|
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 un-
borrowed researches in the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures. I do
not, however, assume an authoritative attitude in expound-
ing 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 Chris- tians 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.
II.
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 con-
scientious 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
abso- lutely 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
mani- festations 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 belong- ing to his class.
To
make it more clear, a divine attribute is an emana- tion
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, inas-
much 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
emana- tion of the "aql awwal", namely, the
"first intelligence." Then the
"nafs-kull", 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 consi- dered 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
ima- gine 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, other- wise 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
at- tribute 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 un- created. 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 as- sumed 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 be-
ginning 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 'I-Kitibo 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
lite- rature 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: Bis- millahi 'r-Rahmani
'r-Rahim; that is: "In the Name of 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,
quan- tities 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 pro-
cess; 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 coun-
tenance 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 main- tained
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 mani-
fested 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 pro-
phets 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 pro- phet 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
destruc- tion 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
Cons- tantine 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.
I
"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 Ben-
jamin 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 predic- tion in
the word Himda. Indeed, here is a wonderful pro- phecy
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 pro- phecy,
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, sub-
mission, and resignation.
This
being made clear, I propose to give a short exposi- tion
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:-
-
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.
-
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 "cupi- ditas" 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.
-
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 end- ing 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.
-
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).
|
