In my previous article I showed that "the Son of Man" foretold in the Jewish Apocalypses was not Jesus Christ, and that Jesus never assumed that appellation for himself, for thus he would have made himself ridiculous in the eyes of his audience.

There were only two courses open to him: either to denounce the Messianic prophecies and the Apocalyptical visions about the Barnasha a forgeries and legends, or to confirm them and at the same time to fill, if he were that lofty personage, the office of the "Son of Man." To say: "The Son of Man came to serve and not to be served," or "The Son of Man shall be delivered unto the hands of the Chief Priests and the Scribes" or "The Son of Man came eating and drinking [wine] with th sinners and the publicans, and at the same time to confess that he was a beggar living on the charity and hospitality of othrers, was to insult his nation and its nation and its holiest religious sentiments! To boast that he was the Son of Man and had come to save and recover the lost sheep of Israel, but had to leave this salvation to the Last Judgement, and even then to be cast into the eternal flames, was to frustrate all the hopes of that persecuted people, who alone in all mankind had the honour of being the only nation that professed the faith and religion of the true God; and it was to scorn their prophets and Apocalypses.

Could Jesus Christ assume that title? Are the authors of the four Gospels Hebrews? Could Jesus conscientiously believe himself to be what these spurious Gospels allege? Could a Jew conscientiously write such stories, which are purposely written to disconcert and foil the expectation of that people? Of course, other than a negative answer cannot be expected from me to these questions. Neither Jesus nor his apostles would ever use such an extravagant title among a people already familiar with the legitimate owner of that surname. It would be analogous to putting the crown of the king upon the head of his ambassador, the latter having no army to proclaim him king. It would be simply an insane usurpation of the rights and privileges of the legitimate Son of Man. Consequently; such an unjustifiable usurpation on the part of Jesus would be equivalent to the assumption of the epithet of "the pseudo Son of Man" and of the Antichrist! The very imagination of a similar act of audacity on the part of the Holy Christ Jesus makes my whole nature revolt. The more I read these Gospels the more I become convinced to believe that they are a production - at least in their present shape and contents - of authors other than the Jews. These Gospels are counterpoise to the Jewish Revelations - particularly as a counter-project against the Sibyllian Books. This could only be done by Greek Christians who had no interest in the claims of the children of Abraham. The author of the Sibyllian Books places side by side with the Jewish prophets Enoch, Solomon, Daniel, and Ezra, the names of the Greek sages Hermes, Homer, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and others, evidently with the object of making propaganda for the Hebrew religion. These books were written when Jerusalem and the Temple were in ruins, some time before or after the publication of St. John's Apocalypse. The purport of the Sibyllian Revelation is that the Hebrew Son of Man or the Messiah will come to destroy the power of Rome and to establish the religion of the true God for all men.

We can produce many sound arguments to prove the identity of "the Son of Man" with Muhammad only, and shall divide these arguments as follows:

ARGUMENTS FROM THE GOSPELS, AND FROM

THE APOCALYPSES

In the most coherent and significant passages in the discourses of Jesus where the appellation "Barnasha" - or "the Son of Man" - appears, only Muhammad is intended, and in him lone the prediction contained therein is literally fulfilled. In some passages wherein Jesus is supposed to have assumed that title for himself, that passage becomes incoherent, senseless, and extremely obscure. Take for instance the following passages: "The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, Behold...." John-Baptist was a teetotaller, he fed himself only on water, locusts, and wild honey; they said he was a demoniac; but "the Son of Man," id est Jesus (?), who ate and drank wine, was branded as "the friend of publicans and sinners"! To blame a prophet for his fastings and abstinence is a sin of infidelity or of gross ignorance. But to reproach a person who claims to be a Messenger of God of frequenting the banquets of publicans and sinners, and for being fond of wine, is quite natural and a very serious charge against the sincerity of that person who pretends to be a spiritual guide of men. Can we Muslims believe in the sencerity of a Khwaja or Mullah when we see him mixing with drunkards and prostitutes? Could the Christians bear with a curate or parson of a similar conduct? Certainly not. A spiritual guide may have intercourse with all sorts of sinners in order to convert and reform them, providing that he is sober, anstemious, and sincere. According to the quotation just mentioned, Christ admits that his behaviour had scandalized the religious leaders of his nation. True, the officers of the Customhouse, called "publicans," were hated by the Jews simply because of their office. We are told only two "publicans" and one "harlot" and one "possessed" woman were branded with curses and anathemas. All this looks awkward and incredible. The idea or thought that a Holy Prophet, so chaste and sinless like Jesus, was fond of wine, that he changes six barrels of water into a most intoxicating wine in order to render crazy a large company of guests already tipsy in the wedding-hall at Cana, is practically to depict him an impostor and sorcerer! Think of a miracle performed by a thaumaturge before a rabble of drunkards! To describe Jesus as a drunkard, and gluttonous, and a friend of the ungodly, and then to give the title of "the Son of man" is to deny all the Jewish Revelations and religion.

