The Holy Qur'an (ch.61:6 ) declares that Easa (Jesus) announced
unto the people of Israel the coming of Ahmad:
"And when Easa (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
Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (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
Nazarenes (Christians) are, when they believe that Easa (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 Easa (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 Nazarenes (Christians). The expectation that Easa (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 Easa (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, Easa (Jesus),
and any other prophet, had ever accomplished.
We, of course, do not deny that the disciples of Prophet Easa (Jesus)
did receive the Spirit of God, that the true converts to the
faith of Easa (Jesus) were hallowed with the Holy Spirit, and that
there were numerous Unitarian Nazarenes (Christians) who led a saintly
and righteous life. On the day of the Pentecost - that is,
ten days after the Ascension of Easa (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.
Easa (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 Easa (Jesus) and after him the
Apostles were not authorized and empowered to accomplish,
as we shall see later.
(d) The early Nazarenes (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 Easa (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 Easa (Jesus), and had many followers. If there
were an authentic Gospel authorized by Easa (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 pseudo-Periqlyte that the early
Nazarenes (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.
Easa (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 Easa (Jesus) and of his mission (John
xiv. 17; xv. 26). In his discourses and orations Easa (Jesus)
speaks of the pre-existence of his own spirit (John viii. 58
xvii. 5, etc.). In the Gospel of Barnabas, Easa (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 Easa (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
Nazarenes (Christians) for dividing the Oneness of God into a trinity of
persons; for their having raised Easa (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 Nazarenes (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 Easa (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 Easa (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 Commander-in-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 Easa (Jesus) is obscure and
ambiguous. The return of Easa (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 Easa (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 (Easa (Jesus)) up to Him..."
(Qur'an Ch.4 v158). The same chastisement was inflicted
upon the Nazarenes (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 Easa (Jesus)).
Those who differ concerning him (Easa (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 Easa (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 Easa (Jesus) by Ahmad was to authoritatively
declare that he was "Ruhu 'l-Lah," 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 Easa (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, Easa (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.
Easa (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.
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.
