhammad
thundered the Divine Revelations of the Qur'an, then it was that the former
baptism vanished as a

shadow.
The extreme importance of the two baptisms deserves a very serious
consideration, and I believe the
observations made in this article must considerably interest both the Muslims
and other readers. For the
point under discussion, from a religious standpoint, is vital to salvation. The
Christians, I honestly
maintain, are not justified in perpetuating their baptism with water ad
infinitum, since their own Gospels
foretell that it will be abrogated by another one which will exclude the use of
water altogether. I submit
the following observations to the thoughtful and impartial judgment of my
readers.
WHAT BAPTISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT
(a) It is within our rights to agree or to disagree with a doctrine or a theory, but
nothing can justify our
conduct if we deliberately distort and misrepresent a doctrine in order to
prove our own theory about it.
To distort the Scriptures is iniquitous and criminal; for the error caused in this
respect is irreparable and
pernicious. Now the baptism of John and Jesus is plainly described and
illustrated to us in the Gospels,
and is entirely alien and opposed to the baptism of the Churches.
We are not positively certain about the original Hebrew or Aramaic word for
the Greek baptism. The
Pshittha Version uses the word "ma'muditha" from the verb "aimad" and
aa'mid," which means "to stand

up like an a'muda" (a pillar or column), and its causative form "aa'mid" "to
erect, set up, establish,
confirm" and so on, but it has no signification of "to immerse, dip, wash,
sprinkle, bathe, as the
ecclesiastical baptism is supposed to mean. The original Hebrew verbs "rahas"
"to bathe", "tabhal' (read
"taval") "to dip, to immerse," might give the sense conveyed by the Greek
word "baptizo" - "I baptize."
The Arabic versions of the New Testament have adopted the Aramaic form,
and call the Baptist "alMa'midan," and "ma'mudiyeh" for "baptism." In all the
Semitic languages, including the Arabic, the
verb "a'mad" signifies in its simple or qal form "to stand erect like a pillar," and
does not contain the
meaning of washing or immersion; and therefore it could not be the original
word from which the Greek
"baptismos" is the translation. There is no necessary to argue that both John
and Jesus never heard of the
word "baptismos" in its Greek form, but that there was evidently another
Semitic nomenclature used by
them.
(b) Considering the classical signification of the Greek "baptismos" which
means tincture, dye, and
immersion," the word in use could not be other than "Saba," and the Arabic
"Sabagha," "to dye." It is a
well-known fact that the Sabians, mentioned in the Qur'an and by the early
Christian Fathers - such as
Epiphanus and others - were the followers of John. The very name "Sabians,"
according to the

celebrated Ernest Renan (La vie de Jesus, ch. vi), signifies "Baptists." They
practiced baptism, and like
the old Hassayi (Essenians, or al-Chassaites) and Ibionayi (Ebionites) led an
austere life. Considering the fact that their founder, Budasp, was a Chaldean
sage, the true orthography of their name would be
"Saba'i," i.e. "Dyers" or "Baptists." A famous Chaldean or Assyrian Catholics of
the fourth century, Mar
Shimon, was called "Bar Saba'i," "Son of the Dyers." Probably his family
belonged to the Sabin religion.
The Qur'an writes this name "Sabi'm"' with the hamza vowel instead of ain as it
is in the original
Aramaic "Saba'i," I am cognizant, however, of other interpretations placed on
the name "Sabian": some
authors suppose it to be derived from "Sabi'," the son of Sheth, and others
from the Hebrew "Saba,"
which means "army," because they used to have a kind of special devotion to
the stars as the host of
heaven. Although they have nothing in common with the Christian Churches,
except their peculiar
'Sab'utha," or Baptism, they are wrongly called "the Christians of St. JohnBaptist." The Qur'an, as
usual, writes all foreign names as they were pronounced by the Arabs.
An extensive and deep research in the religion of the Sabians, who had almost
overrun the Arab nation
long before the light of Islam shone with the appearance of the Holy Prophet
of Allah, will show us
several truths. There were three forms of baptism practiced by the Jews, the
Sabians, and the Christians.

The Jewish baptism, which had no origin in their sacred books, was invented
chiefly for the proselytes.
Each religion had its definite baptismal formula and a special ritual. The Jewish
"Cohen" (priest)
baptized his convert in the Name of Allah; the Sabian in the Name of Allah and
of John; but the
Christian "Qushlsha" (in Arabic "qassis" or presbyter) baptized in the name of
the Father, of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost, in which the names of Allah and of Jesus are not directly
recited. The diversity
and the antagonism of the three baptismal systems is apparent. The Jew, as a
true Unitarian, could not
tolerate the name of John to be associated with that of the Elohim; whereas
the Christian formula was
extremely repugnant to his religious taste. There is no doubt that the Christian
baptism, with its
sacramental character and polytheistic taint, was abhorred also by the Sabians.
The symbol of the
convenant between Allah and His worshipers was not baptism but circumcision
(Gen. xvii), an ancient
institution which was strictly observed, not only by the three religions, but also
by many pagan Arab
tribes. These diverse baptismal forms and rituals among the Semitic peoples in
the East were not an
essential divine institution but only a symbol or sign, and therefore not strong
and efficacious enough to
supplant one another. They all used water for the material of their baptism,
and, more or less, in similar

form or manner. But each religion adopted a different name to distinguish its
own practice from that of
the other two. The original Aramaic "Sab'urtha" - properly and truly translated
into the Greek
"baptismos" was faithfully preserved by the Saba'ites (Sabians). It appears that
the Semitic Christians, in
order to distinguish their sacramental baptism from that of the Sabaites,
adopted the appellation of
"ma'muditha" which, from a linguistic point of view, has nothing whatever to
do with baptism or even
with washing or immersion. It is only an ecclesiatical coinage. Why
"ma'muditha" was adopted to
replace "Sab'utha" is a question altogether foreign to our present subject; but
en passant, I may add that
this word in the Pshittha is used also for a pool, a basin for ablution (John v.2).
The only explanation
which may lead towards the solution of this problem of the "ma'muditha" is
the fact that John the Baptist
and his followers, including Jesus the son of Mary and his disciples, cause a
penitent or a proselyte to
stand straight like a pillar in a pool of water or in a river in order to be bathed
with water, hence the
names of aa'mid" and "ma'muditha."
(c) The Christian baptism, notwithstanding its fanfaronade definitions, is
nothing more or less than an
aspersion with water or an immersion in it. The Council of Trent anathematizes
anyone who would say

that the Christian baptism is the same as that of St. John's. I venture to declare
that the Christian baptism
has not only no spiritual character or effect, but it is also even below the
baptism of the Baptist. And if I
deserve the anathema of the Church for my conviction, I shall deem it as a
great honor before my Creator. I consider the pretensions of a Christian priest
about the baptism as a means of purification of
the soul from original sin and all the rest of it as of a piece with the claims of a
sorcerer. The baptism
with water was only a symbol of baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, and
after the establishment
of Islam as the official kingdom of God all the three previous baptisms vanished
and were abolished.
(d) From the meager and scant account in the Gospels we cannot get a positive
definition of the true
nature of the baptism practiced by Prophets John and Jesus. The claim that the
Church is the depository
of the Divine Revelation and its true interpreter is as absurd as it is ridiculous
the claim that the baptized
infant or adult receives the Holy Spirit and becomes a child of God.
If the Greek word "baptismos" is the exact word for the Aramaic "Sab'utha" or
"Sbhu'tha," which I am
sure it is, then the Arabic "Sibghat" in the Qur'an, not only does it solve the
problem and uncover the
veil hiding the mysterious prophecy of John the Baptist,but also is a marvelous
proof that the sacred
scripture of Islam is a direction Revelation of Allah, and that His Prophet true
and the real person whom

John predicted! The baptist ("Saba'a") plunges or immerses his neophyte or an


infant into a pond, as a
dyer or a fuller plunges a cloth or garment into a kettle of dye. It is easily
understood that baptism is not
a "thara." purification or washing, nor "Tabhala," an immersion nor even a
"rahsa," a bathing or
washing, but "sab'aitha," a dyeing, a coloring. It is extremely important to
know these distinctions. Just
as a "saba'a," a dyer, gives a new color to a garment by dipping it into a kettle
of tincture, so a baptist
gives his convert a new spiritual hue. Here we must make a fundamental
distinction between a proselyte
Gentile and a penitent Jew and Ishmaelite Arab. The former was formally
circumcised, whereas thee
latter baptized only. By the circumcision a Gentile was admitted into the family
of Abraham, and
therefore into the fold of God's people. By baptism a circumcised believer was
admitted into the society
of the penitent and reformed believers. Circumcision is an ancient Divine
institution which was not
abrogated by Prophet Jesus nor by Prophet Muhammad. The baptism
practiced by John and the Christ
was only for the benefit of the penitent persons among the circumcised. Both
these institutions indicated
and presented a religion. The baptism of John and of his cousin Jesus was a
mark of admission into the
society of the purified penitents who promised loyalty and homage to
Messenger of Allah whose coming

they both foretold.


It follows, therefore, that just as circumcision signified the religion of Prophet
Abraham and his
adherents (his slaves were also circumcised), so baptism signified the religion
of John and Jesus, which
was a preparation for the Jews and the Gentiles to accord a cordial reception
to the Messenger of Islam
and to embrace his religion.
(e) According to the testimony of St. Mark (i. 1-8), the baptism of John had the
character of the
"remission of sins." It is stated that "all the country of Judaea and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem went out
to him and were all baptized by him in the River Jordan while confessing their
sins." This is tantamount
to saying that millions of the penitent Jews confessed their sins, were baptized
by the Prophet, and then
their sins were obliterated by the waters of baptism. It is generally admitted
that St. Mark's Gospel is the
oldest of the Four Gospels. All the ancient Greek manuscripts do not contain
the last twelve verses
added to chapter xvi. of this Gospel (verses 9-20). Even in these supplementary
verses the formula "in
the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" is not inscribed.
Jesus simply says: "Go
and preach my Gospel unto the whole world; he who believes and is baptized
shall live, and he who
does not believe shall be damned." It is evident that the baptism of Jesus was
the same as that of John's and a continuation of it. If the

baptism of John was a sufficient means of the remission of sins, then the
assertion that the "Lamb of
God carries away the sins of the world" (John i.) is exploded. If the waters of
the Jordan were
efficacious enough to cleanse the leprosy of Naaman through the prayer of the
Prophet Elisha (2 Kings
v), and to remit the sins of the myriads through that of the Prophet John, the
shedding of the blood of a
god would be superfluous and, indeed, incompatible with the Divine Justice.
There is no doubt that until the appearance of Paul on the scene, the followers
of Jesus Christ practiced
the baptismal ritual of Prophet John the Baptist. It is significant to note that
Paul was a "Pharisee"
belonging to a famous Jewish sect - like that of the Saducess - whom Prophets
John and Jesus
denounced as "the sons of the vipers." It is also to be observed that the author
of the fifth book of the
New Testament, called the "Acts of the Apostles," was a companion of this
Paul, and pretends to show
that those baptized by John the Baptist had not received the Holy Spirit "and
therefore were rebaptized
and then filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts viii. 16, 17 and xix. 2-7), not through
baptism in the name of
Prophet Jesus, but through the "laying of hands". It is clearly stated in these
quotations that the two
baptisms were identical in their nature and efficacy, and that they did not
"bring down" the Holy Spirit

upon the person baptized whether by John, Jesus, or in the name of either of
the two. By the "laying of
their hands" of the Apostles upon a baptized person the Holy Spirit touched his
heart, to fill it with faith
and love of God. But this Divine gift was granted only to the Messengers who
were really prophets, and
cannot be claimed by their so-called successors.
(f) If the Gospels mean anything at all in their statements concerning baptism,
they leave behind the
impression that there was no difference between the two baptisms, except
that they were administered in
the name of one or other of the two Prophets. The Pharisee Paul or Saul of
Tarsus has not a single kind
word about John the Baptist, who had branded the sect of the Pharisees with
the opprobrious epithet "the
children of the vipers." There is a tinge of grudge against Prophet John and
against the value of his
baptism in the remarks made by Luke in the "Acts of the Apostles." And Luke
was a disciple and
companion of Paul. The admission by Luke that the baptism in the name of
Jesus, too, was not carried
out by the Holy Spirit is a sure proof against the Church which has arbitrarily
and wantonly transformed
it into a sacrament or a mystery. The Church's baptism was a perpetuation of
John's baptism and nothing
more; but the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire was reserved only for
Islam. The expression

that some twelve persons in Samaria "had not yet received the Holy Spirit,
because they were only
baptized in the name of our lord Jesus" Acts vii. 16, 17), is decisive to frustrate
the pretensions of the
Church.
The last three verses in the passage cited are held by many to be an
interpolation. They did not exist in
the oldest existing MS., which is, of course, the origin of all subsequent
versions of the Bible, including
the Vulgate. A document is absolutely unworthy of serious judicial notice if a
portion of it is proved to
be a forgery. But here we go a step farther for the said addition to the original
text is admitted to be such
even by those who speak of its genuineness.
But let us take the prophecy as it stands. I need not say that it speaks of things
at which ordinary
common sense can guess, seeing that the events foretold are always occurring
from time to time in the
course of nature. Pestilence and war, famine and earthquakes have visited the
world so often that a
mention of them in a prophecy as a sign of its authenticity would deprive it of
any importance it might
otherwise possess. Besides, the first followers of a new faith are sure to meet
with persecution, especially if they chance to be of inferior social position. But
apart from this, the prophecy speaks in one
strain of several things, which may or may not occur together at any one time.
They have never yet so

occurred. The persecution of the disciples began immediately after the


departure of Jesus from Judaea.
They were "delivered up to the synagogues and into prison, and brought
before kings and rulers" for his
name's sake. The prediction, however, did not need a prophetic mind, since
the persecution had started
even when Prophet Jesus was with his disciples. These events were the natural
sequel of teachings
distasteful to the Jews. The disciples no doubt bore every conceivable hardship
and trial with patience
and courage, but they were sure of the return of the Master in accordance
with his promise: "Verily I say
unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."
Belief in these words created a
wonderful patience in the generation referred to. But his words passed away
though the time did not
come for the "heaven and the earth to pass away." Moreover, the days of the
disciples' persecution did
not witness any unusual phenomena in the form of earthquake, fighting, or
pestilence. Even in the period
immediately following, the prophesied four events did not synchronize. In the
last two scores of years of
the last two centuries we heard "of wars and commotions." "Nation" did "rise
against nation and
kingdom against kingdom." "Great earthquakes" were experienced in divers
places and famines and
pestilence, but neither did the sun become darkened nor the moon fail to give
its light, which things had

to occur before "the coming of the Son of Man." These words may be taken in
a metaphorical sense, but
in that case, why should the Adventists look for the second coming in its literal
sense? Moreover, most
of the abovementioned phenomena have taken place at times when those
who preached and taught in the
name of Jesus were not likely, for political reasons, to be brought before kings
and rulers for
punishment. On the contrary, they had obtained free access into lands that
had long been closed against
them. All of which goes to prove that either the prediction is folklore or a
legendary account of the
things of which Jesus spoke on different occasions. Either he himself had had
but a hazy notion of
coming events, or the recorders of his life, who wrote two centuries after,
mixed up hopelessly different
things dealing with different matters.
The "Sibghatullah," Or The Baptism With The Holy Spirit And With Fire
One of the few religious phenomena I have not been able to explain is this:
How is it that the wellknown Saba'ltes (Sabians), so predominant in the
Arabian peninsula and Mesopotamia, did not embrace
Christianity if the Prophet John the Baptist had really and openly declared and
presented Jesus as the
"more powerful" Prophet than himself, and the Messiah whose shoes he was
not worthy to unloose? If,
as foretold by John, Jesus was the Prophet of Allah who came to baptize with
the Holy Spirit and with

fire the myriads whom he "dyed" in the water of the Jordan and elsewhere,
why did not Prophet Jesus
baptize them instantly with the Spirit and with fire and then purge of idolatry
all the lands promised by
Allah to the seed of Prophet Abraham and establish the Kingdom of God by
force and fire? It is
absolutely inconceivable that the disciples and the believers in the divine
mission of John should not
follow Jesus if he had been presented to the public as his Lord or Superior on
the spot. The followers of
John might have been excused for their refusal to enter into the Christian
Church if Jesus Christ had
come, say, a century later than the Baptist, but happily such was not the case.
They were both
contemporaries and born in the same year. They both baptized with water
unto repentance, and prepared
their penitent converts for the Kingdom of God that was approaching but not
established in their time. The Sabaites, the "Dyers" or "Baptists," were the
faithful adherents of John. They may have fallen into
error and superstition; but they knew perfectly well that it was not Jesus who
was intended in the
prophecy of their Prophet. They embraced Islam when Prophet Muhammad
came. The people of Harran
in Syria are not - as they have been supposed to be - the remnant of the old
Saba'ites. In the promised
lands only three non-Muslim religions were recognized and tolerated by the
Qur'an, namely, Judaism,
Christianity, and Sabianism. It is stated that the Harranians pretended to be the
remnant of the old