Again, Jesus is reported to have said that "The Son of Man came to seek and recover that which was lost." The commentators of course interpret this passage in a spiritual sense only. Well, it is the mission and the office of every prophet and the preacher of the religion to call the sinners to repent of their inquity and wickedness. We quite admit that Jesus was sent only to the "lost sheep of Israel," to reform and convert them from their sins; and especially to teach them more plainly concerning "the Son of Man" who was to come with power and salvation to restore that was lost and to reconstruct what was ruined; nay, to conquer and destroy the enemies of the true believers. Jesus could not assume for himself that Apocalyptic title 'the Barnasha," and then not be able to save his people except Zacchaeus, a Samaritan woman, and a few other Jews, including the Apostles, who were mostly slain afterwards on his account. Most probably what Jesus said was: "The Son of Man will come to seek and recover what is lost." For in Muhammad alone the believing Jews as well as the Arabs and other believers found all that was irremediably lost and destroyed - Jerusalem and Mecca, all the promised territories; many truths concerning the true religion; the power and kingdom of God; the peace and blessing that Islam confers in this world and in the next.

We cannot afford space for further quotations of the numerous passages in which "the Son of Man" occurs as either the subject or the object or the predicate of the sentence. But one more quotation will suffice, namely: "The Son of Man shall be delivered unto the hands of men," etc., and all the passages where he is made the subject of passion and death. Such utterances are put into the mouth of Jesus by some fraudulent non-Hebrew writer with the object of perverting the truth concerning "the Son of Man" as understood and believe by the Jews, and of making them believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Apocalyptical triumphant Saviour, but he would only appear on the Day of the Last Judgment. It was a policy and a cunning propaganda of dissuasion, and then of persuasion, made purposely for the Jews. But the fraud was discovered, and the Jewish Christians belong to the Church, which held these Gospels to be divinely revealed. For nothing could be more repugnant to Jewish national aspiration and religious sentiment than to present to them the expected Messiah, the great Barnasha, in the person of Jesus whom he Chief Priests and the Elders condemned to be crucified as a seducer! It is quite evident, therefore, that Jesus never appropriated the title of "the Son of Man;" but he reserved it only for Muhammad. Here are a few of the arguments:

(a) The Jewish Apocalypses ascribe the titles "the messiah" and "the Son of Man" exclusively to the Last prophet, who will fight with the powers of Darkness and vanquish them, and then will establish the Kingdom of Peace and of Light on earth. Thus the two titles are synonymous; to disown either of them is to disown altogether the claim to being the Last prophet. Now we read in the Synonymous; to disown either of them is to disown altogether the claim to being the Last Prophet. Now we read in the Synoptics that Jesus categorically denied his being the Christ and forbade his disciples to declare him "the Messiah"! It is reported that Simon peter, in reply to the question put by Jesus: "Whom say you that I am?" said: "Thou art the Christ [Messiah] of God." Then Christ commanded his disciples not to say to anybody that he is the Christ. St. Mark and St. Luke know nothing about the "power of the keys" given to peter; they, not being there, had not heard of it. John has not a word about this messianic conversation; probably he had forgotten it! St. Matthew reports that when Jesus told them not to say that he was the Christ he explained to them how he would be delivered and killed. Thereupon Peter began to reprove and admonish him not to repeat the same words about his passion and death. According to this story of St. Matthew, peter was perfectly reight when he said: "Master, be it far from thee!" If it be true that his confession, "Thou art the Messiah," pleased Jesus, then to declare that "the Son of man" was t osuffer the ignominous death upon the Cross was neither more nor less than a flate denial of his Messianic character. But Jesus became more positive and indignantly scolded Peter, saying: "Get thee behind me, Satan!" What follows this sharp rebuke are most explicit words of the Master, leaving not a modicum of doubt that he was not "the Messiah" or "the Son of Man." How to reconcile the "faith" of Peter, recompensed with the glorious title of "Sapha" and the power of the keys of Heaven and of Hell, with he "infidelity" of Peter punished with the opprobrious epithet of "Satan," within half an hour's time or so? Several reflections present themselves to my mind, and I feel it my bounden duty to put them in black and white. If Jesus were "the Son of Man" or "the Messiah" as seen and foretold by Daniel, Ezra, Enoch, and the other Jewish prophets and divines, he would have authorized his disciples to proclaim and acclaim him as such; and he himself would have supported them. The fact is that he acted the very reverse. Again, if he were the Messiah, or the Barnasha, he would have at once struck his enemies with terror, and by the aid of his invisible angels destroyed the Roman and Persian powers, then dominant over the civilized world. But he did nothing of the sort; or, like Muhammad, he would have recruited some valiant warriors like 'Ali, Omar, Khalid, etc., and not like Zebedees and Jonahs, who vanished, like a frightened spectre when the Roman police came to arrest them.

