"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 (Yahya); 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 Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (Jesus) and his
disciples also used to baptize with water simultaneously with
John the Baptist (Yahya) is an abrogation de facto of the parenthetical note that "Easa (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 Easa (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, Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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 "al-Ma'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 Easa (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 Easa (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. John-Baptist." 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 Easa (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 (Yahya)
and his followers, including Easa (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 Easa (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
Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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. Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (Jesus) Christ practiced the
baptismal ritual of Prophet John the Baptist (Yahya). 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 Easa (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 (Yahya) 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 Easa (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, Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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
Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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
Easa (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.
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.