Saba'ites, and they were, therefore, permitted to practice their peculiar


religion without molestation by
the Turkish Government.
The Christian conception of the Holy Spirit is entirely different from the Islamic
and the Jewish. The
Holy Spirit is not a divine person with divine attributes and functions not
belonging to this or that other
divine persons of a triple god. The Christian belief that this same holy ghost,
the third divine person,
descends from his (or her, or its) heavenly throne at the bidding of every priest
- in his daily celebration
of some sacrament - to consecrate its elements and change their essence and
qualities into some
supernatural elements is extremely repugnant to the religious sentiments of
every Unitarian, whether
Jew or Muslim. Nothing could horrify a Muslim's feeling more than the belief
that the Holy Spirit always at the intervention of a priest - changes the water of baptism into the
blood of a crucified god and
blots out the so-called original sin; or a belief that the magic operation upon
the material elements of the
Eucharist transubstantiates them into the blood and body of an incarnate god.
These beliefs were
absolutely opposed to the teachings of the Old Testament and a falsification of
the real doctrine of John
and Jesus. The Christian assertion that the Holy Spirit at the incantations of a
priest, fills certain

individuals and sanctifies them, but does not guarantee their impeccability and
ignorance, is
meaningless. We are told that Hananiah (Ananias) and his wife Shapirah were
baptized, which is to say
filled with the Holy Ghost. They were thus inspired by the third divine person
to sell their field and to
place its price in cash at the feet of the Apostle Peter, but at the same time
were seduced by the devil to
conceal a portion of the money. The consequence was that the unfortunate
communist couple were
stricken dead miraculously (Acts v).
Think of the belief that the third person of the trinity descends upon men,
sanctifies them, and then
allows them to fall into error, heresy, and atheism, and abandons them to
commit murderous wars and
massacres. Is this possible? Can the devil seduce a man filled with and guarded
by the Holy Ghost and
change him into a demon? The Holy Qur'an is very expressive on this point.
Allah says to the devil: "He
said: 'This is for Me the Right Path over My worshipers, you have no power
over My worshipers,
except the sinners who follow you...'" Ch.15:41-42 Qur'an
We cannot believe, nor even imagine for a moment, that a worshiper of God, a
righteous believer who
has received the Spirit of sanctification, can fall into a deadly sin and perish in
Hell. No, a holy person,
so long as he is in this material world, is to combat and struggle against sin and
evil; he may fall, but he

will rise again and shall never be abandoned by the pure Spirit that guards him.
True repentance is the
work of the good Spirit that lives in us. If a Christian is baptized with the Holy
Spirit and fire, in the
sense which the book of the "Acts of the Apostles" describes and the Churches
accept, then every
baptized Latin, Greek, or Abyssinian must not only become a sinless saint but
also a linguist and a
polyglot prophet!
The truth is that the Christians have not a definite or precise conception about
the Holy Spirit filling a
baptized Christian. If it is God, then how dare the devil approach, tempt, and
seduce the hallowed or rather defied man? And, besides, what is more serious
is: How can the devil chase away the Holy Ghost
and settle himself in the heart of a baptized heretic or atheist? On the other
hand, if the Holy Spirit
means the Archangel Gabriel or some other angel, then the Christian Churches
roam in a desert of
superstition; for an angel is not omni-present. If this Spirit that purifies and fills
a baptized Christian is
God Himself, for such is their belief in the third person of the Trinity, then all
the baptized Christians
ought to claim themselves divine or deified!
Then there is a Protestant conception of the Holy Spirit, which (or who (1)) fills
the hearts of those who,
at the highest excitement and ecstasy during an inflammatory sermon of an
ignorant or learned

haranguer, believe themselves to become "new-born"; yet many among them


slide back and become
what they were before, rogues and swindlers!
------------Footnote (1) The Holy Spirit, in all the Christian literature of diverse
languages, has not a
fixed gender. He, she, it, are all commonly used as the personal pronouns for
the Holy Ghost. ------------End of footnote
Now before I come to explain, according to my humble understanding, the
spiritual and fiery baptism, I wish to admit and confess that there are many
pious and God-fearing persons among the Jews and the Christians. For
however their religious views and beliefs may differ from ours, they love their
God and do good in His name. We cannot comprehend and determine the
dealings of God with the peoples of different religions. The Christian
conception of the Deity is only an erroneous definition of the true God
in whom they believe and love. If they extol Jesus and deify him, it is not that
they wish to dishonour God, but because they see His beauty in that Ruh-Allah
(the "Spirit of God," i.e. Jesus). They certainly cannot appreciate the
Messengerhood of Prophet Muhammad, not, because they deny his
unparalleled
service to the cause of Allah by inflicting the greatest blow on the devil and his
cult of idolatry, but
because they do not understand as he did the true nature of the mission and
person of Jesus Christ.
Similar reasoning may be put forward with regard to the attitude of the Jews
towards Prophet Jesus and
Prophet Muhammad. Allah is Merciful and Forgiving!
The Holy Spirit, with the definite article "the," means a special angelic Gabriel,
or any one of the

numerous "pure" spirits created by Allah, and appointed to perform some


particular mission. The
descent of the Holy Spirit upon a human person is to reveal to him the will of
Allah, and to make him a
prophet. Such a one can never be seduced by the satan.
What is known as "baptism" before the era of Prophet Muhammad is called
"Sibghatullah", namely, the
religious indelible marking mentioned in the Qur'an which Prophet
Muhammad brought is explained to
us by the Divine Revelation only in one verse of Al-Qur'an: Ch 2:138
"The (religious indelible) marking (of the believers) of Allah. And who marks
better than Allah?
And for Him we are worshipers."
Muslim commentators rightly understand the word "Sibghat," not in its literal
signification of "dyeing,"
but in its spiritual or metaphorical sense of "religion." This Qur'anic verse
cancels and abolishes the
religions of the "Sab'utha" and of the "Ma'muditha" or both the Saba'ites and
the Nasara. "Sibghatullah"
is the religious indelible marking of the believers of Allah, not with water, but
with the Holy Spirit and
fire! The religion professed by any of the companions of the Prophet of Allah in
the first years of the Hijrat is to-day professed in its entirety by every Muslim.
This cannot be said of the baptismal religion.
More than sixteen Ecumenical Councils have been summoned to define the
religion of Christianity, only
to be discovered by the Synod of the Vatican in the nineteenth century that
the mysteries of the

"Infallibility" and the "Immaculate Conception" were two of the principal


dogmas, both unknown to the
Apostle Peter and the Blessed Virgin Mary! Any faith or religion dependent
upon the deliberations and
decisions of General Synods - holy or heretical - is artificial and human. The
Religion of Islam is the
belief in One God (Allah) and absolute resignation to His Will, and this faith is
professed by the angels
in the heavens and by the Muslims on earth. It is the religion of sanctification
and of enlightenment, and
an impregnable bulwark against idolatry. Let us develop these points a little
further.
The spiritual indelible marking is the direct work of Allah Himself. As a fuller or
a laundress washes the
linen or any other object with water; as a dyer tints the wool or cotton with a
tincture to give it a new
hue; and as a indelible marking blots out the past sins of the true penitent
believer, so does Allah
Almighty mark, not the body, but the spirit and the soul of him whom He
mercifully directs and guides
unto the Holy Religion of Islam. This is the "Sibghatullah," the marking of Allah,
which makes a person
fit and dignified to become a citizen of the Kingdom of Allah and a member of
His religion. When the
Angel Gabriel communicated the Word of Allah for the first time to Prophet
Muhammad, he (Prophet
Muhammad) was invested with the gift of prophecy. His spirit was purified and
magnified with the Holy

Spirit to such a degree and extent that sever times the Angel Gabriel opened
his chest and heart and
washed it, thereby removing any bases for the whispering of satan. Once when
he was a child playing in
the desert, and one in Ka'ba before his ascent, and to the extent that when he
in his turn pronounced that
Word to those whose spirit Allah pleased to guide were also purified, marked.
They, too, thus became
holy officers in the new army of the faithful Muslims. This spiritual marking
does not make the Muslims
prophets, sinless saints, or miracle-mongers. For after the Revelation of the
Will and Word of Allah in
the Holy Qur'an there is the end of the prophecy and of revelation. They are
not made sinless saints
because their piety and good works would not be the outcome of effort and
struggle against evil, and
therefore not justly meritorious. They are not appointed to become workers of
supernatural miracles
because they have a firm and sound faith in their Creator, Allah.
Further, this "Sibghatullah" makes the true Muslims grave, constant in their
duties to Allah and towards
their fellowmen, especially towards their families. It does not move them to
the folly of believing
themselves holier than their co-religionists, and so to arrogate the post of
pastorship to themselves over
others as if they were their flocks and herds. Fanaticism, religious conceit, and
the like are not

operations of the Holy Spirit. Every Muslim receives at his creation the same
"Sibghatullah," the same
religion and spiritual religious indelible marking, and has to run the race of his
short earthly life to the
best of his ability and effort in order to win the crown of glory in the next
world. Every Muslim needs
only education and religious training in accordance with the wisdom of the
Word of God. But he needs
not the intercession of a priest, sacrament, or saint. Every enlightened believer
can become an Imam
(leader of prayer), missionary, preacher according to his learning and religious
zeal, not for vain glory or
lucrative gain.
In short, every Muslim, whether at his birth or at his conversion, is marked
spiritually, and becomes a
citizen of the Kingdom of God, a free man, and possesses equal rights and
obligations, according to his
ability, virtue, knowledge, wealth, rank. St. John the Baptist ascribes this
spiritual and igneous marking to the Great Prophet of Allah, not as a
divine being, God, or son of God, but as a holy agent, and as an instrument
through which this divine
marking was to be operated. Prophet Muhammad delivered the Message of
Allah which was His Word;
he led the prayers, administered the Divine service, and fought the holy wars
against the unbelievers and
the idolators to defend his cause. But the success and the victory achieved was
God's. In the same way

John preached and baptized, but the contrition, penance, and the remission of
sins could only be done by
God. The Prophet John's prediction that "he who comes after me is more
powerful than I; he will baptize
(mark) you with the Spirit and with fire" is quite intelligible, because only
through Prophet Muhammad
this spiritual marking was given and performed.
It is to be remarked that the form and material of this marking is altogether
Divine and supernatural. We
feel and see the effect of an invisible but real cause which accomplishes that
effect. There is no longer
water as the material, nor a marker to officiate at the ritual or the form. It is
Allah who, through the
Spirit, works it out. The materials of the "Sibghatullah" in the words of the
Marker are the Holy Spirit
and fire. The form exclusively belongs to Allah. We cannot attribute to the
Almighty any form of
operation except His Word "Kun" - "Be!" - and His command is obeyed or
created. The result is that a
Muslim becomes sanctified, enlightened, and an equipped soldier to fight the
Satan and his idolatry.
These three effects of the "Sibghatullah" deserve a serious consideration and
study. Their exposition is
but brief.
1) The Holy Spirit, whether the Archangel Gabriel or another of the created
Superior Spirits, by the
command of God sanctifies the spirit of a Muslim at his birth or conversion - as
the case may be; and

this sanctification means:


Engraving a perfect faith in the One true God. The "Subghatu 'I-Lah" makes the
spirit of a true Muslim
believe in the absolute Oneness of Allah, to rely upon Him, and to know He
alone is his Master, Owner,
and Lord. This faith in the true God is manifest in every person who professes
himself a Muslim. The
mark and the evidence of this ingrained faith in a Muslim shines brilliantly
when he affirms, "Ana
muslim, Alhamud li 'l-Lahi ("I am Muslim; praised be Allah!"). What is more
impressive and singularly
obvious a sign of a Holy belief than the hatred and repugnance which a Muslim
feels against any other
object of worship besides God? Which of the two is holier in the Sight of Allah:
he who worships his
Creator in a simple building of the Mosque, or he who worships the fourteen
pictures and images
representing the scenes of the crucifixion in a building whose walls and altars
are adorned with the
idolatrous statues, its ground covering the bones of the dead, and its dome
decorated with the figures of
angels and the saints?
The sanctification by the Holy Spirit and fire which God works upon the spirit of
a Muslim is that He
impregnates and fills it with love for, and submission to, Him. An honorable
husband would rather
divorce his beloved wife than see her sharing his love with any other man. The
Almighty will cast away

any "believer" who associates any other object or being with Him. The
Muslim's love for Allah is not
theoretical or idealistic but practical and real. He will not hesitate for a
moment to expel from his house
his wife, son, or friend if he should blaspheme the Holy Name or Person. A
pagan or a person of an
other religion may show a similar furious zeal for his object of worship. But
that love which is shown
for the One True God is Holy and sanctified; and such love can only exist in the
heart of a Muslim.
Those auspicatory and doxological formulae "Bismi 'l-Lahi" and "Alhamdu li 'lLahi," which mean,
respectively, "In the Name of Allah" and "Praised be Allah" at the beginning
and the end of every action or enterprise, are the most sincere expressions of
the purified Muslim spirit impressed and inebriate with
the "Love of God" that transcends and excels every other love. These
ejaculations are not artificial or
hypocritical expressions in the mouths of Muslims, but they are the prayer and
the praise of the indelibly
marked spirit that resides in his body. And if a Christian and a Jew are imbued
with the same faith and
devotion, and if their soul does effuse those expressions that the spirit of a
Muslim does, then he is a
Muslim though he knows it not.
The indelible marking of sanctification which the "Sibghatullah" inspires in the
spirit of a Muslim,
besides faith and love, is a total submission and resignation to the Holy Will of
Allah. This absolute

submission emanates not only from belief and love, but also from a holy fear
and from a deep respect so
latent in the soul and spirit of every true believer.
Such are the principal characteristics of the spiritual indelible marking, and
nowhere are they manifest
but among the adherents of Islam. John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and his
apostles believed in, loved, and
feared the same Allah as every Muslim does according to the degree of the
Divine Grace and Mercy.
The Holy Spirit, or as known in Islam as the Purified Spirit, meaning Angel
Gabriel himself, who, also
holds the rank of Messenger, is also too a creature and loves and fears Allah
whom you and I do.
2) The second sign of the spiritual indelible marking is enlightenment. The true
knowledge of Allah and
of His Will, so much as men are enable to possess, can only and exclusively be
seen in Muslims. This
knowledge sparkles dazzlingly in the countenance and the general behavior of
every Muslim. He may
not comprehend the Essence of God, just as a child cannot understand the
nature and the qualities of his
parents; yet a baby recognizes its mother among all other women. The analogy
is by far below the
reality, and the comparison infinitely inferior between an enlightened good
Muslim in relation to his
Creator and a baby crying after its own good mother. Every Muslim, however
ignorant, poor, and sinful,

sees the signs of Allah in every phenomenon of the nature. Whatever befalls
him, in happiness or
misery, Allah is in his mind. The Muslim call to prayer is a living witness of this
enlightenment. "There
is no object of worship besides Allah," is an eternal protest against all those
who associate with Him
other objects unworthy of worship. Every Muslim confesses: "I bear witness
that Allah is the only Being
worthy of worship."
In this respect I may hint at the fact that the human soul is quite different from
the human spirit. It is this
holy spirit that enlightens the soul and implants in it the knowledge of truth. It
is again the evil spirit that
induces the soul to error, idolatry, and ungodliness.
3) The "Sibghatullah" is that Divine marking with fire which arms and equips
the Muslim to become a
bulwark against error and superstition, chiefly against idolatry of every kind. It
is this mark of fire that
melts the soul and spirit of a Muslim, thus separating its golden substance
from the rubbish and ordure.
It is the Power of God which strengthens and consolidates the connection
between Him and the
believing worshiper, and arms him to fight for the religion of God. The fervor
and the zeal of the
Muslim for Allah and His Religion is unique and holy. The savages also fight for
their fetishes, the
heathen for their idols, and the Christians for their cross; but what a contrast
between these unworthy

object of worship and the God of Islam!


In conclusion, I must draw the attention of my Muslim brethren to think who
they are; to remember the
favors of Allah; and to live accordingly. The "Paraclete" Is Not The Holy Spirit
In this article we can now discuss the famous "Paraclete" of the Fourth Gospel.
Jesus Christ, like John
the Baptist, announced the advent of the Kingdom of God, invited the people
to repentance, and
baptized them for the remission of their sins. He honorably accomplished his
mission, and faithfully
delivered the message of God to the people of Israel. He was not himself the
founder of the Kingdom of
God, but only its herald, and that is why he wrote nothing and authorized no
one to write the Holy
Gospel that was inscribed in his mind. He revealed the Gospel which meant the
"good news" concerning
the "Kingdom of God" and the "Pereiklitos" to his followers, not in writing, but
in oral discourses, and
in public sermons. These discourses sermons, and parables were transmitted
by those who had heard
them to those who had not. Later on it was that the sayings and teachings of
the Master were reduced to
writing. Jesus was no longer the Rabbi, but the Logos - the Divine Word; no
longer the Forerunner of
the Paraclete but his very Lord and Superior. His pure and true words were
adulterated and mixed with
myth and legend. For a time he was expected at any moment to come down
from the clouds with legions

of angels. The Apostles had all passed away; the second coming of Jesus Christ
was delayed. His person
and doctrine gave rise to a variety of religious and philosophical speculations.
Sects succeeded one
another; Gospels and Epistles under different names and titles appeared in
many centers; and a multitude
of the Christian scholars and apologists combated and criticized each other's
theory. If there had been
written a Gospel during the lifetime of Jesus, or even a book authorized by the
College of the Apostles,
the teachings of the Prophet of Nazareth would have preserved their purity
and integrity until the
appearance of the Periqlit - Ahmad. But such was not the case. Each writer
took a different view about
the Master and his religion, and described him in his book - which he named
Gospel or Epistle according to his own imagination. The high-soaring flight of thought
concerning the Word; the prophecy
about the Periqlit; the inexplicable discourse of Jesus upon his flesh and blood;
and a series of several
miracles, events, and sayings recorded in the Fourth Gospel were unknown to
the Synoptics and
consequently to a great majority of the Christians who had not seen it at least
for a couple of centuries.
The Fourth Gospel, too, like every other book of the New Testament, was
written in Greek and not in
Aramaic, which was the mother-tongue of Jesus and his disciples.
Consequently, we are again

confronted with the same difficulty which we met with when we were
discussing the "Eudokia" of St.
Luke, namely: What word or name was it that Jesus used in his native tongue
to express that which the
Fourth Gospel has translated as "the Paraclete" and which has been converted
into "comforter" in all the
versions of that Gospel?
Before discussing the etymology and the true signification of this unclassical or
rather corrupt form of
the Paraclete it is necessary to make a brief observation upon one particular
feature of St. John's Gospel.
The authorship and authenticity of this Gospel are questions which concern
the Higher Biblical
Criticism; but it is impossible to believe that the Apostle could have written this
book as we have it in its
present shape and contents. The author, whether Yohannan (John) the son of
Zebedee, or someone else
under that name, seems to be familiar with the doctrine of the celebrated
Jewish scholar and philosopher
Philon concerning the Logos (Word). It is well known that the conquest of
Palestine and the foundation
of Alexandria by Alexander the Great opened up, for the first time, a new
epoch for culture and
civilization. It was then that the disciples of Moses met with those of Epicurus,
and the mighty impact of
the spiritual doctrines of the Bible on the materialism of the Greek paganism
took place. The Greek art and philosophy began to be admired and studied by
the Jewish doctors of the law both in Palestine and

in Egypt, where they had a very numerous community. The penetration of the
Greek thought and belleslettres into the Jewish schools alarmed their priests
and learned men. In fact, Hebrew was so much
neglected that the Scriptures were read in the Alexandrian Synagogues in the
Septuagint Version. This
invasion by a foreign knowledge, however, moved the Jews to make a better
study of their own law, and
to defend it against the inauspicious new spirit. They endeavored, therefore, to
find a new method for the
interpretation of the Bible in order to enable the possibility of a
"rapprochement" and reconciliation of
the Biblical truths with the Hellenic thought. For their former method of a
literal interpretation of the
law was felt to be unworkable and too weak to stand against the fine
reasoning of Plato and Aristotle. At
the same time the solid activities of the Jews and their profound devotion to
their religion often aroused
against themselves the jealousy and hatred of the Greeks. Already, under
Alexander the Great, an
Egyptian priest, Manetho, had written libels or calumnies against Judaism.
Under Tiberius, too, the great
orator Apion had resuscitated and envenomed the insults of Manetho. So that
this literature poisoned the
people who, later on, cruelly persecuted the believers in the One true God.
The new method was accordingly found and adopted. It was an allegorical
interpretation of every law,
precept, narration and even the names of great personages were considered
to conceal in them a secret

idea which it attempted to bring to light. This allegorical interpretation soon


arrogated to itself the place
of the Bible, and was like an envelope enclosing in itself a system of religious
philosophy.
Now the most prominent man who personified this science was Philon, who
was born of a rich Jewish
family in Alexandria in the year 25 before the Christian Era. Well versed in the
philosophy of Plato, he
wrote his allegorical work in a pure and harmonious Greek style. He believed
that the doctrines of the
Revelation could agree with the highest human knowledge and wisdom. What
preoccupied his mind
most was the phenomenon of the dealings of God, the pure Spirit, with the
earthly beings. Following
Plato's theory of the "Ideas," he invented a series of intermediary ideas called
"the Emanations of the
Divinity," which he transformed into angles who unite God with the world. The
fundamental substance
of these ideas, the Logos (Word), constituted the supreme wisdom created in
the world and the highest
expression of the Providential action.
The Alexandrian School followed the triumph of Judaism over Paganism. "But,"
as rightly remarks the
Grand-Rabin Paul Haguenauer in his interesting little book Manuel de
Litterature luive (p. 24). "mais
d'elle surgirent, plus tard, des systemes nuisibles Li l'hebraisme" indeed
noxious systems, not only to
Judaism but to Christendom too!