There are two irreconcilable statements made by Mathew (or corruptd by his interpolator), which logically destroy each other. Within an hour Peter is "the Rock of Faith," as Catholicism will boast, and, 'the Satan of Infidelity," as Protestanism will scout him! Why so? Because when he believed Jesus to be the Messiah he was rewarded; but when he refused to admit that his master was not the Messiah he was convicted! There are not two "Sons of Man," the one to be the Commander of the Faithful, fight sword in hand the wars of God, and uproot idolatry and its empires and kingdoms; the other to be an Abbot of the poor Anchorites on the summit of Clavary, fight the wars of God cross in hand, and be martyred ignominously by idolatrous Romans and unbelieving Jewish Pontiffs and Rabbis! "The Son of Man," whose hands were seen under the wings of the Cherubs by the Prophet Ezekiel (ii), and before the throne of the Almighty by the Prophet Daniel (iiv), and described in the other Jewish Apocalypses, was not predestined to be hanged upon Golgotha, but to transform the thrones of the pagan kings into their own crosses; to change their palaces into calvaries, and to make sepulchres of their capital cities. Not Jesus, but Muhammad, had the honour of this title, "the Son of Man"! The facts are more eloquent than even the Apocalypses and the visions. The material and moral conquests achieved by Muhammad the Holy Apostle of Allah over the enemy are unrivalled.

(b) "The son of Man" is called by Jeses "the Lord of the Sabbath day." This is very remarkable indeed. The sanctity of the seventh day is the theme of the Law of Moses. God accomplished the work of creation in six days, and on the seventh He rested from all work. Men and women, children and slaves, even the domestic animals were to repose from all labour under the pain of death. The Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue orders the people of Israel: "Thou shalt remember the Sabbath day to sanctify it." The students of the Bible know how jealous God is reported to be concerning the strict observation of the Day of Rest. Before Moses there was no special law about this; and the nomad Patriarchs do not seem to have observed it. It is very likely that the Jewish Sabbath had its origin in the Babylonian Sabattu.

The Qur-an repudiates the Jewish anthropomorphous conception of the Deity, for it means to say, as if like man, God laboured six days, got fatigued, reposed and slumbered. The sacred verse of the Qur-an thus runs: "And verily We have created the heavens and the earth, and whatever is between them in six days; and no weariness affectes Us"(1. 38).

