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. 16-18). 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 confessional-boxes
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.
No Copyright:
Any
organisation or individual wishing to reprint or copy the contents of
this website
may do so as long as the information is kept in its original form,
names of
all authors and sources are kept intact and is used for non-malicious
purposes.
An acknowledgement would be HIGHLY appreciated.