The origin of the doctrine of the Logos is to be traced, therefore, to the


theology of Philon, and the
Apostle John - or the author of the Fourth Gospel, whoever he be - only
dogmatized the theory of the
"ideas" which had sprung up first from the golden brain of Plato. As remarked
in the first article of this
series, the Divine Word means the Word of God, and not God the Word. The
word is an attribute of a
rational being; it belongs to any speaker, but it is not the rational being, the
speaker. The Divine Word is
not eternal, it has an origin, a beginning; it did not exist before the beginning
except potentially. The
word is not the essence. It is a serious error to substantialize any attribute
whatever. If it be permitted to
say "God the Word," why should it be prohibited to say, God the Mercy, God
the Love, God the
Vengeance, God the Life, God the Power, and so forth? I can well understand
and accept the appellation
of Jesus "the Spirit of Allah" ("Ruhu l-Lah"), of Moses "the Word of Allah"
("Kalamu 'I-Lah"), of
Muhammad "the Messenger of Allah" ("Rasul Allah"), meaning the Spirit of
God, the Word of God, the Messenger of God respectively. But I can never
understand nor accept that the Spirit, or the Word, or the
Messenger, is a Divine Person having divine and human natures.
Now we will proceed to expose and confute the Christian error about the
Paraclete. In this article I shall
try to prove that the Paraclete is not, as the Christian Churches believe, the
Holy Ghost, nor does it at all

mean the "comforter" or the "intercessor;" and in the following article, please
God, I shall clearly show
that it is not "Paraclete" but "Periclyte" which precisely signifies "Ahmad" in
the sense of "the most
Illustrious, Praised, and Celebrated."
1. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DESCRIBED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AS
OTHERWISE THAN A PERSONALITY
A careful examination of the following passages in the New Testament will
convince the readers that the
Holy Spirit, not only is it not the third person of the Trinity, but is not even a
distinct person. But the
"Paraclete" foretold by Jesus Christ is a distinct person. This fundamental
difference between the two is,
therefore, a decisive argument against the hypothesis of their being one and
the same person.
(a) In Luke xi. 13 the Holy Spirit is declared to be a "gift" of God. The contrast
between the "good gifts"
which are given by wicked parents and the Holy Spirit which is bestowed upon
the believers by God
entirely excludes the idea of any personality of the Spirit. Can we
conscientiously and positively affirm
that Jesus Christ, when he made the above contrast, meant to teach his
hearers that "God the Father"
makes a gift of "God the Holy Spirit" to His earthly "children"? Did he ever
insinuate that he believed
the third person of the Trinity to be a gift of the first person of the Trinity? Can
we conscientiously

admit that the Apostles believed this "gift" to be God the Almighty offered by
God the Almighty to
mortals? The very idea of such a belief makes a Muslim shudder.
(b) In 1 Cor. ii. 12 this Holy Spirit is described in the neuter gender "the Spirit
from God". Paul clearly
states that as the Spirit which is in man makes him know the things that
appertain to him so the Spirit of
God makes a man know the things divine (1 Cor. 11). Consequently, the Holy
Spirit here is not God but
a divine issue, channel, or medium through which God teaches, enlightens, and
inspire those whom He
pleases. It is simply an action of God upon human soul and mind.
Just as the philosophy of Plato is not the Plato, and the Platonist Philon not the
creator of that specific
wisdom, so Peter was not God because of his enlightenment by the Spirit of
God. Paul clearly sets forth,
in the passage just quoted, that the human soul cannot discern the truths
concerning God but only
through His Spirit, inspiration, and direction.
(c) Again, in 1 Cor. vi. 19 we read that the righteous worshipers of God are
called "the temple of the
Holy Spirit" which they "received from God." Here again the Spirit of God is not
indicated to be a
person or an angel, but His virtue, word, or power and religion. Both the body
and the soul of a
righteous believer are compared with a temple dedicated to the worship of the
Eternal.

(d) In the Epistle to the Romans (viii. 9) this same spirit that "lives" within the
believers is called
alternately "the Spirit of God" and the "Spirit of Christ." In this passage "the
Spirit" means simply the
faith and the true religion of God which Jesus proclaimed. Surely this spirit
cannot mean to be the
Christian ideal of the Holy Ghost, viz. another third of the three. We Muslims
always wish and intend to regulate our lives and conduct ourselves in
accordance with the spirit of Prophet Muhammad, meaning
thereby that we are resolved to be faithful to the religion of Allah in much the
same way as the Last
Prophet was. For the holy Spirit in Prophet Muhammad, in Prophet Jesus, and
in every other prophet
was no other than the Spirit of Allah - praised be His Holy Name! This spirit is
called "holy" to
distinguish it from the impure and wicked spirit of the devil and his
companions. This spirit is not a
divine person, but a divine ray that enlightens and sanctifies the people of God.
(e) The Gospel formula, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit," even if
authentic and truly prescribed by Christ, may be legitimately accepted as a
formula of faith before the
formal establishment of Islam, which is the real Kingdom of God upon earth.
God Almighty in His
quality of Creator is the Father of all beings, things, and intelligences, but not
the Father of one
particular son. The Orientalists know that the Semitic word "abb" or "abba,"
which is translated as

"father," means "one who brings forth, or bears fruit" ("ibba" = fruit). This
sense of the word is quite
intelligible and its use legitimate enough. The Bible frequently makes use of
the appellation "Father."
God, somewhere in the Bible, says: "Israel is my first-born son"; and elsewhere
in the book of Job He is
called "the father of the rain." It is because of the abuse of this Divine
Appellation of the Creator by
Christendom that the Qur'an refrains from using it. From a purely Muslim point
of belief the Christian
dogma concerning the eternal birth or generation of the Son is a blasphemy.
Whether the Christian baptismal formula is authentic or spurious I believe
there is a hidden truth in it.
For it must be admitted that the Evangelists never authorize the use of it in any
other ritual, prayer, or
creed other than that of Baptism. This point is extremely important. St. John
had foretold the Baptism
with the Holy Spirit and fire by the Prophet Muhammad, as we saw in the
preceding articles. The
immediate Baptizer being God Himself, and the mediate the Son of Man or the
Barnasha of the vision of
Daniel, it was perfectly just and legitimate to mention those two names as the
first and second efficient
causes; and the name of the Holy Spirit, too, as the causa materialis of the
Sibghatullah! Now the Divine
Appellation "Father," before its abuse by the Church, was rightly invoked. In
fact, the Sibghatullah is a

new birth, a nativity into the Kingdom of God which is Islam. The Baptizer who
causes this regeneration
is directly Allah. To be born in the religion if Islam, to be endowed with the
faith in the true God, is the
greatest favor and gift of the "Heavenly Father" - to use the evangelistic
expression. In this respect God
is infinitely more beneficent than an earthly father.
As regards the second name in the formula, "the Son," one is at a loss to know
who or what this "son"
is? Whose son? If God is rightly addressed "Father," then one is curious,
inquisitive, and anxious to
know which of His innumerable "sons" is intended in the baptismal formula.
Jesus taught us to pray
"Our Father who art in heaven." If we are all His sons in the sense of His
creatures, then the mention of
the word "son" in the formula becomes somehow senseless and even
ridiculous. We know that the name
"the Son of Man" - or "Barnasha" - is mentioned eighty-three times in the
discourses of Jesus. The
Qur'an never calls Jesus "the son of man" but always "the son of Mary." He
could not call himself "the
son of man" because he was only "the son of woman." There is no getting
away from the fact. You may
make him "the son of God" as you do, but you can't make him "the son of
man" unless you believe him
to be the offspring of Joseph or someone else, and consequently fasten on to
him the taint of

illegitimacy. I don't know exactly how, whether through intuition, inspiration,


or dream, I am taught and convinced
that the second name in the formula is an ill-fated corruption of "the Son of
Man," viz. the Barnasha of
Daniel (vii.), and therefore Ahmad "the Periqlytos" (Paraclete) of St. John's
Gospel.
As to the Holy Spirit in the formula, it is not a person or an individual spirit, but
an agency, force,
energy of God with which a man is born or converted into the religion and
knowledge of the One God.
2. - WHAT THE EARLY FATHERS OF THE NASARA (CHRISTIANITY) SAY
ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT.
(a) Hermas (Similitude v. 5, 6) understands, by the "Holy Spirit," the divine
element in Christ, namely
the Son created before all things. Without entering into the useless or rather
meaningless discussion
whether Hermas confounds the Holy Spirit with the Word, or if it is a distinct
element belonging to
Christ, it is admitted that the latter was created before all things - that is to
say, in the beginning - and
that the Spirit in Hermas' belief is not a person.
(b) Justin - called the "Martyr" (100?-167? A.C.) - and Theophilus (120?-180?
A.C.) understand by the
Holy Spirit sometimes a peculiar form of the manifestation of the Word and
sometimes a divine
attribute, but never a divine person. It must be remembered that these two
Greek fathers and writers of

the second century A.C. had no definite knowledge and belief about the Holy
Ghost of the Trinitarians
of the fourth and the succeeding centuries.
(c) Athenagoras (110-180 A.C.) says the Holy Spirit is an emanation of God
proceeding from and
returning to Him like the rays of the sun (Deprecatio pro Christiarus, ix, x).
Irenaeus (130?-202? A.C.)
says that the Holy Spirit and the Son are two worshipers of God and that the
angels submit to them. The
wide difference between the belief and the conceptions of these two early
fathers about the Holy Spirit is
too obvious to need any further comment. It is surprising that the two
worshipers of God, according to
the declaration of such an authority as Irenaeus, should, two centuries
afterwards, be raised to the
dignity of God and proclaimed two divine persons in company with the one
true God by whom they
were created.
(d) The most illustrious and learned of all the ante-Nicene fathers and the
Christian apologists was
Origen (185-254 A C.). The author of the Hexepla ascribes personality to the
Holy Spirit, but makes it a
creature of the Son. The creation of the Holy Spirit by the Son cannot be even
in the beginning when the
Word - or the Son - was created by God.
The doctrine concerning this Holy Spirit was not sufficiently developed in 325
A.C., and therefore was

not defined by the Council of Nicea. It was only in 386 A.C. at the second
Ecumenical Council of
Constantinople that it was declared to be the Third Person of the Trinity,
consubstantial and coeval with
the Father and the Son.
3. - THE "PARACLETE" DOES NOT SIGNIFY EITHER "CONSOLER" OR
"ADVOCATE";
In truth, it is not a classical word at all. The Greek orthography of the word is
Paraklytos which in
ecclesiastical literature is made to mean "one called to aid, advocate,
intercessor" (Dict. Grec.-Francais, by Alexandre). One need not profess to be a
Greek scholar to know that the Greek word for "comforter
or consoler" is not "Paraclytos" but "Paracalon". I have no Greek version of the
Septuagint with me, but
I remember perfectly well that the Hebrew word for "comforter" ("mnahem")
in the Lamentations of
Jeremiah (i. 2, 9, 16, 17, 21, etc.) is translated into Parakaloon, from the verb
Parakaloo, which means to
call to, invite, exhort, console, pray, invoke. It should be noticed that there is a
long alpha vowel after
the consonant kappa in the "Paracalon" which does not exist in the
"Paraclytos." In the phrase (He who
consoles us in all our afflictions") "paracalon" and not "paraclytos" is used. ("I
exhort, or invite, thee to
work"). Many other examples can be cited here.
There is another Greek word for comforter and consoler, i.e. "Parygorytys"
from "I console."

As to the other meaning of "intercessor or advocate" which is given in the


ecclesiastical word
"Paraclete," I again insist that "Paracalon" and not "Paraclytos" can convey in
itself a similar sense. The
proper Greek term for "advocate" is Sunegorus and for "intercessor" or
"mediator" Meditea.
In my next article I shall give the true Greek form of which Paraklytos is a
corruption. En passant, I wish
to correct an error into which the French savant Ernest Renan has also fallen. If
I recollect well,
Monsieur Renan, in his famous The Life of Christ, interprets the "Paraclete" of
St John (xiv. 16, 26; xv.
7; 1 John ii. 1) as an "advocate." He cites the Syro-Chaldean form "Peraklit" as
opposed to "Ktighra"
"the accuser" from Kategorus. The Syrian name for mediator or intercessor is
"mis'aaya," but in law
courts the "Snighra" (from the Greek Sunegorus) is used for an advocate. Many
Syrians unfamiliar with
the Greek language consider the "Paraqlita" to be really the Aramaic or the
Syriac form of the
"Paraclete" in the Pshittha Version and to be composed of "Paraq," "to save
from, to deliver from," and
"lita" "the accursed." The idea that Christ is the "Savior from the curse of the
law," and therefore he is
himself too "Paraqlita" (1 John ii. 1), may have led some to think that the Greek
word is originally an
Aramaic word, just as the Greek sentence "Maran atha" in Aramaic is "Maran
Athi," i.e. "our Lord is

coming" (1 John xvi. 22), which seems to be an expression among the believers
regarding the coming of
the Last Great Prophet. This 'Maran Athi," as well as, especially, the baptismal
formula, contains points
too important to be neglected. They both deserve a special study and a
valuable exposition. They both
embody in themselves marks and indications otherwise than favorable to
Christianity.
I think I have sufficiently proved that the "Paraclytos," from a linguistic and
etymological point of view,
does not mean "advocate, consoler, or comforter." For centuries the ignorant
Latins and Europeans have
been writing the name of Prophet Muhammad "Mahomet," that of Mushi
"Moses." Is it, therefore, small
wonder that some sturdy Christian monk or scribe should have written the
true name in the corrupted
form of Paraklytos? The former means the "most Illustrious, Praiseworthy," but
the corrupted form
means nothing at all except a standing shame to those who have for eighteen
centuries understood it to
signify an advocate or a consoler.
"Periqlytos" Means "Ahmad"
The Holy Qur'an (ch.61:6 ) declares that Jesus announced unto the people of
Israel the coming of
Ahmad: "And when Jesus, the son of Mary said: 'Children of Israel, I am sent to
you by Allah to

confirm the Torah that is before me, and to give news of a Messenger who will
come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.' Yet when he came to them with
clear proofs, they said: 'This is clear
sorcery.'"
"And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Periqlytos, that he may
stay with you for ever"
(John xiv. 16, etc.).
There is some incoherency in the words ascribed to Jesus by the Fourth
Gospel. It reads as if several
Periqlytes had already come and gone, and that "another Periqlytos" would be
given only at the request
of Jesus. These words also leave behind the impression that the Apostles were
already made familiar
with this name which the Greek text renders Periqlytos. The adjective
"another" preceding a foreign
noun for the first time announced seems very strange and totally superfluous.
There is no doubt that the
text has been tampered with and distorted. It pretends that the Father will
send the Periqlyte at the
request of Jesus, otherwise the Periqlyte would never have come! The word
"ask," too, seems
superficial, and unjustly displays a touch of arrogance on the part of the
Prophet of Nazareth. If we want
to find out the real sense in these words we must correct the text and supply
the stolen or corrupted
words, thus:
"I shall go to the Father, and he shall send you another messenger whose
name shall be Periqlytos, that

he may remain with you for ever." Now with the additional italicized words,
both the robbed modesty of
Jesus is restored and the nature of the Periqlyte identified.
We have already seen that the Periqlyte is not the Holy Spirit, that is to say, a
divine person, Gabriel, or
any other angel. It now remains to prove that the Periqlyte could not be a
consoler nor an advocate
between God and men.
1. The Periqlyte is not the "Consoler" nor the "Intercessor." We have fully
shown the material
impossibility of discovering the least signification of "consolation" or of
"intercession". Christ does not
use Paraqalon. Besides, even from a religious and moral point of view the idea
of consolation and
intercession is inadmissible.
(a) The belief that the death of Jesus upon the Cross redeemed the believers
from the curse of original
sin, and that his spirit, grace, and presence in the Eucharist would be for ever
with them, left them in
need of no consolation nor of the coming of a consoler at all. On the other
hand, if they needed such a
comforter, then all the Christian presumptions and pretensions concerning the
sacrifice of Calvary fall to
the ground. In fact, the language of the Gospels and that of the Epistles
explicitly indicates that the
second coming Jesus upon the clouds was imminent (Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1;
Luke ix. 27; 1 John ii.
18; 2 Tim. ii. 1; 2 Thess. ii. 3, etc.).

(b) Consolation can never make restitution of the loss. To console a man who
has lost his sight, wealth,
son, or situation, cannot restore any of those losses. The promise that a
consoler would be sent by God
after Jesus had gone would indicate the total collapse of all hope in the
triumph of the Kingdom of God.
The promise of a consoler indicates mourning and lamentation and would
naturally drive the Apostles
into disappointment if not into despair. They needed, not a consoler in their
distress and afflictions, but a
victorious warrior to crush the devil and his power, one who would put an end
to their troubles and
persecutions. (c) The idea of an "intercessor" between God and man is even
more untenable than that of the
"consoler." There is no absolute mediator between the Creator and the
creature. The Oneness of Allah
alone is our absolute intercessor. The Christ who advised his audience to pray
to God in secret, to enter
the closet and shut the door and then to pray - for only under such a condition
their heavenly "Father"
would hear their prayer and grant them His grace and succor - could not
promise them an intercessor.
How to reconcile this contradiction!
(d) All believers, in their prayers, intercede for each other, the prophets and
angels do the same. It is our
duty to invoke the Mercy of Allah, pardon, and help for ourselves as well as for
others. But Allah is not

bound or obliged to accept the intercession of anyone unless He pleases. If


Allah had accepted the
intercession of His Holy Prophet Muhammad, all men and women would have
been converted to the
religion of Islam.
I would be duly grateful to the person through whose intercession I obtained
pardon, and relief. But I
shall always dread the judge or the despot who was delivering me into the
hands of an executioner. How
learned these Christians are, when they believe that Jesus at the right hand of
his Father intercedes for
them, and at the same time believe in another intercessor - inferior to himself who sits on the throne of
the Almighty! The Holy Qur'an strictly forbids the faith, the trust in a "shafi" or
intercessor in this
manner. Of course, we do not know for certain but it is quite conceivable that
certain angels, the spirits
of the prophets and those of the saints, are permitted by God to render help
and guidance to those who
are placed under their patronage. The idea of an advocate before the tribunal
of God, pleading the cause
of his clients, may be very admirable, but it is erroneous, because God is not a
human judge subject to
passion, ignorance, partiality, and all the rest of it. The Muslims, the believers,
need only education and
religious training; God knows the actions and the hearts of men infinitely
better than the angels and

prophets. Consequently there is no necessity for intercessors between the


Deity and the creatures.
It is worth noting that the intercession of any good person for others is limited
to those who followed his
prophet and those who accepted the suceeding prophet, but not for those
who followed his prophet then
rejected the suceeding prophet.
(e) The belief in intercessors emanates from the belief in sacrifices, burnt
offerings, priesthood, and a
massive edifice of superstition. This belief leads men into the worship of
sepulchers and images of saints
and martyrs; it helps to increase the influence and domination of the priest
and monk; it keeps the people
ignorant in the things divine; a dense cloud of the intermediary dead cover the
spiritual atmosphere
between God and the spirit of man. Then this belief prompts men who, for the
pretended glory of God
and the conversion of the people belonging to a different religion than theirs,
raise immense sums of
money, establish powerful and rich missions, and lordly mansions; but at heart
those missionaries are
political agents of their respective Governments. The real cause of the
calamities which have befallen
the Armenians, the Greeks, and the Chaldeo-Assyrians in Turkey and Persia
ought to be sought in the
treacherous and revolutionary instruction given by all the foreign missions in
the East. Indeed, the belief

in the intercessors has always been a source of abuse, fanaticism, persecution,


ignorance, and of many
other evils.
Having proved that the "Paraclete" of St. John's Gospel does not and cannot
mean either "consoler" or
"advocate," nor any other thing at all, and that it is a corrupted form of
Periqlytos, we shall now proceed
to discuss the real signification of it. 2. Periqlytos etymologically and literally
means "the most illustrious, renowned, and praiseworthy." I
take for my authority Alexandre's Dictionnaire Grec-Francais=Periqlytos,
"Qu'on peut entendre de tous
les cotes; qu'il est facile a entendre. Tres celebre," etc. "= Periqleitos, tres
celebre, illustre, glorieux; =
Periqleys, tres celebre, illustre, glorieux," from = Kleos, glorire, renommee,
celebrite." This compound
noun is composed of the prefix "peri," and "kleotis," the latter derived from "to
glorify, praise." The
noun, which I write in English characters Periqleitos or Periqlytos, means
precisely what AHMAD
means in Arabic, namely the most illustrious, glorious, and renowned. The only
difficulty to be solved
and overcome is to discover the original Semitic name used by Jesus Christ
either in Hebrew or
Aramaic.
(a) The Syriac Pshittha, while writing "Paraqleita," does not even in a glossary
give its meaning. But the
Vulgate translates it into "consolator" or "consoler." If I am not mistaken the
Aramaic form must have

been "Mhamda" or "Hamida"' to correspond with the Arabic "Muhammad" or


"Ahmad" and the Greek
'Periqlyte."
The interpretation of the Greek word in the sense of consolation does not
imply that the name Periqlyte
itself is the consoler, but the belief and the hope in the promise that he will
come "to console the early
Christians. The expectation that Jesus would come down again in glory before
many of his auditors had
"tasted the death" had disappointed them, and concentrated all their hopes in
the coming of the Periqlyte.
(b) The Qur'anic revelation that Jesus, the son of Mary, declared unto the
people of Israel that he was
"bringing glad tidings of a messenger, who shall come after me and whose
name shall be Ahmad," is
one of the strongest proofs that Prophet Muhammad was truly a Prophet and
that the Qur'an is really a
Divine Revelation. He could never have known that the Periqlyte meant
Ahmad, unless through
inspiration and Divine Revelation. The authority of the Qur'an is decisive and
final; for the literal
signification of the Greek name exactly and indisputably corresponds with
Ahmad and Muhammad.
Indeed, the Angel Gabriel, or the Holy Spirit, seems even to have distinguished
the positive from the
superlative form the former signifying precisely Muhammad and the latter
Ahmad.