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

Now if Jesus were the Lord of the Sabbath day he would have certainly either modified its rigorous law or entirely abolished it. He did neither the one nor the other. The Jews who heard him understood perfectly well that he referred to the expected Messiah as the Lord of the Sabbath, and that is why they kept their silence. The Redactor of the Synoptics, here as everywhere, has suppressed some of the words of Jesus whenever "the Son of Man" forms the subject of his discourse, and this suppression is the cause of all these ambiguities, contradictions, and misunderstandings. Unless we tke the Holy Qur-an as our guide, and the Apostle of Allah as the object of the Bible, all attempts to find the truth and to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion will end in failure. The Higher Biblical Criticism will guide you as far as the gate of the sacred shrine of truth, and there it stops, stricken with awe and incredulity. It does not open the door to enter inside the search for the eternal documents therein deposited. All research nd erudition shown by these "impartial" critics, whether Liberal Thinkers, Rationalists, or indifferent writers, are, after all, deplorably cold, sceptical, and disappointing. Lately I was reading the works of the French savant Ernest Renan, La vie de Jesus, Saint Paul, and L' Antichrist. I was astonished at the extent of works, ancient and modern, which he has examined; he reminded me of Gibbon and others. But, alas, what is the conclusion of their inexhaustible research and study? Zero or negation! In he domain of science the marvels of Nature are discovered by the Positivists; but in the domain of Religion these Positivists make hay of it and poison the religious sentiments of their readers. If these learned critics were to take the spirit of the Qur-an for their guidance and Muhammad as the literal, moral, and practical fulfilment of Holy Writ, their research could not be so desultory and destructive. Religious men want a real and not an ideal religion; they want a "Son of Man" who will draw his sword and march at the head of his valiant army to pulverize the enemies of God and to prove by word and deed that he is the "Lord of the Sabbath day," and to abrogate it altogether because it was abused by the Jews as the "Fatherhood" of God was abused by the Christians. Muhammad did this! As I have often repeated in these pages, we can only understand these corrupted scriptures when we penetrate, with the help of the light of Al-Aur-an, into their enigmatic and contradictory statements, and it is only then that we can sift them with the sieve of truthfulness and separate the genuine from the spurious. When, for example, speaking about the priests continually dissolving the Sabbath in the Temple, Jesus is reported to have said: "Behold, here is one that is greater than the Temple." I can guess of no sense in the existence of the adverb "here" in this clause, unless we supply and attach to it an additional "t," and make it read "there." For, if Jesus or any other prophet before him should have had the audacity of declaring himself "greater" than the Temple," he would have been instantly lynched or stoned by the Jews as a "blasphemer," unless he could prove himself to be the Son of Man, invested with power and greatness, as the Apostle of Allah was.

The abrogation of Saturday by the prince of the prophets - Muhammad - is hinted at in the LXII Sura of the Qur-an entitled "Al-Jumu'a" from the Aramaic "arabh" - "to set down (the sun)." It was so called because after the setting of the sun on Friday the Sabbath day commenced. The reason given for the sacred character of Saturday is that on that day God "rested" from His work of creation. But the reason for the choice of Friday, as it can easily be understood, is of a double nature. First, because on this day the great work of the creation or of the universal formation of all the innumerable worlds, beings and things visible and invisible, planets, and microbes was completed. This was the first event that interrupted eternity, when time, space, and matter came into being. The commemoration, the anniversary, and the sanctity of such a prodigious event on the day on which it was achieved is just, reasonable, and even necessary. The second reason is that on this day prayers and worship are conducted by the faithful unanimously, and for this reason it is called the "jumu'a," that is to say, the congregation or assembly; the divine verse on this subject characterizes the nature of our obligation on Friday as: "O true believers! When ye are called to prayer on Friday, hasten to the remembrance of God and leave merchandise," etc.

The faithful are called to join in the divine service together in a house dedicated to the worship of God, and to leave off at that time any lucrative work; but after the congregational prayers are over they are not forbidden to resume their usual occupations. A true Muslim within twenty-four hours worships his Creator five times in prayer and devotion.

(c) We have already made a few remarks on the passage in St. Matthew (xviii. 11) where the mission of the "Son of Man" is "to seek and recover what was lost." This is another important prediction - though undoubtedly corrupted in form - about Muhammad, or the Apocalyptical Barnasha. These "lost things" which the Barnasha would seek and restore are of two categories, religious and national. Let us examine them in detail:

(1) The mission of the Barnasha was to restore the purity and the universality of the religion of Abraham, which was lost. All the peoples and tribes descended from that patriarch of the believers were to be brought into the fold of the "Religion of Peace," which is no other than the "Dina da-Shlama," or the Religion of Islam. The religion of Moses was national and particular, nad therefore its herediatary priesthood, its Levitical sacrifices and pompous rituals, its Sabbaths, jubilees, and festivals, and all its laws and corrupted scriptures would be abolished and substituted by new ones having a universal character, force, and durability. Jesus was a Jew; he could not have accomplished such a gigantic and stupendous undertaking because it was materially impossible for him to do it. "I came not to change the law or the prophets," said he. On the other hand, the rank idolatry, with all its abominable pagan practices, superstition, and sorcery, to which the Arab nationalities were addicted, had entirely to be wiped out, and the unity of the Deity and of religion to be restored under the flag of the Apostle of Allah bearing the Holy Inscription: "I bear witness that there is no object of Worship beside God; and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Apostle of God."

(2) The unification of the nations descended from Abraham, and their dependencies were to be restored and accomplished. Of the many corrupted, selfish, and unjustifiable silly notions the Hebrew Scriptures contain there is the indiscriminate bias they entertain against the non-Israelite nations. They never honour the other descendants of their great progenitor Abraham; and this antipathy is shown against the Ishmaelites, Edomites, and other Abrahamite tribes even when Israel had become the worst idolator and heathen. The fact that besides Abraham and Ishmael about three hundred and eleven male slaves and warriors in his service were circumcised is an incalculably forcible argument against the Jewish attitude towards their cousin nationalities. The kingdom of David hardly extended its frontiers beyond the territory, which in the Ottoman Empier formed only two adjacent "Vilayets," or Provinces. And the "Son of David," whom the Jews anticipate to come with the attribute of the "final Messiah," may or may not be able to occupy even those two provinces; and besides, when will he come? He was to have come to destroy the Roman "Beast." That "Beast" was only mutilated and slaughtered by Muhammad! What else is expected? When Muhammad, the Apocalyptic Barnasha, founded the Kingdom of peace (Islam), the majority of the Jews in Arabia, Syria, Mesopotamia, etc., voluntarily rushed to the greatest shepherd of mankind when he appeared with the terrific blows which he struck at the "Brute" of paganism. Muhammad founded a universal Brotherhood, the nucleus of which is certainly the family of Abraham, including among its members the Persians, the Turks, the Chinese, the Negroes, the Javanese, the Indians, the Englishmen, etc., all forming one "ummat" (Arabic) or "Umtha da-Shlama," i.e. the Islamic Nation!

(3) Then the recovery of the promised lands, including the land of Canaan and all the territories from the Nile to the Euphrates, and gradually the extension of the Kingdom of Allah from the Pacific Ocean to the eastern shores of the Atlantic, is a marvellous fulfilment of all the prophecies about the Holiest and the Greatest of the Sons of Man!

Considering the stupendous work accomplished by Muhammad for the One True God, the brief time spent by him and his brave and devoted companions in its accomplishment, and the ineffaceable effects that the work and the religion of Muhammad have left upon all the kingdoms and the thinkers of mankind, one is at a loss to know what tribute to pay to this prophet of Arabia, except the wish to behold him shining in redoubled glory before the Throne of the Eternal as Daniel saw in his vision!

THE SON OF MAN ACCORDING TO THE

JEWISH APOCALYPSES

From what has been already discussed in these pages it will have been that the appellation "Barnasha," or "the Son of Man," is not a title like "Messiah," that could be applied to every prophet, highpriest, and legally anointed king; but that it is a proper noun, belonging exclusively to the Last prophet. The Hebrew Seers, Sophees, and the Apocalyptists describe the Son of Man, who is to come in due time as appointed by the Almighty to deliver Israel and Jerusalem from the heathenish oppression and to establish the permanent kingdom for "the People of the Saints of the Most High." The Seers, the Sophees, foretell the advent of the Powerful Deliver; they see him - only in vision, revelation, and faith - with all his might and glory. No Prophet or Sophee ever said that he himself was "the Son of Man," and that the quick and the dead," as the Nicene Creed puts it on the pretended authority of the Sayings of Jesus Christ.

The frequent use of the appellation in question by the evangelists indicates, most assuredly, their acquaintance with the Jewish Apocalypses, as also a firm belief in their authenticity and divine origin. It is quite evident that the Apocalypses bearing the names of Enoch, Moses, Baruch, and Ezra were written long before the Gospels; and that the name "Barnasha" therein mentioned was borrowed by the authors of the Gospels; otherwise its frequent use would be enigmatic and an incomprehensible - if not a meaningless - novelty. It follows, therefore, that Jesus either believed himself to be the Apocalyptic "Son of Man," or that he knew the Son of Man to be a person distinctly other than himself. If he believed himself to be the Son of Man, it would follow that either he or the Apocalyptists were in error; and in either case the argument goes most decidedly against Jesus Christ. For his error concerning his own personality and mission is as bad as the erroneous predictions of the Apocalyptists, whom he believed to be divinely inspired. Of course, this dilemmatic reasoning will lead us to a final conclusion unfavourable to himself. The only way to save Jesus from this dishonour is to look uop him as the Qur-an pictures him to us; and accordingly to attribute all the contradictory and incoherent statements about him in the Gospels to their authors or redactors.