It is marvelous that this unique name, never before given to any other person,
was miraculously
preserved for the most Illustrious and Praiseworthy Prophet of Allah! We never
come across any Greek
bearing the name Periqleitos (or Periqlytos), nor any Arab bearing the name of
Ahmad. True, there was
a famous Athenian called Periqleys which means "illustrious," etc., but not in
the superlative degree.
(c) It is quite clear from the description of the Fourth Gospel that Periqlyte is a
definite person, a created
holy spirit, who would come and dwell in a human body to perform and
accomplish the prodigious work
assigned to him by God, which no other man, including Moses, Jesus, and any
other prophet, had ever
accomplished.
We, of course, do not deny that the disciples of Prophet Jesus did receive the
Spirit of God, that the true
converts to the faith of Jesus were hallowed with the Holy Spirit, and that
there were numerous
Unitarian Christians who led a saintly and righteous life. On the day of the
Pentecost - that is, ten days
after the Ascension of Jesus Christ - the Spirit of God descended upon the
disciples and other believers
numbering one hundred and twenty persons, in the form of tongues of fire
(Acts ii.); and this number,
which had received the Holy Spirit in the form of one hundred and twenty
tongues of fire, was increased unto three thousand souls who were baptized,
but were not visited by the flame of the Spirit. Surely one

definite Spirit cannot be divided into six-score of individuals. By the Holy Spirit,
unless definitely
described as a personality, we may understand it to be God's power, grace,
gift, action, and inspiration.
Jesus had promised this heavenly gift and power to sanctify, enlighten,
strengthen, and teach his flock;
but this Spirit was quite different from the Periqlyte who alone accomplished
the great work which Jesus
and after him the Apostles were not authorized and empowered to
accomplish, as we shall see later.
(d) The early Christians of the first and second centuries relied more upon
tradition than upon writings
concerning the new religion. Papias and others belong to this category. Even in
the lifetime of the
Apostles several sects, pseudochrists, Antichrists, and false teachers, tore
asunder the Church (I John ii.
18-26; 2 Thess. ii. 1-12; 2 Peter ii. iii. 1; John 7-13; 1 Tim. iv. 1-3; 2 Tim. iii. 1-13;
etc.). The "believers"
are advised and exhorted to stick to and abide by the Tradition, namely, the
oral teaching of the
Apostles. These so-called "heretical" sects, such as the Gnostics, Apollinarians,
Docetae, and others,
appear to have no faith in the fables, legends, and extravagant views about the
sacrifice and the
redemption of Jesus Christ as contained in many fabulous writings spoken of
by Luke (i. 1-4). One of
the heresiarchs of a certain sect - whose name has escaped my memory actually assumed "Periqleitos"

as his name, pretending to be "the most praiseworthy" Prophet foretold by


Jesus, and had many
followers. If there were an authentic Gospel authorized by Jesus Christ or by all
the Apostles, there
could be no such numerous sects, all opposed to the contents of the books
contained in or outside the
existing New Testament. We can safely infer from the action of the pseudoPeriqlyte that the early
Christians considered the promised "Spirit of Truth" to be a person and the
final Prophet of God.
3. There is not the slightest doubt that by "Periqlyte," Prophet Muhammad, i.e.
Ahmad, is intended. The
two names, one in Greek and the other in Arabic, have precisely the same
signification, and both mean
the "most Illustrious and Praised," just as "Pneuma" and "Ruh." mean nothing
more or less than "Spirit"
in both languages. We have seen that the translation of the word into
"consoler" or "advocate" is
absolutely untenable and wrong. The compound form of Paraqalon is derived
from the verb composed
of the prefix-Para-qalo, but the Periqlyte is derived from the Peri-qluo. The
difference is as clear as
anything could be. Let us examine, then, the marks of the Periqlyte which can
only be found in Ahmad Prophet Muhammad.
(a) Prophet Muhammad alone revealed the whole truth about God, His
Oneness, religion, and corrected

the impious libels and calumnies written and believed against Himself and
many of His holy worshipers.
Jesus is reported to have said about Periqlyte that he is "the Spirit of Truth,"
that he "will give witness"
concerning the true nature of Jesus and of his mission (John xiv. 17; xv. 26). In
his discourses and
orations Jesus speaks of the pre-existence of his own spirit (John viii. 58 xvii. 5,
etc.). In the Gospel of
Barnabas, Jesus is reported to have often spoken of the glory and the splendor
of Prophet Muhammad's
spirit whom he had seen. There is no doubt that the Spirit of the Last Prophet
was created long before
Adam. Therefore Jesus, in speaking about him, naturally would declare and
describe him as "the Spirit
of Truth." It was this Spirit of Truth that reprimanded the Christians for dividing
the Oneness of God
into a trinity of persons; for their having raised Jesus to the dignity of God and
son of God, and for their
having invented all sorts of superstitions and innovations. It was this Spirit of
Truth that exposed the
frauds of both the Jews and Christians for having corrupted their Scriptures;
that condemned the former
for their libels against the chastity of the Blessed Virgin and against the birth of
her son Jesus. It was this
Spirit of Truth that demonstrated the birthright of Ishmael, the innocence of
Lot, Solomon, and many other prophets of old and cleared their name of the
slur and infamy cast upon them by the Jewish
forgers. It was this Spirit of Truth, too, that gave witness about the true Jesus,
man, prophet, and

worshiper of God; and has made it absolutely impossible for Muslims to


become idolaters, magicians,
and believers in more than the One and only Allah.
(b) Among the principal marks of Periqlyte, "the Spirit of Truth," when he
comes in the person of the
"Son of Man" - Ahmad - is "he will chastise the world for sin" (John xvi. 8, 9).
No other worshiper of
Allah, whether a king like David and Solomon or a prophet like Abraham and
Moses, did carry on this
chastisement for sin to the extreme end, with resolution, fervor, and courage
as Prophet Muhammad did.
Every breach of the law is a sin, but idolatry is its mother and source. We sin
against God when we love
an object more than Him, but the worship of any other object or being besides
God is idolatry, the evil
and the total negligence of the Good - in short, sin in general. All the men of
God chastised their
neighbors and people for sin, but not "the world," as Prophet Muhammad did.
He not only rooted out
idolatry in the peninsula of Arabia in his lifetime, but also he sent envoys to the
Chosroes Parviz and to
Heraclius, the sovereigns of the two greatest empires, Persia and Rome, and to
the King of Ethiopia, the
Governor of Egypt, and several other Kings and amirs, inviting them all to
embrace the religion of Islam
and to abandon idolatry and false faiths. The chastisement by Prophet
Muhammad began with the

delivery of the Word of God as he received it, namely, the recital of the verses
of the Qur'an; then with
preaching, teaching, and practicing the true religion; but when the Power of
Darkness, idolatry, opposed
him with arms he drew the sword and punished the unbelieving enemy. This
was in fulfillment of the
decree of God (Dan. vii.). Prophet Muhammad was endowed by God with
power and dominion to
establish the Kingdom of God, and to become the first Prince and Commanderin-Chief under the "King
of Kings and the Lord of Lords."
(c) The other characteristic feature of the exploits of Periqlyte - Ahmad - is that
he will reprove the
world of righteousness and justice (loc. cit.). The interpretation "of
righteousness, because I am going to
my Father" (John xvi. 10) put into the mouth of Jesus is obscure and
ambiguous. The return of Jesus
unto his God is given as one of the reasons for the chastisement of the world
by the coming Periqlyte.
Why so? And who did chastise the world on that account? The Jews believed
that they crucified and
killed Jesus, and did not believe that he was raised and taken up into heaven. It
was Prophet Muhammad
who chastised and punished them severely for their infidelity. "Rather, Allah
raised him (Jesus) up to
Him..." (Qur'an Ch.4 v158). The same chastisement was inflicted upon the
Christians who believed and

still believe that he was really crucified and killed upon the Cross, and imagine
him to be God or the son
of God. To these the Qur'an replied: "...They did not kill him, nor did they
crucify him, but to them
(the one crucified) was given the look (of Jesus). Those who differ concerning
him (Jesus) surely
are in doubt regarding him, they have no knowlege of him, except the
following of supposition and
they did not kill him - a certainty." (Ch.4 v157) Several believers in Jesus in the
very beginning of
Christianity denied that Christ himself suffered upon the Cross, but maintained
that another among his
followers, Judas Iscariot or another very like him, was seized and crucified in
his stead. The Corinthians,
the Basilidians, the Corpocratians and many other sectaries held the same
view. I have fully discussed
this question of the Crucifixion in my work entitled Injil wa Salib ("The Gospel
and the Cross") of
which only one volume was published in Turkish just before the Great War. I
shall devote an article to
this subject. So the justice done to Jesus by Ahmad was to authoritatively
declare that he was "Ruhu 'lLah," the Spirit of God that he was not himself
crucified and killed, and that he was a human being but a
beloved and Holy Messenger of God. This was what Jesus meant by justice
concerning his person, mission, and transportation into heaven, and this was
actually accomplished by the Prophet and
Messenger of Allah, Muhammad.
(d) The most important mark of Periqlyte is that he would chastise the world
on account of Judgement

"because the prince of this world is to be judged" (John xvi. 11). The King or
Prince of this world was
satan (John xii. 31, xiv. 30), because the world was subject to him. I must draw
the kind attention of my
readers to the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel written in Aramaic or
Babylonian dialect. There it
illustrates how the "thrones" ("Kursawan") and the "Judgment" ("dina") were
set up, and the "books"
("siphrin") were opened. In Arabic, too, the word "dinu", like the Aramaic
"dina," means judgment, but
it is generally used to signify religion. That the Qur'an should make use of the
"Dina" of Daniel as an
expression of judgment and religion is more than significant. In my humble
opinion this is a direct sign
and evidence of the truth revealed by the same Holy Spirit or Gabriel to
Prophets Daniel, Jesus, and
Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad could not forge or fabricate this even if he
were as learned a
philosopher as Aristotle. The judgment described with all its majesty and glory
was set up to judge the
satan in the form of the fearful fourth Beast by the Supreme Judge, the
Eternal. It was then that someone
appeared "like a son of man" ("kbar inish") or "barnasha," who was presented
to the Almighty, invested
with power, honor, and kingdom for ever, and appointed to kill the Beast and
to establish the Kingdom
of the People of the Saints of the Most High.

Jesus Christ was not appointed to destroy the Beast; he abstained from
political affairs, paid tribute to
caesar, and fled away when they wanted to crown him King. He clearly
declares that the Chief of this
world is coming; for the Periqlyte will root out the abominable cult of idolatry.
All this was
accomplished by Prophet Muhammad in a few years. Islam is Kingdom and
Judgment, or religion; it has
the Book of Law, the Holy Al-Qur'an; it has Allah as its Supreme Judge and King,
and Prophet
Muhammad as its victorious hero of everlasting bliss and glory!
(e) "The last but not the least mark of the Periqlyte is that he will not speak
anything of himself, but
whatsoever he hears that will he speak, and he will show you the future
things" (John xv. 13). There is
not one iota, not a single word or comment of Prophet Muhammad or of his
devoted and holy
companions in the text of the glorious Qur'an. All its contents are the revealed
Word of Allah. Prophet
Muhammad recited, pronounced the Word of God as he heard it read to him
by the Angel Gabriel, and
then it was memorized and written by the faithful scribes. The words, sayings,
and teachings of the
Prophet, though sacred and edifying, are not the Word of God,. and they are
called Hadith or Traditions.
Is he not, then, even in this description, the true Periqlyte? Can you show us
another person, besides

Ahmad, to possess in himself all these material, moral, and practical qualities,
marks, and distinctions of
Periqlyte? You cannot.
I think I have said enough on the Periqlyte and shall conclude with a sacred
verse from the Qur'an: "I
follow only what is revealed to me, I am only a clear warner." Ch.46:9. "The
Son Of Man," Who Is He?
The Holy Qur'an presents to us the true Jesus Christ as "the Son of Mary;" and
the Holy Gospels, too,
present him to us as "the Son of Mary;" but that Gospel which was written on
the white tablets of the
heart of Jesus and delivered to his disciples and followers orally, alas was soon
adulterated with a mass
of myth and legend. "The Son of Mary" becomes "the Son of Joseph," having
brothers and sisters (1).
Then he becomes "the Son of David;" (2) "the Son of Man;" (3) "the Son of
God;" (4) "the Son" only;(5)
"the Christ;" and "the Lamb" (7).
------------ Footnotes: 1. Matt. xiii 55,56; Mark vi 3; iii 31; Luke ii 48; viii 19-21;
John ii 12; vii 3, 5;
Acts i 14; I Cor. ix. 5; Gal. i 19; Jude i 2. Matt xxii 42, Mark xii 35, Luke xx 41,
Matt. xx 30; ix 27; xxi
9; Acts xiii 22, 23; Apoc. v 5; Rom. xv 12; Heb. vii 14, etc. 3. About eighty-three
times in the discourses
of Jesus this appellation is repeated. 4. Matt. xiv 32, xvi 16; John xi 27; Acts ix
20; I John iv 15; v 5;
Heb. i 2, 5, etc. 5. John v 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, etc.; and in the Baptismal
formula, Matt. xxviii. 19; John

i. 34, etc. 6. Matt. xvi. 16, and frequently in the Epistles. 7. John i. 29, 36; and
often in the Revelation. ---------- end of footnotes
Many years ago, one day I visited the Exeter Hall in London; I was a Catholic
priest then; nolens volens
I was conducted to the Hall where a young medical gentleman began to preach
to a meeting of the
Young Men's Christian Association. "I repeat what I have often said," exclaimed
the doctor, "Jesus
Christ must be either what he claims to be in the Gospel or he must be the
greatest impostor the world
has ever seen!" I have never forgotten this dogmatizing statement. What he
wanted to say was that Jesus
was either the Son of God or the greatest impostor. If you accept the first
hypothesis you are a Christian,
a Trinitarian; if the second, then you are an unbelieving Jew. But we who
accept neither of these two
propositions are naturally Muslims. We Muslims cannot accept either of the
two titles given to Jesus
Christ in the sense which the Churches and their unreliable Scriptures pretend
to ascribe to those
appellations. Not alone is he "the Son of God," and not alone "the Son of
Man," for if it be permitted to
call God "Father," then not only Jesus, but every prophet and righteous
believer, is particularly a "son of
God." In the same way, if Jesus were really the son of Joseph the Carpenter,
and had four brothers and

several married sisters as the Gospels pretend, then why alone should he
assume this strange appellation
of "the Son of Man" which is common to any human being?
It would seem that these Christian priests and pastors, theologians and
apologists have a peculiar logic
of their own for reasoning and a special propensity for mysteries and
absurdities. Their logic knows no
medium, no distinction of the terms, and no definite idea of the titles and
appellations they use. They
have an enviable taste for irreconcilable and contradictory statements which
they alone can swallow like
boiled eggs. They can believe, without the least hesitation, that Mary was both
virgin and wife, that
Joseph was both spouse and husband, that James, Jossi, Simon, and Judah
were both cousins of Jesus
and his brothers, that Jesus is perfect God and perfect man, and that "the Son
of God," "the Son of Man,"
"the Lamb," and "the Son of David" are all one and the same person! They feed
themselves on
heterogeneous and opposed doctrines which these terms represent with as
greedy an appetite as they feel
for bacon and eggs at breakfast. They never stop to think and ponder on the
object they worship; they
adore the crucifix and the Almighty as if they were kissing the bloody dagger of
the assassin of their
brother in the presence of his father! I do not think there is even one Christian
in ten millions who really has a precise idea or a definite

knowledge about the origin and the true signification of the term "the Son of
Man." All Churches and
their commentators without exception will tell you that "the Son of God"
assumed the appellation of "the
Son of Man" or "the Barnasha" out of humility and meekness, never knowing
that the Jewish
Apocalyptical Scriptures, in which Jesus and his disciples heart and soul
believed, foretold not a "Son of
Man" who would be meek, humble, having nowhere to lay his head, and be
delivered into the hands of
the evildoers and killed, but a strong man with tremendous power and
strength to destroy and disperse
the birds of prey and the ferocious beasts that were tearing and devouring his
sheep and lambs! The Jews
who heard Jesus speaking of "the Son of Man" full well understood to whom
he was alluding. Jesus did
not invent the name "Barnasha," but borrowed it from the Apocalyptical
Jewish Scriptures: the Book of
Enoch, the Sibylline Books, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Daniel, etc.
Let us examine the
origin of this title "the Barnasha" or "the Son of Man."
1. "The Son of Man" is the Last Prophet, who established "the Kingdom of
Peace" and saved the
people of God from servitude and persecutions under the idolatrous powers of
satan. The title
"Barnasha" is a symbolical expression to distinguish the Savior from the people
of God who are

represented as the "sheep," and the other idolatrous nations of the earth
under various species of the
birds of prey, ferocious beasts, and unclean animals. The Prophet Hezekiel is
almost always addressed
by God as "Ben Adam," that is "the Son of Man" (or of Adam) in the sense of a
Shepherd of the Sheep
of Israel. This Prophet has also some Apocalyptical portions in his book. In his
first vision with which
he begins his prophetic book he sees besides the sapphire throne of the
Eternal the appearance of "the
Son of Man." (l) This "Son of Man" who is repeatedly mentioned as always in
the presence of God and
above the Cherubim is not Hezekiel (or Ezekiel) him- self (2). He is the
prophetical "Barnasha," the Last
Prophet, who was appointed to save the people of God from the hands of the
unbelievers here upon this
earth, and not elsewhere!
------------- Footnotes: 1. Ezek. i. 26. 2. Ezek. x. 2. ------------- end of footnotes
(a) "The Son of Man" according to the Apocalypse of Enoch (or Henoh).
There is no doubt that Jesus Christ was very familiar with the Revelation of
Enoch, believed to be
written by the seventh patriarch from Adam. For Judah, "the brother of James"
and the "servant of Jesus
Christ," that is the brother of Jesus, believes that Enoch was the real author of
the work bearing his name
(l). There are some dispersed frag- ments of this wonderful Apocalypse
preserved in the quotations of