Before discussing further the subject, "the Son of Man" as depicted in the Jewish Apocalypses, a few facts must be carefully taken into consideration. First, these Apocalypses not only do not belong to the canon of the Hebrew Bible, but also they are not even included among the Apocrypha or the so-called "Deutro-canonical" books of the Old Testament. Secondly, their authorship is not known. They bear the names of Enoch, Moses, Baruch, Ezra, but their real authors or editors seem to have known the final destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jews under the Romans. These pseudonyms were chosen, not for fraudulent purposes, but out of a pious motive by the Sophees or Seers who composed them. Did not Plato put his own views and dialectics into the mouth of his master, Socrates? Thirdly, "these books," in the words of the Grand Rabbin Paul Haguenaucr, "in an enigmatical, mystical, supernatural form, try to explain the secrets of the nature, the origin [sic] of God, the problems of good and evil, justiceand happiness, the past and the future. The Apocalypse makes upon all these questions some revelations, which surpass human understanding. Their principal personages are Enoch, Moses, Baruch, and Ezra. These writings are evidently the product of the painful and disastrous epochs of Judaism." Consequently they cannot be fully understood any more than the Apocalypse which bears the name of St. John the Apostle. Fourthly, these Apocalypses have been interpolated by the Christians. In the Book of Enoch "the Son of Man" is also called "the Son of Woman" and "the Son of God," thus inerpolating the Church theory of Incarnation; surely no Jewish Seer would werite "Son of God." Fifthly, it would be noticed that the Messianic doctrine is a later development of the old prophecies concerning the Last Apostle of Allah, as foretold by Jacob and other Prophets. It is only in the Apocrypha and the Apocalypses, and especially in the Rabbinical writings, that this "Last Deliverer" is claimed to descend from David. True, there are prophecies after the Babylonian captivity, and even after the deportation of the Ten Tribes into Assyria, about a "Son of David" who would come to gather together the dispersed Israel. But these predictions were fulfilled only partly under Zorobabel - a descendant of King David. Then after the Greek invasion the sme predictions were preached and announced, and we only see a Judah Maqbaya fighting with a slight success against Antiochus Epiphanes. Besides, this success was temporary and of no permanent value. The Apocalypses, which carry their visions down to the time after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and Vespasian, foretell "the Son of Man" who will appear with great power to destroy the Roman power and the other enemies of Israel. Twenty centuries had to elapse before the Rome Empire was destroyed in the fifth century A.D. by a Turkish Emperor, Atilla - a pagan Hun - and finally by a Muslim Turk, the Fatih Muhammad II. But that power was completely destroyed, and forever, in the lands promised to Ishmael by the Sultan of the prophets, Muhammad al-Mustapha.

There remain two other observations which I cannot ignore in this connection. If I was a most ardent Zionist, or a most learned Rabbi, I would once more study this Messianic question as profoundly and impartially as I could. And then I would vigorously exhort my co-religionist Jews to desist from and abandon this hope forever. Even if a "Son of David" should appear on the hill of Zion, blow the trumpet, and claim to be the "Messiah," I would be the first to tell him boldly: "Please, Sire! You are too late! Don't disturb the equilibrium in Palestine! Don't shed blood! Don't let your angels meddle with these formidable aeroplanes! Whatever be the successes of your ancestors David, Zorobabel, and Judah Maccabaeus (Maqbaya)!" The great Hebrew conqueror was not David but Jesus bar Nun (Joshuah); he was the first Messiah, who instead of converting the pagn tribes of the Canaan that had shown so much hospitality and goodness to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, mercilessly massacred them wholesale. And Joshuah was, of course, a Prophet and the Messiah of the time. Every Israelite Judge during a period of three centuries or more was a Messiah and Deliverer. Thus we find that during every national calamity, especially a catastrophe, a Messiah is predicted, and as a rule the deliverance is achieved always subsequent to the disaster and quite in an inadequate degree. It is a peculiar characteristic of the Jews that they alone of all the national aspire, through the miraculous conquests by a Son of David, after a universla domination of the inhabitants of the globe. Their slovenliness and inertia are quite compatible with their unshaking belief in the advent of the "Lion of Judah." And that is, perhaps the reason why they never attempt to concentrate all, their national resources, energy, and force and make a united effort to become a self-governing people.

Now to he Christians who claim Jesus to be the prophetical Son of Man, I would venture to say: If he were the expected Deliverer of Israel he would have delivered that people from the Roman yoke, no matter if the Jews had believed in him or not. Deliverance first, gratitude and loyalty after; and not vice versa. A man must first be liberated from the hands of his captors by killing or frightening them, and then be expected to show his permanent attachment and devotion tothe liberator. The Jews were not inmates of a hospital to be attended by physicians and nurses; they were practically prisoners in bonds and needed a hero to set them free. Their faith in God and in His Law was as perfect as was that of their ancestors at the foot of Mount Sinai when He delivered it to Moses. They were not in need of a thaumaturgical prophet; all their history was interwoven with wonders and miracles. The raising to life of dead Lazarus, the opening of the eyes of a blind Bartimaeus, or the cleansing of an outcaste leper, would neither strengthen their faith nor satiate their thirst for independence and liberty. The Jews rejected Jesus, not because he was not the Apocalyptic "Son of Man" or the Messiah - not because he was not a prophet, for they knew very well that he did not claim to be the former, and that he was a Prophet - but because they hated him for his words: Messiah was not the Son of David, but his Lord. This admission of the Synoptics confirms the statement in the Gospel of Barnabas, where Jesus is reported to have added that the Covenant will be fulfilled with the "Shiloah" - the Apostle of Allah - who will come from the family of Ishmael. For this reason the Talmudists describe Jesus as "the second Balaam" - that is, the Prophet who prophesies for the benefit of the heathen at the expense of the "chosen people".

It is quite clear, therefore, that the Jewish reception to, or their rejection of, Jesus was not the condition sine qua non to determine the nature of his mission. If he were the Final Deliverer he would have made the Jews submit to him, nolens volens, as Muhammad did. But the contrast between the circumstances, in which each of those two Prophets found himself, and their work, knows no dimensions and no limits. Suffice it to say that Muhammad converted about ten million pagan Arabs into most sincere and ardent believers in the true God, and utterly uprooted idolatry in the lands where it had struck root. This he did, because he held in one hand the Law and in the other the Sceptre; the one was the Holy Qur-an and the other the emblem of power and government. He was hated, despised, persecuted by the noblest Arab tribe to which he belonged, and forced to flee for his life; but by the power of Allah he accomplished the greatest work for cause of the true religion which no other prophet before him had ever been able to do.

I shall now proceed to show that the Apocalyptic Son of Man was no other than Muhammad al-Mustapha.

1. The most cogent and important proof that the Apocalyptic Barnasha is Muhammad is given in a wonderful description in the vision of Daniel (vii.) already discussed in a previous article. In no way whatever the Barnasha therein described can be identified with any of the Maccabees' heroes or with Jesus; nor can the terrible Beast which was utterly killed and destroyed by that Son of Man be a prototype of Antiochus Epiphanes or the Roman Caesar, Nero. The culminating evil of that dreadful Beast was the "Little Horn," which uttered blasphemies against the Most High by associating with His essence three co-eternal divine persons and by its persecution of those who maintained the absolute oneness of God. Constantine the Great is the person symbolized by that hideous Horn.

2. The Apocalypse of Enoch foretells the appearance of the Son of Man at a moment when the small flock of the sheep, though vigorously defended by a ram, will be fiercely attacked by the birds of prey from above and by the carnivorous beast on land. Among the enemies of the little flock are seen many other goats and sheep that had gone astray. The lord of the flock, like a good shepherd, suddenly appears and strikes the earth with his rod or sceptre; it onpens its mouth and swallows up the assailing enemy; chases and drives away from the pastures the rest of the pernicious birds and brutes. Then a sword is given to the flock as an emblem of power and the weapon of destruction. After which the flock is no longer headed by a ram but by a white bull with two large black horns.