the Early Christian writers. The book was lost long before Photius. It was only
about the beginning of
last century that this important work was found in the Canon of the Scriptures
belonging to the
Abyssinian Church, and translated from the Ethiopic into the German language
by Dr. Dillmann, with
notes and explanations (2). The book is divided into five parts or books, and
the whole contains one
hundred and ten chapters of unequal length. The author describes the fall of
the angels, their illicit
commerce with the daughters of men, giving birth to a race of giants who
invent all sorts of artifices and
noxious knowledge. Then vice and evil increase to such a pitch that the
Almighty punishes them all with
the Deluge. He also relates his two journeys to the heavens and across the
earth, being guided by good
angels, and the mysteries and wonders he saw therein. In the second part,
which is a description of the
Kingdom of Peace, "the Son of Man" catches the kings in the midst of their
voluptuous life and
precipitates them into hell (3). But this second book does not belong to one
author, and assuredly it is
much corrupted by Christian hands. The third book (or part) contains some
curious and developed astronomical and physical notions. The fourth part
presents an Apocalyptical view of the human race
from the beginning to the Islamic days, which the author styles the "Messianic"
times, in two symbolical
parables or rather allegories. A white bull comes out of the earth; then a white
heifer joins him they give

birth to two calves: one black, the other red; the black bull beats and chases
away the red one; then he
meets a heifer and they give birth to several calves of black color, until the
mother cow leaves the black
bull in the search the red one; and, as she does not find him, bawls and shrieks
aloud, when a red bull
appears, and they begin to propagate their species. Of course, this transparent
parable symbolizes Adam,
Eve, Cain, Abel, Sheth, etc., down to Jacob whose offspring is represented by a
"flock of sheep" - as the
Chosen People of Israel; but the offspring of his brother Esau, i.e. the
Edomites, is described as a swarm
of boars. In this second parable the flock of sheep is frequently harassed,
attacked, dispersed, and
butchered by the beasts and birds of prey until we come to the so-called
Messianic times, when the flock
of sheep is again attacked fiercely by ravens and other carnivorous animals;
but a gallant "Ram" resists
with great courage and valor. It is then that "the Son of Man," who is the real
master or owner of the
flock, comes forth to deliver his flock.
------------- Footnote: (1). Judah i. 14. In the Gospels he is mentioned as one of
the four brothers of
Jesus, Matt. xiii. 55, 56, etc. (2). It has also been translated into English by an
Irish Bishop Laurence.
(3). Enoch xlvi. 4 - 8. -----------A non-Muslim scholar can never explain the vision of a Sophee - or a Seer. He
will - as all of them do -

bring down the vision to the Maccabees and the King Antiochus Epiphanes in
the middle of the second
century B.C., when the Deliverer comes with a tremendous truncheon or
scepter and strikes right and
left upon the birds and the beasts, making a great slaughter among them; the
earth, opening its mouth,
swallows them in; and the rest take to flight. Then swords are distributed
among the sheep, and a white
bull leads them on in perfect peace and security.
As to the fifth book, it contains religious and moral exhortations. The whole
work in its present shape
exhibits indications which show that it was composed as late as 110 B.C., in the
original Aramaic
dialect, by a Palestinian Jew. At least such is the opinion of the French
Encyclopedia.
The Qur'an only mentions Enoch under his surname "Idris" - the Arabic form of
the Aramaic "Drisha"
being of the same category of simple nouns as "Iblis" and "Blisa" (l) "Idris" and
"Drisha" signify a man
of great learning, a scholar and an erudite, from "darash" (Arabic "darisa"). The
Qur'anic text says:
"And mention in the Book Idris; he too was a man of truth and a Prophet,
whom We exalted."
Ch.19:56-57 Qur'an.
------------- Footnote: (1). "Iblis," the Arabic form of the Aramaic "Blisa," an
epithet given to the devil
which means the "Bruised One." ------------- end of footnote

The Muslim commentators, Al-Baydhawi and Jalalu 'd-Din, seem to know that
Enoch had studied
astronomy, physics, arithmetic, that he was the first who wrote with the pen,
and that "Idris" signifies a
man of much knowledge, thus showing that the Apocalypse of Enoch had not
been lost in their time.
After the close of the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures in the fourth century or
so B.C. by the "Members
of the Great Synagogue," established by Ezra and Nehemiah, all other sacred
or religious literature
besides those included within the Canon was called Apocrypha and excluded
from the Hebrew Bible by an assembly of the learned and pious Jews, the last
of whom was the famous "Simeon the Just," who
died in 310 B.C. Now among these Apocryphal books are included the
Apocalypses of Enoch, Barukh,
Moses, Ezra, and the Sibyline books, written at different epochs between the
time of the Maccabees and
after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. It seems to be quite a la mode with
the Jewish Sages to
compose Apocalyptical and religious literature under the name of some
celebrated personage of
antiquity. The Apocalypse at the end of the New Testament which bears the
name of John the Divine is
no exception to this old Judeo Christian habitude. If "Judah the brother of the
Lord" could believe that
"Henoh the Seventh from Adam" was really the author of the one hundred and
ten chapters bearing that
name, there is no wonder that Justin the Martyr, Papias, and Eusebius would
believe in the authorship of

Matthew and John.


However, my aim is not to criticize the authorship of, or to extend the
comments upon these enigmatic
and mysterious revelations which were compiled under the most painful and
grievous circumstances in
the history of the Jewish nation; but to give an account of the origin of this
surname "the Son of Man"
and to shed some light upon its true signification. The Book of Enoch too, like
the Apocalypse of the
Churches and like the Gospels, speaks of the coming of "the Son of Man" to
deliver the people of God
from their enemies and confuses this vision with the Last Judgment.
(b) The Sibylline Revelation, which was composed after the last collapse of
Jerusalem by the Roman
armies, states that "the Son of Man" will appear and destroy the Roman
Empire and deliver the
Believers in One God. This book was written at least fourscore years after Jesus
Christ.
(c) We have already given an exposition of "the Son of Man" when we
discussed the vision of Daniel,
(l) where he is presented to the Almighty and invested with power to destroy
the Roman Beast. So the
visions, in the
"Assumption of Moses," in the Book of Baruch (or Barukh), more or less similar
in their views and
expectations to those described in the above-mentioned "Revelations," all
unanimously describe the

Deliverer of the people of God as "Barnasha" or "the Son of Man," to


distinguish him from the
"Monster;" for the former is created in the image of God and the latter
transformed into the image of
Satan.
------------ Footnotes: 1. Dan. vii. See the article, "Muhammad in the Old
Testament," in the Islamic
Review for November, 1938. -----------2. The Apocalyptic "Son of Man" could not be Jesus Christ.
This surname, "Son of Man," is absolutely inapplicable to the son of Mary. All
the pretensions of the socalled "Gospels" which make the "Lamb" of Nazareth
to "catch the kings in the midst of their
voluptuous life and hurl them down into the Hell;" (1) lack every bit of
authenticity, and the distance
separating him from "the Son of Man" marching with the legions of angels
upon the clouds towards the
Throne of the Eternal is more than that of our globe from the planet of Jupiter.
He may be a "son of
man" and a "messiah," as every Jewish king, prophet, and high! priest was, but
he was not "the Son of
Man" nor "the Messiah" whom the Hebrew prophets and apocalyptists
foretold. And the Jews were
perfectly right to refuse him that title and office. They were certainly wrong to
deny him his
prophethood, and criminal to have shed his innocent blood - as they and the
Christians believe. "The Assembly of the Great Synagogue," after the death of
Simeon the just in 310 B.C., was replaced by the

"Sanhedrin," whose president had the surname of "Nassi" or Prince. It is


astonishing that the "Nassi"
who passed the judgment against Jesus, saying: "It is more profitable that one
man should die rather than
the whole nation should be
destroyed," (2) was a prophet (3)! If he were a prophet, how was it that he did
not recognize the
prophetic mission or the Messianic character of "the Messiah"?
------------- Footnotes: (1). Enoch xlvi. 4 - 8. (2). John xi. 50. (3). Idem, 51. ------------ end of footnotes
Here are, then the principal reasons why Jesus was not "the Son of Man" nor
the Apocalyptic Messiah:
(a) A messenger of God is not commissioned to pro- phesy about himself as a
personage of some future
epoch, or to foretell his own reincarnation and thus present him- self as the
hero in some great future
drama of the world. Jacob prophesied about "the Prophet of Allah," (1) Moses
about a prophet who
would come after him with the Law, and Israel was exhorted to "obey him; (2)
Haggai foretold Ahmad
(3); Malachi predicted the coming of the "Messenger of the Covenant" and of
Elijah; (4) but none of the
prophets ever did prophesy about his own second coming into the world. What
is extremely abnormal in
the case of Jesus is that he is made to pretend his identity with "the Son of
Man," yet he is unable to do
in the least degree the work that the foretold "Son of Man" was expected to
accomplish! To declare to

the Jews under the grip of Pilate that he was "the Son of Man," and then to pay
tribute to Caesar; and to
confess that "the Son of Man had nowhere to lay his head;" and then to
postpone the deliverance of the
people from the Roman yoke to an indefinite future, was practically to trifle
with his nation; and those
who put all these incoherences as sayings in the mouth of Jesus only make
idiots of themselves.
------------- Footnotes: (1) Gen. xlix. 10. (2) Deut. xviii. 15 (3). Hag. ii. 7. (4) Mal.
iii. 1, iv. 5. ------------end of footnotes
(b) Jesus knew better than everybody else in Israel who "the Son of Man" was
and what was his mission.
He was to dethrone the profligate kings and to cast them into the Hell-fire. The
"Revelation of Baruch"
and that of Ezra - the Fourth Book of Esdras in the Vulgate - speak of the
appearance of "the Son of
Man" who will establish the powerful Kingdom of Peace upon the ruins of the
Roman Empire. All these
Apocryphal Revelations show the state of the Jewish mind about the coming of
the last great Deliverer
whom they surname "the Son of Man" and "the Messiah." Jesus could not be
unaware of and unfamiliar with this literature and this ardent expectation of his people. He could
not assume either of those
two titles to himself in the sense which the Sanhedrin - that Supreme Tribunal
of Jerusalem - and

Judaism attached to them; for he was not "the Son of Man" and "the Messiah,"
because he had no
political program and no social scheme, and because he was himself the
precursor of "the Son of Man',
and of "the Messiah" - the Adon, the Conquering Prophet, the Anointed and
crowned Sultan of the
Prophets.
(c) A critical examination of the surname "Son of Man" put three and eighty
times in the mouth of the
master will and must result in the only conclusion that he never appropriated it
to himself; and in fact he
often uses that title in the third person. A few examples will suffice to convince
us that Jesus applied that
surname to someone else who was to appear in the future. (i) A Scribe, that is
a learned man, says: "I will follow thee wheresoever thou goest." Jesus
answers:
"The foxes have their holes; the birds of heaven their own nests; but the Son of
Man has no place where
to lay his head." (1) In the verse following he refuses one of his followers permission to go and bury
his father! You will find not a single saint, father, or commentator to have
troubled his head or the
faculty of reasoning in order to discover the very simple sense embodied in the
refusal of Jesus to allow
that learned Scribe to follow him. If he had place for thirteen heads he could
certainly provide a place
for the fourteenth too. Besides, he could have registered him among the
seventy adherents he had (2).

The Scribe in question was not an ignorant fisherman like the sons of Zebedee
and of Jonah; he was a
scholar and a practiced lawyer. There is no reason to suspect his sincerity; he
was led to believe that
Jesus was the predicted Messiah, the Son of Man, who at any moment might
summon his heavenly
legions and mount upon the throne of his ancestor David. Jesus perceived the
erroneous notion of the
Scribe, and plainly let him understand that he who had not two square yards of
ground on earth to lay his
head could naturally not be "the Son of Man"! He was not harsh to the Scribe;
he benevolently saved
him from wasting his time in the pursuit of a futile hope!
------------- Footnote: (1). Matt. viii. 20 (2). Luke x. 1 ------------- end of footnote
(ii) Jesus Christ is reported to have declared that the Son of Man "will separate
the sheep from the
goats." (1) The "sheep" symbolize the believing Israelites who will enter into
the Kingdom but the
"goats" signify the unbelieving Jews who had joined with the enemies of the
true religion and were
consequently doomed to perdition. This was practically what the Apocalypse of
Enoch had predicted
about the Son of Man. Jesus simply confirmed the revelation of Enoch and
gave it a Divine character.
He himself was sent to exhort the sheep of Israel (2) to remain faith- ful to God
and await patiently the
advent of the Son of Man who was coming to save them for ever from their
enemies; but he himself was

not the Son of Man, and had nothing to do with the political world, nor with
the "sheep" and "goats"
which both alike rejected and despised him, except a very small number who
loved and believed in him.
------------- Footnotes: (1). Matt. xxv. 31 - 34. (2). Matt. xv. 24 ------------- end of
footnotes
(iii) The Son of Man is said to be "the Lord of the Sabbath day," that is, he had
the power to abrogate the
law which made it a holy day of rest from labor and work. Jesus was a strict
observer of the Sabbath, on
which day he used to attend the services in the Temple or in the Synagogue.
He expressly commands his
followers to pray that the national collapse at the destruction of Jerusalem
should not happen on a
Sabbath day. How could, then, Jesus claim to be the Son of Man, the Lord of
the Sabbath day, while he
was obliged to observe and keep it like every Jew? How could he venture to
claim that proud title and
then predict the destruction of the Temple and of the Capital City?
These and many other examples show that Jesus could never appropriate the
surname of "Barnasha" to
himself, but he ascribed it to the Last Powerful Prophet, who really saved the
"sheep," i.e. the believing
Jews; and either destroyed or dispersed the unbelievers among them;
abolished the day of Sabbath;
established the Kingdom of Peace; and promised that this religion and kingdom
will last to the day of
the Last Judgment.

We shall in our next essay turn our attention to find all the marks and qualities
of the Apocalyptic "Son
of Man" which are literally and completely found in the last Prophet of Allah,
upon whom be peace and
the blessing of God! By The Apocalyptical "Son Of Man," Prophet Muhammad
Is Intended
In my previous article I showed that "the Son of Man" foretold in the Jewish
Apocalypses was not Jesus
Christ, and that Jesus never assumed that appellation for himself, for thus he
would have made himself
ridiculous in the eyes of his audience.
There were only two courses open to him: either to denounce the Messianic
prophecies and the
Apocalyptical visions about the Barnasha as forgeries and legends, or to
confirm them and at the same
time to fill, if he were that lofty personage, the office of the "Son of Man." To
say: "The Son of Man
came to serve and not to be served," (l) or "The Son of Man shall be delivered
unto the hands of the
Chief Priests and the Scribes" (2) or "The Son of Man came eating and drinking
[wine]" with the sinners
and the publicans, (3) and at the same time to confess that he was a beggar
living on the charity and
hospitality of others, was to insult his nation and its nation and its holiest
religious sentiments! To boast
that he was the Son of Man and had come to save and recover the lost sheep
of Israel, (4) but had to

leave this salvation to the Last Judgement, and even then to be cast into the
eternal flames, was to
frustrate all the hopes of that persecuted people, who alone in all mankind had
the honor of being the
only nation that professed the faith and religion of the true God; and it was to
scorn their prophets and
Apocalypses.
------------Footnotes:
(1). Matt. xx. 28.
(2). Ibid. xx 18.
(3). Ibid.xi 18.
(4). Ibid. vxiii. 11.
------------- end of footnotes
Could Jesus Christ assume that title? Are the authors of the four Gospels
Hebrews? Could Jesus
conscientiously believe himself to be what these spurious Gospels allege?
Could a Jew conscientiously
write such stories which are purposely written to disconcert and foil the
expectation of that people? Of
course, other than a negative answer cannot be expected from me to these
questions. Neither Prophet
Jesus nor his apostles would ever use such an extravagant title among a people
already familiar with the
legitimate owner of that surname It would be analogous to putting the crown
of the king upon the head

of his ambassador, the latter having no army to proclaim him king. It would be
simply an insane
usurpation of the rights and privileges of the legitimate Son of Man.
Consequently, such an unjustifiable
usurpation on the part of Jesus would be equivalent to the assumption of the
epithet of "the Pseudo Son
of Man" and of the Antichrist! The very imagination of a similar act of audacity
on the part of the Holy
Christ Jesus makes my whole nature revolt. The more I read these Gospels the
more I become convinced
to believe that they are a production - at least in their present shape and
contents - of authors other than
the Jews. These Gospels are a counterpoise to the Jewish Revelations particularly as a counter-project
against the Sibyllian Books. This could only be done by Greek Christians who
had no interest in the
claims of the children of Abraham. The author of the Sibyllian Books places
side by side with the Jewish prophets Enoch, Solomon, Daniel, and Ezra, the
names of the Greek sages Hermes, Homer,
Orpheus, Pythagoras, and others, evidently with the object of making
propaganda for the Hebrew
religion. These books were written when Jerusalem and the Temple were in
ruins, some time before or
after the publication of St. John's Apocalypse. The purport of the Sibyllian
Revelation is that the Hebrew
(l) Son of Man or the Messiah will come to destroy the power of Rome and to
establish the religion of
the true God for all men.

----------- Footnote:
(1) The name "Hebrew" in its wider sense is applied to all the descendants of
Abraham who afterwards
assumed the names of their respective ancestors, such as the Ishmaelites,
Edomites Israelites, etc.
----------- end of footnote
We can produce many sound arguments to prove the identity of "the Son of
Man" with Prophet
Muhammad only, and shall divide these arguments as follows: ARGUMENTS
FROM THE GOSPELS,
AND FROM THE APOCALYPSES
In the most coherent and significant passages in the discourses of Jesus where
the appellation
"Barnasha" - or "the Son of Man" - appears, only Prophet Muhammad is
intended, and in him alone the
prediction contained therein is literally fulfilled. In some passages wherein
Jesus is supposed to have
assumed that title for himself, that passage becomes incoherent, senseless,
and extremely obscure. Take
for instance the following passages: "The Son of Man came eating and
drinking, and they said, Behold."
(1) John-Baptist was a teetotaler, he fed himself only on water, locusts, and
wild honey; they said he was
a demoniac; but "the Son of Man," id est Jesus (?), who ate and drank wine,
was branded as "the friend
of publicans and sinners"! To blame a prophet for his fastings and abstinence is
a sin of infidelity or of

gross ignorance. But to reproach a person who claims to be a Messenger of


God of frequenting the
banquets of publicans and sinners, and for being fond of wine, is quite natural
and a very serious charge
against the sincerity of that person who pretends to be a spiritual guide of
men. Can we Muslims believe
in the sincerity of a Khwaja or Mullah when we see him mixing with drunkards
and prostitutes? Could
the Christians bear with a curate or parson of a similar conduct? Certainly not.
A spiritual guide may
have conversations with all sorts of sinners in order to convert and reform
them, providing that he is
sober, abstemious, and sincere. According to the quotation just mentioned,
Christ admits that his
behavior had scandalized the religious leaders of his nation. True, the officers
of the Custom-house,
called "publicans," were hated by the Jews simply because of their office. We
are told only two
"publicans" (2) and one "harlot" (3) and one "possessed" woman (4) were
converted by Jesus; but all the
clergy and the lawyers were branded with curses and anathemas (5). All this
looks awkward and
incredible The idea or thought that a Holy Prophet, so chaste and sinless like
Jesus, was fond of wine,
that he changed six barrels of water into a most intoxicating wine in order to
render crazy a large
company of guests already tipsy in the wedding-hall at Cana, (6) is practically
to depict him an impostor

and sorcerer! Think of a miracle performed by a thaumaturge before a rabble


of drunkards! To describe
Jesus as a drunkard, and gluttonous, and a friend of the ungodly, and then to
give him the title of "the
Son of Man" is to deny all the Jewish Revelations and religion.
Again, Jesus is reported to have said that "The Son of Man came to seek and
recover that which was
lost."(7) ------------- Footnotes:
(1). Matt. xi. 19.
(2). Matthew and Zacchaeus (Matt. ix. 9; Luke xix. 1 - 11).
(3). John iv.
(4). Mary Magdalene (Luke viii. 2).
(5). Matt. xiii., etc.
(6). John ii.
(7). Matt. xiii. 11, Luke ix. 56; xix. 10, etc.
------------- end of footnotes

The commentators of course interpret this passage in a spiritual sense only.


Well, it is the mission and
the office of every prophet and the preacher of the religion to call the sinners
to repent of their iniquity
and wickedness. We quite admit that Jesus was sent only to the "lost sheep of
Israel," to reform and
convert them from their sins; and especially to teach them more plainly
concerning "the Son of Man"

who was to come with power and salvation to restore what was lost and to
reconstruct what was ruined;
no, to conquer and destroy the enemies of the true believers. Jesus could not
assume for himself that
Apocalyptic title "the Barnasha," and then not be able to save his people
except Zacchaeus, a Samaritan
woman, and a few other Jews, including the Apostles, who were mostly slain
afterwards on his account.
Most probably what Prophet Jesus said was: "The Son of Man will come to
seek and recover what is
lost." For in Prophet Muhammad alone the believing Jews as well as the Arabs
and other believers found
all that was irremediably lost and destroyed - Jerusalem and Mecca, all the
promised territories; many
truths concerning the true religion; the power and kingdom of God; the peace
and blessing that Islam
confers in this world and in the next.
We cannot afford space for further quotations of the numerous passages in
which "the Son of Man"
occurs as either the subject or the object or the predicate of the sentence. But
one more quotation will
suffice, namely: "The Son of Man shall be delivered unto the hands of men,"
(Matt. xvi. 21; xvii. 12,
etc.), and all the passages where he is made the subject of passion and death.
Such utterances are put into
the mouth of Jesus by some fraudulent non-Hebrew writer with the object of
perverting the truth

concerning "the Son of Man" as understood and believe by the Jews, and of
making them believe that
Jesus of Nazareth was the Apocalyptical triumphant Savior, but he would only
appear on the Day of the
Last Judgement. It was a policy and a cunning propaganda of dissuasion, and
then of persuasion, made
purposely for the Jews. But the fraud was discovered, and the Jewish Christians
belong to the Church
which held these Gospels to be divinely revealed. For nothing could be more
repugnant to Jewish
national aspiration and relidous sentiment than to present to them the
expected Messiah, the great
Barnasha, in the person of Jesus whom the Chief Priests and the Elders
condemned to be crucified as a
seducer! It is quite evident, therefore, that Jesus never appropriated the title
of "the Son of Man;" but he
reserved it only for Prophet Muhammad. Here are a few of the arguments:
(a) The Jewish Apocalypses ascribe the titles "the Messiah" and "the Son of
Man" exclusively to the
Last Prophet, who will fight with the Powers of Darkness and vanquish them,
and then will establish the
Kingdom of Peace and of Light on earth. Thus the two titles are synonymous;
to disown either of them
is to disown altogether the claim to being the Last Prophet. Now we read in
the Synoptics that Jesus
categorically denied his being the Christ and forbade his disciples to declare
him "the Messiah"! It is reported that Simon Peter, in reply to the question put
by Jesus: "Whom say you that I am?" said: "Thou

art the Christ [Messiah] of God." (l) Then Christ commanded his disciples not to
say to anybody that he
is the Christ. (2) St. Mark and St. Luke know nothing about the "power of the
keys" given to Peter; they,
not being there, had not heard of it. John has not a word about this Messianic
conversation; probably he
had forgotten it! St. Matthew reports (3) that when Jesus told them not to say
that he was the Christ he
explained to them how he would be delivered and killed. Thereupon Peter
began to reprove and
admonish him not to repeat the same words about his passion and death.
According to this story of St.
Matthew, Peter was perfectly right when he said: "Master, be it far from
thee!" If it is true that his
confession, "Thou art the Messiah," pleased Jesus, who conferred the title of
"Sapha" or "Cepha" on
Simon, then to declare that "the Son of Man" was to suffer the ignominous
death upon the Cross was
neither more nor less than a flat denial of his Messianic character. But Jesus
became more positive and
indignantly scolded Peter, saying: "Get thee behind me, satan!" What follows
this sharp rebuke are most
explicit words of the Master, leaving not a modicum of doubt that he was not
"the Messiah" or "the Son
of Man." How to reconcile the "faith" of Peter, recompensed with the glorious
title of "Sapha" and the
power of the keys of Heaven and of Hell, with the "infidelity" of Peter punished
with the opprobrious

epithet of "satan," within half an hour's time or so? Several reflections present
themselves to my mind,
and I feel it my bounden duty to put them in black and white. If Jesus were
"the Son of Man" or "the
Messiah" as seen and foretold by Daniel, Ezra, Enoch, and the other Jewish
prophets and divines, he
would have authorized his disciples to proclaim and acclaim him as such; and
he himself would have
supported them. The fact is that he acted the very reverse. Again, if he were
the Messiah, or the
Barnasha, he would have at once struck his enemies with terror, and by the aid
of his invisible angels
destroyed the Roman and Persian powers, then dominant over the civilized
world. But he did nothing of
the sort; or, like Prophet Muhammad, he would have recruited some valiant
warriors like 'Ali, Omar,
Khalid, etc., and not like Zebedees and Jonahs, who vanished, like a frightened
specter when the Roman
police came to arrest them.
------------- Footnotes:
1. Luke ix. 20.
2. Luke (ix. 21) says: "He rebuked them and commanded them not to say that
he was the Messiah." Cf.
Matn xvi. 20; Mark viii. 30.
3. Lcc. cit., 21 - 28.
------------- end of footnotes

There are two irreconcilable statements made by Matthew (or corrupted by his
interpolator), which logically destroy each other. Within an hour Peter is "the
Rock of Faith," as Catholicism will boast, and, 'the satan of Infidelity," as
Protestanism will scout him! Why so? Because when he believed Jesus to be
the Messiah he was rewarded; but when he refused to admit that his master
was not the Messiah he was convicted! There are no two "Sons of Man," the
one to be the Commander of the Faithful, fight sword in hand the wars of God,
and uproot idolatry and its empires and kingdoms; the other to be an Abbot of
the poor Anchorites on the summit of Calvary, fight the wars of God cross in
hand, and be martyred ignominiously by idolatrous Romans and unbelieving
Jewish Pontiffs and Rabbis! "The Son of Man," whose hands were seen under
the wings of the Cherubs by the Prophet Ezekiel (ii), and before the throne of
the Almighty by the Prophet Daniel (vii), and described in the other Jewish
Apocalypses was not predestined to be hanged upon Golgotha, but to
transform the thrones of the pagan kings into their own crosses; to change
their palaces into calvarias, and to make sepulchers of their capital cities. Not
Prophet Jesus, but Prophet Muhammad, had the honor of this title, "the Son
of Man"! The facts are more eloquent than even the Apocalypses and the
visions. The material and moral conquests achieved by Prophet Muhammad
the Holy Messenger of Allah over the enemy are unrivalled.
(b) "The Son of Man" is called by Jesus "the Lord of the Sabbath day." (1) This is
very remarkable indeed. The sanctity of the seventh day is the theme of the
Law of Moses. God accomplished the work of creation in six days, and on the
seventh He rested from all work. Men and women, children and slaves, even
the domestic animals were to repose from all labor under the pain of death.
The Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue orders the people of Israel: "Thou
shalt remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it." (2) The students of the Bible
know how jealous God is reported to be concerning the strict observation of
the Day of Rest. Before Moses there was no special law about this; and the
nomad Patriarchs do not seem to have observed it. It is very likely that the
Jewish Sabbath had its origin in the Babylonian Sabattu.
------------- Footnotes:
(1). Matt. xii. 7. (2). Exod. xx. ------------- end of footnotes

The Qur'an repudiates the Jewish anthropomorphous conception of the Deity,


for it means to say, as if like man, God labored six days, got fatigued, reposed
and slumbered. The sacred verse of the Qur'an thus runs: "And verily We have
created the heavens and the earth, and whatever is between them in six days;
and no weariness affected Us".
The Jewish idea about the Sabbath had become too material and insidious.
Instead of making it a day of comfortable rest and a pleasant holiday, it had
been turned into a day of abstinence and confinement. No cooking, no walk,
and no work of charity or beneficence were permitted. The priests in the
temple would bake bread and offer sacrifices on the Sabbath-day, but
reproached the Prophet of Nazareth when he miraculously cured a man whose
arm was withered. (1) To this Christ said that it was the Sabbath which was
instituted for the benefit of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath.
Instead of making it a day of worship and then a day of recreation, of innocent
pleasure and real repose, they had made it a day of imprisonment and
weariness. The least breach of any precept concerning the seventh day was
punished with lapidation or some other penalty. Moses himself sentences a
poor man to lapidation for having picked up a few sticks from the ground on a
Sabbath day; and the disciples of Jesus were reproached for plucking some
ears of corn on a Sabbath day, although they were hungry. It is quite evident
that Jesus Christ was not a Sabbatarian and did not adhere to the literal
interpretation of the draconic ordinances regarding the Sabbath. He wanted
mercy or acts of kindness and not sacrifices.
Nevertheless, he never thought of abrogating the Sabbath, nor could he have
ventured to do so. Had he ventured to declare the abolition of that day or to
substitute the Sunday for it, he would have been undoubtedly abandoned by
his followers, and instantly mobbed and stoned. But he observed, so to say,
the Law of Moses to its title. As we learn from the Jewish historian, Joseph
Flavius, and from Eusebius and others, James the "brother" of Jesus was a
strict Ibionite and the head of the Judaistic Christians who observed the Law of
Moses and the Sabbath with all its rigors. The Hellenistic Christians gradually
substituted first the "Lord's Day," i.e. the Sunday; but the Eastern Churches
until the fourth century observed both days.
------------- Footnote: Matt. xii 10-13 ------------- end of footnote

Now if Jesus were the Lord of the Sabbath day he would have certainly either
modified its rigorous law or entirely abolished it. He did neither the one nor
the other. The Jews who heard him understood perfectly well that he referred
to the expected Messiah as the Lord of the Sabbath, and that is why they kept
their silence. The Redactor of the Synoptics, here as everywhere, has
suppressed some of the words of Jesus whenever "the Son of Man" forms the
subject of his discourse, and this suppression is the cause of all these
ambiguities, contradictions, and misunderstandings. Unless we take the Holy
Qur'an as our guide, and the Prophet of Allah as the object of the Bible, all
attempts to find the truth and to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion will end in
failure. The Higher Biblical Criticism will guide you as far as the gate of the
sacred shrine of truth, and there it stops, stricken with awe and incredulity. It
does not open the door to enter inside and search for the eternal documents
therein deposited. All research and erudition shown by these "impartial"
critics, whether Liberal Thinkers, Rationalists, or indifferent writers, are, after
all, deplorably cold, skeptical, and disappointing.
Lately I was reading the works of the French savant Ernest Renan, La vie de
Jesus, Saint Paul, and L' Antichrist. I was astonished at the extent of works,
ancient and modern, which he has examined; he reminded me of Gibbon and
others. But, alas, what is the conclusion of their inexhaustible research and
study? Zero or negation! In the domain of science the marvels of Nature are
discovered by the Positivists; but in the domain of Religion these Positivists
make hay of it and poison the religious sentiments of their readers. If these
learned critics were to take the spirit of the Qur'an for their guidance and
Prophet Muhammad as the literal, moral, and practical fulfillment of Holy Writ,
their research could not be so desultory and destructive. Religious men want a
real and not an ideal religion; they want a "Son of Man" who will draw his
sword and march at the head of his valiant army to pulverize the enemies of
God and to prove by word and deed that he is the "Lord of the Sabbath day,"
and to abrogate it altogether because it was abused by the Jews as the
"Fatherhood" of God was abused by the Christians. Prophet Muhammad did
this! As I have often repeated in these pages, we can only understand these
corrupted scriptures when we penetrate, with the help of the light of AlQur'an, into their enigmatic and contradictory statements, and it is only then
that we can sift them with the sieve of truthfulness and separate the genuine

from the spurious. When, for example, speaking about the priests continually
dissolving the Sabbath in the Temple, Jesus is reported to have said: "Behold,
here is one that is greater than the Temple." (1) I can guess of no sense in the
existence of the adverb "here" in this clause, unless we supply and attach to it
an additional "t," and make it read "there." For, if Jesus or any other prophet
before him should have had the audacity of declaring himself "greater than the
Temple," he would have been instantly lynched or stoned by the Jews as a
"blasphemer" unless he could prove himself to be the Son of Man, invested
with power and greatness, as the Prophet of Allah was.

( ) :

:
( ) ( ) " : " .
:
" : " .
:

" [] . 1

:

Sahih al Bukhari

- - -
...

...


...
...
- -
.



" .

...




- -
-





...
...


...
...



- -
-





...
...

... ...

-

-
... ...



...

-
-
...

...


-
-


...

- -


- -





-
-


...

4321

-


-
-

16








(














)


(














- 5 -






















-



-
)
( 401 401 -
)
(


:


( )

)

( )






)
- 576 -

( : )




( )

( )


.




.

:





:





:

"

" :

" :

" :
:








:

:







.
.







:
" ( : ) " :
:


: " :
- 577 -
" :
"
"
.

- " ( :
-


" ( :
)".

) "

) : ) 2

" ( :
: " :


)
" ( :


" (:
))" .

------------- Footnote: (1). Matt. xii 6 ------------The abrogation of Saturday by the Prince of the Prophets - Prophet
Muhammad - is hinted at in the LXII (62nd) Sura [Jumah] of the Qur'an entitled
"Al-Jumu'a" or "The Assembly." Before Prophet Muhammad the Arabs called
Friday "al A'ruba," the same as the Syriac Pshitta "A'rubta" from the Aramaic
"arabh" - " to set down (the sun)." It was so called because after the setting of
the sun on Friday the Sabbath day commenced. The reason given for the
sacred character of Saturday is that on that day God "rested" from His work of
creation. But the reason for the choice of Friday, as it can easily be understood,
is of a double nature. First, because on this day the great work of the creation,
or of the universal formation of all the innumerable worlds, beings and things
visible and invisible, planets, and microbes was completed. This was the first
event that interrupted eternity, when time, space, and matter came into being.
The commemoration, the anniversary, and the sanctity of such a prodigious
event on the day on which it was achieved is just, reasonable, and even
necessary. The second reason is that on this day prayers and worship are
conducted by the faithful unanimously, and for this reason it is called the

"jumu'a," that is to say, the congregation or assembly; the Divine verse on this
subject characterizes the nature of our obligation on Friday as: "O believers!
When it is called to the prayer on Friday, hasten to the remembrance of God
and leave merchandise," etc. The faithful are called to join in the Divine
service together in a House dedicated to the worship of God, and to leave off
at that time any lucrative work; but after the congregational prayers are over
they are not forbidden to resume their usual occupations. A true Muslim
within twenty-four hours worships his Creator five times in prayer and
devotion. (c) We have already made a few remarks on the passage in St.
Matthew (xviii. 11) where the mission of the "Son of Man" is "to seek and
recover what was lost." This is another important prediction though
undoubtedly corrupted in form - about Prophet Muhammad, or the
Apocalyptical Barnasha. These "lost things" which the Barnasha would seek
and restore are of two categories, religious and national. Let us examine them
in detail:
(1) The mission of the Barnasha was to restore the purity and the universality
of the religion of Prophet Abraham which was lost. All the peoples and tribes
descended from that patriarch of the believers were to be brought into the
fold of the "Religion of Peace," which is no other than the "Dina da-Shlama," or
the Religion of Islam. The religion of Moses was national and particular, and
therefore its hereditary priesthood, its Levitical sacrifices and pompous rituals,
its Sabbaths, jubilees, and festivals, and all its laws and corrupted scriptures
would be abolished and substituted by new ones having a universal character,
force, and durability. Prophet Jesus was a Jew; he could not have accomplished
such a gigantic and stupendous undertaking because it was materially
impossible for him to do it. "I came not to change the law or the prophets," (l)(
Matt. v.17-19) said he. On the other hand, the rank idolatry, with all its
abominable pagan practices, superstition, and sorcery, to which the Arab
nationalities were addicted, had entirely to be wiped out, and the Oneness of
Allah and of religion to be restored under the flag of the Messenger of Allah
bearing the Holy Inscription: "I bear witness that there is none worthy of
worship except God; and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of
God."
------------ Footnote (1). Matt. v.17-19 ------------ end of footnote

2. The unification of the nations descended from Prophet Abraham, and their
dependencies were to be restored and accomplished. Of the many corrupted,
selfish, and unjustifiable silly notions the Hebrew Scriptures contain there is
the indiscriminate bias they entertain against the non-Israelite nations. They
never honor the other descendants of their great progenitor Prophet
Abraham; and this antipathy is shown against the Ishmaelites, Edomites, and
other Abrahamite tribes even when Israel had become the worst idolator and
heathen. The fact that besides Prophets Abraham and Ishmael about three
hundred and eleven male slaves and warriors in his service were circumcised
(1) is an incalculably forcible argument against the Jewish attitude towards
their cousin nationalities. The kingdom of David hardly extended its frontiers
beyond the territory which in the Ottoman Empire formed only two adjacent
"Vilayets," or Provinces. And the "Son of David," whom the Jews anticipate to
come with the attribute of the "final Messiah," may or may not be able to
occupy even those two provinces; and besides, when will he come? He was to
have come to destroy the Roman "Beast." That "Beast" was only mutilated and
slaughtered by Prophet Muhammad! What else is expected? When Prophet
Muhammad, the Apocalyptic Barnasha, founded the Kingdom of Peace (Islam),
the majority of the Jews in Arabia, Syria, Mesopotamia, etc., voluntarily rushed
to the greatest shepherd of mankind when he appeared with the terrific blows
which he struck at the "Brute" of paganism. Prophet Muhammad founded a
universal Brotherhood, the nucleus of which is certainly the family of Prophet
Abraham, including among its members the Persians, the Turks, the Chinese,
the Negroes, the Javanese, the Indians, the English, etc., all forming one
"ummat" (Arabic) or "Umtha da-Shlama," i.e. the Islamic Nation!
------------- Footnote (1). Gen. ------------ end of footnote
3. Then the recovery of the promised lands, including the land of Canaan and
all the territories from the Nile to the Euphrates, and gradually the extension
of the Kingdom of Allah from the Pacific Ocean to the eastern shores of the
Atlantic, is a marvelous fulfillment of all the prophecies about the Holiest and
the Greatest of the Sons of Man! Considering the stupendous work
accomplished by Prophet Muhammad for the One True God, the brief time
spent by him and his brave and devoted companions in its accomplishment,
and the ineffaceable effects that the work and the religion of Prophet

Muhammad have left upon all the kingdoms and the thinkers of mankind, one
is at a loss to know what tribute to pay to this Prophet of Arabia, except the
wish to behold him shining in redoubled glory before the Throne of the Eternal
as Daniel saw in his vision!
The Son Of Man According To The Jewish Apocalypses From what has been
already discussed in these pages it will have been that the appellation
"Barnasha,"[i.e.Bani Insan, Bani AdamSayyid Walid Adamthe Prophet aid I
am Sayyid walid Adam ] or "the Son of Man," is not a title like
"Messiah," that could be applied to every prophet, high-priest, and legally
anointed king; but that it is a proper noun, belonging exclusively to the Last
Prophet. The Hebrew Seers, Sophees, and the Apocalyptists describe the Son
of Man, who is to come in due time as appointed by the Almighty to deliver
Israel and Jerusalem from the heathenish oppression and to establish the
permanent kingdom for "the People of the Saints of the Most High." The Seers,
the Sophees, foretell the advent of the Powerful Deliverer; they see him - only
in a vision, revelation, and faith - with all his might and glory. No Prophet or
Sophee ever said that he himself was "the Son of Man," and that he would
"come again on the Last Day to judge both the quick [living] and the dead," as
the Nicene Creed puts it on the pretended authority of the Sayings of Jesus
Christ.
The frequent use of the appellation in question by the evangelists indicates,
most assuredly, their acquaintance with the Jewish Apocalypses, as also a firm
belief in their authenticity and Divine origin. It is quite evident that the
Apocalypses bearing the names of Prophets Enoch, Moses, Baruch, and Ezra
were written long before the Gospels; and that the name "Barnasha" therein
mentioned was borrowed by the authors of the Gospels; otherwise its
frequent use would be enigmatic and an incomprehensible if not a
meaningless - novelty. It follows, therefore, that Prophet Jesus either believed
himself to be the Apocalyptic "Son of Man," or that he knew the Son of Man to
be a person distinctly other than himself.
If he believed himself to be the Son of Man, it would follow that either he or
the Apocalyptists were in error; and in either case the argument goes most
decidedly against Jesus Christ. For his error concerning his own personality and
mission is as bad as the erroneous predictions of the Apocalyptists, whom he

believed to be divinely inspired. Of course, this dilemmatic reasoning will lead


us to a final conclusion unfavorable to himself. The only way to save Prophet
Jesus from this dishonor is to look upon him as the Qur'an pictures him to us;
and accordingly to attribute all the contradictory and incoherent statements
about him in the Gospels to their authors or redactors.
Before discussing further the subject, "the Son of Man" as depicted in the
Jewish Apocalypses, a few facts must be carefully taken into consideration.
First, these Apocalypses not only do not belong to the canon of the Hebrew
Bible, but also they are not even included among the Apocrypha or the socalled "Deutro-canonical" books of the Old Testament. Secondly, their
authorship is not known. They bear the names of Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra,
but their real authors or editors seem to have known the final destruction of
Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews under the Romans. These
pseudonyms were chosen, not for fraudulent purposes, but out of a pious
motive by the Sophees or Seers who composed them. Did not Plato put his
own views and dialectics into the mouth of his master, Socrates?
Thirdly, "these books," in the words of the Grand Rabbin Paul Haguenauer, "in
an enigmatical, mystical, supernatural form, try to explain the secrets of the
nature, the origin [sic] of God, the problems of good and evil, justice and
happiness, the past and the future. The Apocalypse makes upon all these
questions some revelations which surpass human understanding. Their
principal personages are Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra. These writings are
evidently the product of the painful and disastrous epochs of Judaism." (1)
Consequently they cannot be fully understood any more than the Apocalypse
which bears the name of St. John the Apostle.
Fourthly, these Apocalypses have been interpolated by the Christians. In the
Book of Enoch "the Son of Man" is also called "the Son of Woman" and "the
Son of God," thus interpolating the Church theory of incarnation; surely no
Jewish Seer would write "Son of God."
Fifthly, it would be noticed that the Messianic doctrine is a later development
of the old prophecies concerning the Last Prophet of Allah, as foretold by Jacob
and other Prophets. It is only in the Apocrypha and the Apocalypses, and
especially in the Rabbinical writings, that this "Last Deliverer" is claimed to

descend from David. True, there are prophecies after the Babylonian captivity,
and even after the deportation of the Ten Tribes into Assyria, about a "Son of
David" who would come to gather together the dispersed Israel. But these
predictions were fulfilled only partly under Zorobabel - a descendant of King
David.
Then after the Greek invasion the same predictions were preached and
announced, and we only see a Judah Maqbaya fighting with a slight success
against Antiochus Epiphanes. Besides, this success was temporary and of no
permanent value. The Apocalypses, which carry their visions down to the time
after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian, foretell "the Son of
Man" who will appear with great power to destroy the Roman power and the
other enemies of Israel. Twenty centuries had to elapse before the Rome
Empire was destroyed in the fifth century A.D. by a Turkish Emperor, Atilla - a
pagan Hun - and finally by a Muslim Turk, the Fatih Muhammad II. But that
power was completely destroyed, and for ever, in the lands promised to
Ishmael by the Sultan of the Prophets, Muhammad al-Mustapha.
------------- Footnote: 1. Munuel de Litterature Juivre Nancy, 1927. ------------ end
of footnote
There remain two other observations which I cannot ignore in this connection.
If I were a most ardent Zionist, or a most learned Rabbi, I would once more
study this Messianic question as profoundly and impartially as I could. And
then I would vigorously exhort my co-religionist Jews to desist from and
abandon this hope for ever. Even if a "Son of David" should appear on the hill
of Zion, and blow the trumpet, and claim to be the "Messiah," I would be the
first to tell him boldly: "Please, Sire! You are too late! Don't disturb the
equilibrium in Palestine! Don't shed blood! Don't let your angels meddle with
these formidable aeroplanes! Whatever be the successes of your adventures, I
am afraid they will not surpass those of your ancestors David, Zorobabel, and
Judah Maccabaeus (Maqbaya)!" The great Hebrew conqueror was not David
but Jesus bar Nun (Joshuah); he was the first Messiah, who instead of
converting the pagan tribes of the Canaan that had shown so much hospitality
and goodness to Prophets Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, mercilessly massacred
them wholesale. And Joshuah was, of course, a Prophet and the Messiah of the
time. Every Israelite Judge during a period of three centuries or more was a

Messiah and Deliverer. Thus we find that during every national calamity,
especially a catastrophe, a Messiah is predicted, and as a rule the deliverance
is achieved always subsequent to the disaster and quite in an inadequate
degree. It is a peculiar characteristic of the Jews that they alone of all the
nationalities aspire, through the miraculous conquests by a Son of David, after
a universal domination of the inhabitants of the globe. Their slovenliness and
inertia are quite compatible with their unshaking belief in the advent of the
"Lion of Judah." While they are awaiting the Moshiakh refered to in Islam as
"Massiekh, ad-dajjal" meaning the anti-Christ or the false messiah. And that is,
perhaps the reason why they have attempted to concentrate all, their national
resources, energy, and force and make a united effort to become a selfgoverning people. This is the introduction of conclusion of the appearance of
the anti-christ and the appearance of the great grandson of Prophet
Muhammad, Al Mahdi, via his daughter Fatima, which both Sunni and Shi'a
believe. Al Mahdi will fight the anti-christ, then Jesus will descend and kill him
under a tree facing the Lake of Tiberias which had been dry for a long time, but
now it has been replenished.
Now to the Christians who claim Jesus to be the prophetical Son of Man, I
would venture to say: If he were the expected Deliverer of Israel he would
have delivered that people from the Roman yoke, no matter if the Jews had
believed in him or not. Deliverance first, gratitude and loyalty after; and not
vice versa. A man must first be liberated from the hands of his captors by
killing or frightening them, and then be expected to show his permanent
attachment and devotion to the liberator. The Jews were not inmates of a
hospital to be attended by physicians and nurses; they were practically
prisoners in bonds and needed a hero to set them free. Their faith in God and
in His Law was as perfect as was that of their ancestors at the foot of Mount
Sinai when He delivered it to Moses. They were not in need of a haumaturgical
prophet; all their history was interwoven with wonders and miracles. The
raising to life of a dead Lazarus, the opening of the eyes of a blind Bartimaeus,
or the cleansing of an outcast leper, would neither strengthen their faith nor
satiate their thirst for independence and liberty. The Jews rejected Jesus, not
because he was not the Apocalyptic "Son of Man" or the Messiah - not because
he was not a Prophet, for they knew very well that he did not claim to be the
former, and that he was a Prophet - but because they hated him for his words:

Messiah was not the Son of David, but his Lord. (1) This admission of the
Synoptics confirms the statement in the Gospel of Barnabas, where Jesus is
reported to have added that the Covenant will be fulfilled with the "Shiloah" the Prophet of Allah - who will come from the family of Prophet Ishmael.
For this reason the Talmudists describe Jesus as "the second Balaam" - that is,
the Prophet who prophesies for the benefit of the heathen at the expense of
the "chosen people."
------------ Footnote: (1). Matt. xxii 44-46; Mark xii 35-37; Luke xx. 41-44. ----------- end of footnote
It is quite clear, therefore, that the Jewish reception to, or their rejection of,
Jesus was not the condition sine qua non to determine the nature of his
mission. If he were the Final Deliverer he would have made the Jews submit to
him, nolens volens, as Prophet Muhammad did. But the contrast between the
circumstances in which each of those two Prophets found himself, and their
work, knows no dimensions and no limits. Suffice it to say that Prophet
Muhammad converted about ten million pagan Arabs into most sincere and
ardent believers in the true God, and utterly uprooted idolatry in the lands
where it had struck root. This he did, because he held in one hand the Law and
in the other the Scepter; the one was the Holy Qur'an and the other the
emblem of power and government. He was hated, despised, persecuted by the
noblest Arab tribe to which he belonged, and forced to flee for his life; but by
the Power of Allah he accomplished the greatest work for cause of the true
religion which no other Prophet before him had ever been able to do.
I shall now proceed to show that the Apocalyptic Son of Man was no other
than the Prophet Muhammad al-Mustapha.
The most cogent and important proof that the Apocalyptic Barnasha is Prophet
Muhammad is given in a wonderful description in the vision of Prophet Daniel
(vii.) already discussed in a previous article. In no way whatever the Barnasha
therein described can be identified with any of the Maccabees' heroes or with
Prophet Jesus; nor can the terrible Beast which was utterly killed and
destroyed by that Son of Man be a prototype of Antiochus Epiphanes or the
Roman Caesar, Nero. The culminating evil of that dreadful Beast was the "Little
Horn," which uttered blasphemies against the Most High by associating with

His Essence three co-eternal divine persons and by its persecution of those
who maintained the absolute Oneness of God. Constantine the Great is the
person symbolized by that hideous Horn.
The Apocalypse of Enoch (l) foretells the appearance of the Son of Man at a
moment when the small flock of the sheep, though vigorously defended by a
ram, will be fiercely attacked by the birds of prey from above and by the carnivorous beast on land. Among the enemies of the little flock are seen many
other goats and sheep that had gone astray. The lord of the flock, like a good
shepherd, suddenly appears and strikes the earth with his rod or scepter; it
opens its mouth and swallows up the assailing enemy; chases and drives away
from the pastures the rest of the pernicious birds and brutes. Then a sword is
given to the flock as an emblem of power and the weapon of destruction. After
which the flock is no longer headed by a ram but by a white bull with two large
black horns. ------------Footnote:
(1). I regret to say that the "Jewish Apocalypses" are inaccessible to me. The
Encyclopedias given only a compendium of each book, which does not satisfy
my purpose of examining the text. I know that the Irish Archbishop Laurence
has translated this Apocalypse into English, but it is, unfortunately, beyond my
reach. ------------ end of footnotes.
This parabolical vision is transparent enough. From Prophet Jacob downwards
the "chosen people" is represented symbolically by the flock of sheep. The
descendants of Esau are described as boars. Other heathen people and tribes
are represented in the vision, according to their respective characteristics, as
ravens, eagles, vultures, and different species of brutes, all thirsty to suck the
blood of the sheep or hungry to devour them. Almost all Biblical scholars agree
that the vision indicates the painful period of the Maccabees and their bloody
struggles with the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes until the death of John
Hurcanus in 110(?) B.C. This method of interpreting the vision is totally
erroneous, and reduces the value of the whole book to nothing. That an
antediluvian Prophet or a Seer should illustrate the history of the human race
from a religious point of view, beginning with Adam, under the symbol of a
White Bull, and ending with John Hurcanus or his brother Judah Maccabaeus

(Maqbaya) as the Last White Bull, and then leave the flock of the "Believers" to
be devoured again by the Romans, the Christians, and the Muslims to this very
day, is ridiculous and shocking! In fact, the wars of the Maccabees and their
consequence are not of such great significance in the history of the religion of
God
as to be the terminus of its development. None of the Maccabees was a
Prophet, nor the founder of the
so-called "Messianic reign" which the Gospels name the "Kingdom of God."
Besides, this interpretation
of the vision is inconsistent with the characters represented in the drama
under the figurative symbols of the master of the flock, scepter in hand, the
Ram, and the White Bull; and then with the large sword
given to the shepherds with which they kill or drive away the impure animals
and birds. Furthermore,
this Christian interpretation of Enoch's Apocalypse does not explain the
mystical transplantation or the
transportation of the terrestrial Jerusalem into a country farther to the south;
and what meaning can be
given to the new House of God built on the spot of the old one, larger and
higher than the former sacred
edifice, to which flock not only the believing sheep - the faithful Jews - but also
the various pagan
nationalities that have embraced the religion of the Son of Man who destroyed
the enemies with his
Scepter or Rod! For all these particular acts and representations are seen and
described in this dramatic
vision. The chain that links together the events depicted in this figurative
language begins with Prophet

Adam and ends in the person of the Prophet of Mecca! There are several
cogent arguments to prove this
assertion.
The two divisions of the sheep indicate the people of the Scriptures, whether
Jews or Christians, among
whom were those who were believers in the Oneness of God, and those who
made Prophet Jesus and the
Holy Spirit also equal and consubstantial with God. The Seer distinguishes the
be- lievers from the
apostates. The Gospels report that on the day of the Last Judgement "the
sheep will be separated from
the goats," (1) which indicates the same view. As to the symbolical Ram, we
may understand thereby
Arius or some spiritual Unitarian leader for the true Nassara and the chief
Rabbi for the faithful Jews because they both had the same common enemy. If we identify Constantine
with the evil Horn, we may
justly identify Arius with the Ram. In fact, Arius is entitled to this dignity
because he headed the larger
group in the Council of Nicea and vigorously defended the true religion against
the monstrous doctrines
of Trinitarian and Sacramentarian Churches. From a strictly Muslim point of
view the Jews, from the
moment they rejected and condemned Jesus Christ to death, ceased to be the
"chosen people," and that
honorable title was given only to those who believed in his apostleship.
------------- Footnote: 1. Matt. xxv. 32 - 46, etc. ------------- end of footnote

The Son of Man who saved the flock of sheep from its various enemies whom
he sent down into the
bosom of the earth by striking vehemently his pastoral station it and gave a
strong sword to the sheep to
slaughter the impure brutes and birds of prey, was decidedly Prophet
Muhammad. The scepter (in
Hebrew "shebet" - rod, staff is the emblem of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and
administration. The little
scepter accorded by God to the tribe of Judah (1) was taken away, and a
stronger and larger one was
given to the Prophet of Allah (the "Shiloah") in its place. It is indeed marvelous how this prophetical
vision of the Seer was literally fulfilled when Prophet Muhammad's scepter
became the emblem of the
Muslim sovereignty over all the countries - in Egypt, Assyria, Chaldea, Syria,
and Arabia - where the
people of God were persecuted by the pagan powers of those countries and by
the foreign heathen
powers of the Medo-Persians, Greeks, and Romans! What a glorious fulfillment
of the vision it is when
the flock of sheep, for many centuries having been exposed to the merciless
beaks and claws of the birds
of prey and to the sharp and terrible teeth and claws of the beasts, was now
equipped with a large sword
to defend which every Muslim carried until the blood of the Saints and Martyrs
(2) was equitably
avenged.

------------- Footnotes: 1. Gen. xlix. 10. 2. Rev. vi. 9 - 11. ------------- end of
footnotes
The White Bull. Until Prophet Ishmael, all the Prophets are represented as
white bulls; but from Prophet
Jacob downwards the princes of the chosen people appear in the form of rams.
The universal religion had been reduced to a national one; and the Emperor
had become a petty chief. Here is again another
amazing fulfillment of the vision in the Islamic era. The leaders or the
patriarchs of the ancient
international religion are represented as white bulls, and those of the Muslim
Commanders of the
Faithful also as white bulls, with the only distinction that the latter have large
black horns, emblem of
twofold power, spiritual and tem- poral. Among all clean quadrupeds there is
nothing more beautiful and
noble than the white bull, and more so especial- ly when it is crowned with a
pair of large black horns. It
looks most majestic and full of grace! It is very remarkable that the Imam of
the believers, whether a
Calipha or a Sultan, or possessing both titles, is distinguished and per- ceived
day and night by the purity
of his faith and actions and by the solidity of his power and majesty at the head
of the vast and
innumerable hosts of the faithful composed of all races and languages! The
vision expressly avows the
entrance and admission of the apostates and unbelievers into the flock. Jews thousands of Jews Christians, and Sabians, as well as millions of Arabs and other heathen
nationalities, believed in the

Oneness of Allah and embraced Islam. In this connection it is worthy of note


that all the blood shed in
the wars of Badr, Ohud, and other campaigns led personally by the Prophet
Muhammad, could not exceed one-hundredth of the blood shed by Prophet
Joshua. Yet not a single instance of cruelty or injustice can be proved against
the Prophet of Allah. He was clement, noble, magnanimous, and forgiving. This
is why he is alone among all the human race represented in all prophetical
visions "the Son of Man," like the first man before his fall!
The Son of Man establishes the Kingdom of Peace, the capital of which is no
longer the old Jerusalem, but the new Jerusalem - the "Daru's-Salam," the "city
or court of Peace." The Sophee or Seer in this wonderful vision narrates how
the terrestrial Jerusalem is lifted up and transplanted in a southern country;
but a new Temple, larger and higher than the first one, is built upon the ruins
of the old edifice! Gracious God! how wonderfully all this was accomplished by
Your most illustrious and Holy Prophet Muhammad! The new Jerusalem is
none other than Mecca, for it is in a southern country, its two hills, the
"Marwa" and "Sapha," bear the same names as those of Moriah and Zion, of
the same root and signification but originally earlier. "Irushalem" or
"Urshalem" of old becomes a city of "Light and Peace." It is for this reason, too,
that Mecca as the seat of the sacred Ka'aba became the "Qibla" - the direction
towards which the Muslims turn their faces at prayer. Here every year tens of
thousands of pilgrims from all Muslim countries assemble, visit the Holy
Ka'aba, offer sacrifices, and renew their fidelity to Allah and promise to lead a
new life worthy of a Muslim. Not only Mecca, but also Medina and the
territory surrounding them, has become sacred and inviolable, and forbidden
to any non-Muslim man or woman! It was in the fulfillment of his vision of
Prophet Idris or Enoch, too, that the second Caliph, Omar, rebuilt the Sacred
Mosque at Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, on the spot of the Temple of
Solomon! All these marvelously prove that the vision was seen by a Seer
inspired by God, who saw the Muslim events in a far-distant future. Could
Rome or Byzantium claim to be the New Jerusalem?
Can the Pope or any schismatic Patriarch claim to be the Apocalyptic White
Bull with two large horns? Can Christianity claim to be the Kingdom of Peace

(Islam = "Shalom") while it makes Prophet Jesus and the Holy Ghost coeval and
consubstantial with the Absolute One God? Most decidedly not.
In those chapters dealing with the Kingdom of Peace, the Messiah is called
Son of Man, but in the description of the Last Judgement which follows at the
end of this Reign of Islam or Peace he is called "Son of Woman" and "Son of
God," and made to share with God in the Judgement of the World. It is
admitted by all scholars that these extravagant and foolish statements are not
of Jewish origin but belong to the Christian imaginations, inserted and
interpolated by them.
The other Apocalypses, those which bear the names of Moses, Baruch, Ezra,
the Jubilees, and the Oracula Sibylliana, should be studied impartially, for it is
then that they, like those of Daniel and Enoch, will not only be understood but
also prove to be fulfilled in Prophet Muhammad.
MORE:
The Prophet Of Arabia As Spoken Of In The Bible "The Burden Upon
Arabia" - Isaiah xxi. 13.
The present barren period of classical scholarship, together with the increasing
paucity of our knowledge of ancient languages, has crippled modern taste in its
efforts to appreciate any such attempts as I intend to make in that direction.
The following pages have produced a series of most able articles from the Rev.
Professor 'Abdu 'l-Ahad Dawud, but I wonder if there are many, even among
the hierarchy of the Christian Church, who could follow the erudite exposition
of the learned Professor. All the more do I wonder when he seeks to carry his
readers into a labyrinth of languages, dead and done with thousands of years
ago. What about Aramaic, when very few even among the Clergy are able to
understand the Vulgate and the original Greek version of the New Testament?
More especially when our researches are based simply upon Greek and Latin
etymology! Whatever may be the value of such dissertations in the eye's of
others we, nowadays, are absolutely incapable of appreciating them from the
angle of erudition; for the oracular ambiguity attached to the prophetic utterances to which I allude makes them elastic enough to cover any case. The
"least" in the prophecy of St. John the Baptist may not be the son of Mary,

though he was looked upon as such contemptuously by his own tribe. The Holy
Carpenter came from humble parentage. He was shouted down, mocked and
discredited; he was belittled and made to appear the "least" in the public
estimation by the Scribes and Pharisees. The excess of zeal displayed by
his followers in the second and third centuries A.D., which was ever prone to
jump at anything in the form of a prophecy in the Bible, would naturally induce
them to believe that their Lord was the person alluded to by the Baptist.
However, there is another difficulty in the way. How can a person rely on the
testimony of a book admittedly filled with folk-lore? The genuineness of the
Bible has universally been questioned.
Without going into the question of its genuineness, we may at least say that
we cannot depend on its statements concerning Jesus and his miracles. Some
even go so far as to assert that his existence as an historical person is
questionable, and that on the authority of the Gospels it would be dangerous
to arrive at any apparently safe conclusion in this matter. A Christian of the
Funda- mentalist type cannot well say anything against my statement of the
case. If "stray sentences" and detached words in the Old Testament can be
singled out by synoptic writers as applicable to Jesus, the comments of the
learned writer of these erudite and absorbing articles must command every
respect and appreciation even from the Clergy. I write in the same strain, but I
have tried to base my arguments on portions of the Bible which hardly allow of
any linguistic dispute. I would not go to Latin, Greek, or Aramaic, for that
would be useless: I just give the following quotation in the very words of the
Revised Version as published by the British and Foreign Bible Society.
We read the following words in the Book of Deuteronomy chapter xviii. verse
18: "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee;
and I will put my words in his mouth." If these words do not apply to Prophet
Muhammad, they still remain unfulfilled. Prophet Jesus himself never claimed
to be the Prophet alluded to. Even his disciples were of the same opinion: they
looked to the second coming of Jesus for the fulfillment of the prophecy. So far
it is undisputed that the first coming of Jesus was not the advent of the
"prophet like unto thee," and his second advent can hardly fulfill the words.

Jesus, as is believed by his Church, will appear as a Judge and not as a lawgiver; but the promised one has to come with a "fiery law" in "his right hand."
In ascertaining the personality of the promised prophet the other prophecy of
Moses is, however, very helpful where it speaks of the shining forth of God
from Paran, the mountain of Mecca. The words in the Book of Deuteronomy,
chapter xxxiii. verse 2, run as follows: "The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up
from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten
thousands of saints; from his right hand went a fiery law for them."
In these words the Lord has been compared with the sun. He comes from Sinai,
he rises from Seir, but he shines in his full glory from Paran, where he had to
appear with ten thousands of saints with a fiery law in his right hand. None of
the Israelites, including Jesus, had anything to do with Paran. Hagar, with her
son Ishmael, wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba, who afterwards dwelt
in the wilder- ness of Paran (Gen. xxi. 21). He married an Egyptian woman, and
through his first-born, Kedar, gave descent to the Arabs who from that time till
now are the dwellers of the wilderness of Paran. And if Prophet Muhammad
admittedly on all hands traces his descent to Ishmael through Kedar and he
appeared as a prophet in the wilderness of Paran and re- entered Mecca with
ten thousand saints and gave a fiery law to his people, is not the prophecy
above-mentioned fulfilled to its very letter?
The words of the prophecy in Habakkuk are especially noteworthy. His (the
Holy One from Paran) glory covered the heavens and the earth was full of his
praise. The word "praise" is very significant, as the very name Muhammad
literally means "the praised one." Besides the Arabs, the inhabitants of the
wilderness of Paran had also been promised a Revelation: "Let the wilderness
and the cities thereof lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar doth inhabit: let
the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains.
Let them give glory unto the Lord, and declare His praise in the islands.
The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of
war, he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies" (Isaiah).
In connection with it there are two other prophecies worthy of note where
references have been made to Kedar. The one runs thus in chapter ix. of Isaiah:

"Arise, shine for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee
... The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and
Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come All the flocks of Kedar shall be
gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee:
they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house
of my glory" (1-7).
The other prophecy is again in Isaiah "The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in
Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim. The inhabitants of
the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with
their bread him that fled. For they fled from the swords and from the bent
bow, and from the grievousness of war. For thus hath the Lord said unto me,
Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar
shall fail: And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty of the children
of Kedar, shall be diminished" Read these prophecies in Isaiah in the light of
one in Deuteronomy which speaks of the shining forth of God from Paran. If
Ishmael inhabited the wilderness of Paran, where he gave birth to Kedar, who
is the ancestor of the Arabs; and if the sons of Kedar had to receive revelation
from God; if the flocks of Kedar had to come up with acceptance to a Divine
altar to glorify "the house of my glory" where the darkness had to cover the
earth for some centuries, and then that very land had to receive light from
God; and if all the glory of Kedar had to fail and the number of archers, the
mighty men of the children of Kedar, had to diminish within a year after the
one fled from the swords and from the bent bows - the Holy One from Paran
(Habakkuk iii 3 ) is no one else than Prophet Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad
is the holy offspring of Ishmael through Kedar, who settled in the wilderness of
Paran. Muhammad is the only Prophet through whom the Arabs received
revelation at the time when the darkness had covered the earth. Through him
God shone from Paran, and Mecca is the only place where the House of God is
glorified and the flocks of Kedar come with acceptance on its altar. Prophet
Muhammad was persecuted by his people and had to leave Mecca. He was
thirsty and fled from the drawn sword and the bent bow, and within a year
after his flight the descendants of Kedar meet him at Badr, the place of the first
battle between the Meccans and the Prophet, the children of Kedar and their
number of archers diminish and all the glory of Kedar fails. If the Holy Prophet

is not to be accepted as the fulfillment of all these prophecies they will still
remain unfulfilled. "The house of my glory" referred to in Isaiah lX is the house
of God in Mecca and not the Church of Christ as thought by Christian
commentators. The flocks of Kedar, as mentioned in verse 7, have never come
to the Church of Christ; and it is a fact that the villages of Kedar and their
inhabitants are the only people in the whole world who have remained
impenetrable to any influence of the Church of Christ. Again, the mention of
10,000 saints in Deuteronomy xxx 3 is very significant. He (God) shined forth
from Paran, and he came with 10,000 of saints.
Read the whole history of the wilderness of Paran and you will find no other
event but when Mecca was conquered by the Prophet. He comes with 10,000
followers from Medina and re-enters "the house of my glory." He gives the
fiery law to the world, which reduced to ashes all other laws. The Comforter the Spirit of Truth - spoken of by Prophet Jesus was no other than Prophet
Muhammad himself. It cannot be taken as the Holy Ghost, as the Church
theology says. "It is expedient for you that I go away," says Jesus, "for if I go
not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I will send him
unto you." The words clearly show that the Comforter had to come after the
departure of Jesus, and was not with him when he uttered these words. Are
we to presume that Jesus was devoid of the Holy Ghost if his coming was
conditional on the going of Jesus: besides, the way in which Jesus describes
him makes him a human being, not a ghost. "He shall not speak of himself, but
whatsoever he shall hear that he shall speak." Should we presume that the
Holy Ghost and God are two distinct entities and that the Holy Ghost speaks of
himself and also what he hears from God? The words of Jesus clearly refer to
some messenger from God. He calls him the Spirit of Truth, and so the Qur'an
speaks of Prophet Muhammad, "No, indeed, he has brought the truth, and
confirmed the Messengers." (Ch.37:37)
David Benjamin Keldani
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
David Benjamin Keldani or Dawud Benyamin (1867-c.1940) was a
Catholic priest who converted to Islam and adopted the name Abd ulAad Dwd (Arabic: ).

Contents
[hide]

1 Name
2 Life
o 2.1 Christian period
o 2.2 Islamic period
3 Quote
4 Bibliography
5 References
[edit]Name
He was baptized as David (Dawid, Dawud), a name he retained after his
conversion to Islam. His family name "Benjamin" or "Benyamin" (Syriac)
was probably derived from his grandfather.
He was called "Keldani" (Chaldean in Turkish) following his conversion.
His adopted name Abdul-Ahad (servant of the One) emphasizes his antitrinitarian monotheism - a belief he reached prior to his conversion to
Islam.
[edit]Life
The main source about Benjamin is the autobiographical remarks in his
books. No other reliable references of his life and conversion to Islam
are available.[1]
[edit] Christian period
A Catholic of the Chaldean rite, David Benjamin received his education
in Urmia. He worked there from 1886 to 1889 as a teacher for schools
established by the Anglican mission. During this time he was ordained
deacon. He left Urmia in 1890 for England, and studied in Mill Hill at the
College for Foreign Missions (or "St. Joseph's College" established
by Herbert Vaughan (1832-1903). In 1892 Benjamin wrote a series of
articles for the English Catholic weekly magazine The Tabletand other
periodicals. After completing his studies at the seminary in Mill Hill, he
was sent to Rome in 1892 by Vaughan for further study. There he
pursued philosophical and theological studies at the Propaganda Fide
College, and in 1895 was ordained priest. In 1895 he was back

in Persia, joined the French Lazarist Mission at Urmia and published the
Mission's first Syriac periodical Qala-La-Shara (The Voice of Truth).
In 1898 Father Benjamin opened a school in his native village Digala (a
mile from Urmiah). He was sent the following year to take charge of the
diocese.
He retired to his small villa in the summer of 1900 where, for a month, he
spent his time in prayer and reading the Scriptures in their original
languages. He then resigned from his ecclesiastical position.
In 1903 he visited England again and joined the Unitarian community. A
year later he was sent by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association
for missionary work among his countrymen. On his way to Persia he
passed through Constantinople, and following several discussions with
Sheikhu 'I-Islam Jemalu 'd-Din Effendi and other 'ulama he converted to
Islam (1904).
[edit] Islamic period
Not much is known about David Benjamin life as a Muslim apart from his
work as an author. He wrote Muhammad in the Bible - originally
published in 1928 as a series of articles in the journal The Islamic
Review. He also wrote for the Turkish paper the Aqsham in 1922 or
1923 Prophet Muhammad Is the Son-of-Man.[2]
The book, which has been translated into German by Asan Gnter
Nyadayisenga, asserts that many biblical prophecies - understood by
Christians to refer to Jesus - point in fact to Muhammad. The Kingdom of
God announced by Jesus is the establishment of God's rule on earth
through Islam. The Paraclete foretold by Jesus - he argues - is
Periqlytos, meaning Ahmad.[3]
In his book he explains his reason to conversion as follows:
My conversion to Islam cannot be attributed to any cause other than the
gracious direction of the Almighty Allah. Without this Divine guidance all
learning, search and other efforts to find the Truth may even lead one
astray. The moment I believed in the Absolute Unity of God, His holy
Apostle Muhammad became the pattern of my conduct and behavior. [4]
[edit]Quote
I must remind the Christians that unless they believe in the absolute
unity of God, and renounce the belief in the three persons, they are

certainly unbelievers in the true God ... The Old Testament and the
Qur'an condemn the doctrine of three persons in God; the New
Testament does not expressly hold or defend it, but even if it contains
hints and traces concerning the Trinity, it is no authority at all, because it
was neither seen nor written by Christ himself, nor in the language he
spoke, nor did it exist in its present form and contents for - at least - the
first two centuries after him.[5]
[edit]Bibliography

Articles by Benjamin David


Rev David Benjamin Keldani (Abdul Ahad Dawud, Muhammad in
World Scriptures[1] ISBN 983-9154-65-6

David Benjamin: Muhammad in der Bibel. Mnchen 1992. ISBN 3926575-00-X, - 2., neubearb. Aufl, SKD Bavaria, Mnchen
2002, ISBN 3-926575-90-5
Jean Maurice Fiey: Pour un Oriens Christianus Novus. Rpertoire
des diocses syriaques orientaux et occidentaux. Steiner, Stuttgart
1993. ISBN 3-515-05718-8
[edit]References

English biography
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

^ David Benjamin Keldani - A bishop converts to Islam?


^ The Son of Man, Who is He?
^ Periqlytos Means Ahmad
^ A Roman Catholic priest converts to Islam
^ Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D.

Categories:
Converts to Islam from Roman Catholicism
Iranian Roman Catholic priests
Chaldean Catholics
Persian-language writers
1867 births
1940 deaths
Description: A Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Caldean sect converts to

Islam.
By IPCI
Published on 14 Jan 2008 - Last modified on 17 Oct 2009
Viewed: 9980 (daily average: 6) - Rating: 3.7 out of 5 - Rated by: 15
Printed: 396 - Emailed: 11 - Commented on: 0
Category: Articles > Stories of New Muslims > Priests and Religious Figures
When asked how he came to Islam he wrote:
My conversion to Islam cannot be attributed to any cause other than the
gracious direction of the Almighty Allah. Without this Divine guidance all
learning, search and other efforts to find the Truth may even lead one
astray. The moment I belived in the Absolute Unity of God His Holy Apostle
Muhummed became the pattern of my conduct and behvior.
Abdu l-Ahad Dwd is the former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a
Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect. He was born in 1867 at
Urmia in Persia; educated from his early infancy in that town. From 1886-89
(three years) he was on the teaching staff of the Archbishop of Canterburys
Mission to the Assyrian (Nestorian) Christians at Urmia. In 1892 he was sent
by Cardinal Vaughan to Rome, where he underwent a course of philosophical
and theological studies at the Propaganda Fide College, and in 1895 was
ordained Priest. During that time he contributed a series of articels to The
Tablet on Assyria, Rome and Canterbury; and also to the Irish Record on the
Authenticity of the Pentateuch. He had several translations of the Ave Maria
in different languages, published in the Illustrated Catholic Missions. While in
Constantinople on his way to Persia in 1895, he contributed a long series of
articles in English and French to the daily paper, published there under the
name of The Levant Herald, on Eastern Churches. In 1895 he joined the
French Lazarist Mission at Urmia, and published for the first time in the history
of that Mission a periodical in the vernacular Syriac called Qala-La Shr,
i.e. The Voice of Truth. In 1897 he was delegated by two Uniate-Chaldean
Archbishops of Urmia and of Salmas to represent the Eastern Catholics at the
Eucharistic Congress held at Paray-le-Monial in France under the presidency of
Cardinal Perraud. This was, of course, on official invitation. The paper read at
the Congress by Father Benjamin was published in the Annals of the
Eucharistic Congress, called Le Pelirin of that year. In this paper, the
Chaldean Arch-Priest (that being his official title) deplored the Catholic system
of education among the Nestorians, and foretold the imminent appearance of
the Russian priests in Urmia.
In 1898 Father Benjamin was back again in Persia. In his native vilage,
Digala, about a mile from the town, he opened a school gratis. The next year
he was sent by the Ecclesiastical authorities to take charge of the diocese of

Salmas, where a sharp and scandalous conflict between the Uniate Archbishop,
Khudabsh, and the Lazarist Fathers for a long time had been menacing a
schism. On the day of New Year 1900, Father Benjamin preached his last and
memorable sermon to a large congregation, including many non-Catholic
Armenians and others in the Cathedral of St. Georges Khorovbd,
Salmas. The preachers subject was New Century and New Men. He
recalled the fact that the Nestorian Missionaries, before the apperance of Islam,
had preached the Gospel in all Asia; that they had numerous establishments in
India (especially at the Malbar Coast), in Tartary, China and Mongolia; and
that they translated the Gospel to the Turkish Uighurs and into other languages;
that the Catholic, American and Anglican Missions, in spite of the little good
they had done to the Assyro-Chaldean nation in the way of preliminary
education, had split the nation - already a handful - in Persia, Kurdistan and
Mesopotamia into numerous hostile sects; and that their efforts were destined
to bring about the final collapse. Consequently he advised the natives to make
some sacrifices in order to stand upon their own legs like men, and not to
depend upon the foreign missions, etc.
Five big and ostentatious missions - Americans, Anglicans, French,
Germans and Russians - with their colleges, Press backed up by rich religious
societies, Consuls and Ambassadors were endeavoring to convert about one
hundred thousand Assyro-Chaldeans from Nestorian heresy unto one or
another of the five heresies. But the Russian Mission soon outstripped the
others, and it was this mission which in 1915 pushed or forced the Assyrians of
Persia, as well as the mountaineer tribes of Kurdistan, who had then
immigrated into the plains of Salmas and Urmia, to take up arms against their
respective Governments. The result was that half of his people perished in the
war and the rest expelled from their native lands.
The great question which for a long time had been working its solution in
the mind of this priest was now approaching its climax. Was Christianity, with
all its multitudinous shapes and colors, and with its unauthentic, spurious and
corrupted Scriptures, the true Religion of God? In the summer of 1900 he
retired to his small villa in the middle of vineyards near the celebrated fountain
of Chli-Boulaghi in Digala, and there for a month spent his time in prayer and
meditation, reading over and over the Scriptures in their original texts. The
crisis ended in a formal resignation sent in to the Uniate Archbishop of Urmia,
in which he frankly explained to Mar (Mgr.) Touma Audu the reasons for
abandoning his sacerdotal functions. All attempts made by the ecclesiastical
authorities to withdraw his decision were of no avail. There was no personal
quarrel or dispute between Father Benjamin and his superiors; it was all
question of conscience.
For several months Mr. Dwd - as he was now called - was employed in

Tabriz as Inspector in the Persian Service of Posts and Customs under the
Belgian experts. Then he was taken into the service of the Crown Prince
Muhummed Al Mirs as teacher and translator. It was in 1903 that he again
visited England and there joined the Unitarian Community. And in 1904 he
was sent by the British and Foreign Unitarian Association to carry on an
educational and enlightening work among his country people. On his way to
Persia he visited Constantinople; and after several interviews with Sheikhu lIslm Jemlu d-Dn Effendi and other Ulmas, he embraced Islam.