This parabolical vision is transparent enough. From Jacob downward the "chosen people" is represented symbolically by the flock of sheep. The descendants of Esau are described as boars. Other heathen people and tribes are represented in the vision, according to their respective characteristics, all thirsty to suck the blood of the sheep or hungry to devour them. Almost all Biblical scholars agree that the vision indicates the painful period of the Maccabees and their bloody struggles with the armies of Antiochus Epiphanes until the death of John hurcanus in 110(?) B.C. This method of interpreting the vision is totally erroneous, and reduces the value of the whole book to nothing. That an antediluvian Propht or a Seer should illustrate the history of the human race from a religious point of view, beginning with Adam, under the symbol of a White Bull, and ending with John Hurcanus or his brother Judah Maccabaeus (Maqbaya) as the Last White Bull, and then leave the flock of the "Believers" to be devoured again by the Romans, the Christians, and the Muslims to this very day, is ridiculous and shocking! In fact, the wars of the Maccabees and their consequence are not of such great significnce in the history of the religion of God as to be the terminus of its development. None of the Maccabees was a Prophet, nor the founder of the so-called "Messianic reign" which the Gospels name he "Kingdom of God." Besides, this interpretaion of the vision is inconsistent with the characters represented in the drama under the figurative symbols of the master of the flock, sceptre in hand, the Ram, and the White Bull; and then with the large sword given to the shepherds with which they kill or drive away the impure animals and birds. Furthermore, this Christian interpretation of Enoch's Apocalypse does not explain the mystical transplantation or the transportation of the terrestrial Jerusalem into a country farther to the south; and what meaning can be given to the new House of God built on the spot of the old one, larger and higher than the former sacred edifice, to which flock not only the believing sheep - the faithful Jews - but also the various pagan nationalities that have embraced the religion of the Son of Man who destroyed the enemies with his Sceptre or Rod! For all these particular acts and representations are seen and described in this dramatic vision. The chain that links together the events depicted in this figurative language begins with Adam and ends in the person of the Prophet of Mecca! There are several cogent arguments to prove this assertion.

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

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

(c) The White Bull. Until Ishmael, all the Prophets are represented as white bulls; but from Jacob downward the princes of the chosen people appear in the form of rams. The universal religion had been reduced to a national one; and the Emperor had become a petty chief. Here is again another amazing fulfilment of the vision in the Mohammedan era. The leaders or the patriarchs of the ancient international religion are represented as white bulls, those of the Muslim Commanders of the Faithful also as white bulls, with the only distinction that the latter have large black horns, emblem of twofold power, spiritual and temporal. Among all clean quadrupeds there is nothing more beautiful and noble than the white bull, and more so especially when it is crowned with a pair of large black horns. It looks most majestic and full of grace! It is very remarkable that the Imam of the believers, whether a Khalipha or a Sultan, or possessing both titles, is distinguished and perceived day and night by the purity of his faith and actions and by the soligity of his power and majesty at the head of the vast and innumerable hosts of the faithful composed of all races and languages! The vision expressly avows the entrance and admission of the apostates and unbelievers into the flock. Jews - thousands of Jews - Christians, and Sabians, as well as millions of Arabs and other heathen nationalities believed in the oneness of Allah and embraced Islam. In this connection it is worthy of note that all the blood shed in the wars of Badr, Ohud, and other compaigns led personally by the Prophet Muhammad, could not exceed one-hundredth of the blood shed by Joshua. Yet not a single instance of cruelty or injustice can be proved against the Apostle of Allah. He was clement, noble, magnanimous, and forgiving. This is why he is alone among all the human race represented in all prophetical visions "the Son of Man," like the first man before his fall!

(d) The Son of Man founds the Kingdom of Peace, the capital of which is no longer the old Jerusalem, but the new Jerusalem - the "Daru 's-Salam," the "city or court of Peace." The Sophee or Seer in this wonderful vision narates how the terrestrial Jerusalem is lifted up and transplanted in a southern country; but a new Temple, larger and higher than the first one, is built upon the ruins of the old edifice! Gracious God! how wonderfully all this was accomplished by Thy most Illustrious and Holy Servant Muhammad! The new Jerusalem is none other than Mecca, for it is in a southern country, its two hills, the "Marwa" and "Sapha, bear the same names as those of Moriah and Zion, of the same root and signification but originally earlier. "Irushalem" or "Urshalem" of old becomes a city of "Light and Peace. It is for this reason, too, that Mecca as the seat of the sacred Ka'aba became the "Qibla" - the direction towards which the Muslims turn their faces at prayer. Here every year tens of thousands of pilgrim from all Muslim countries assemble, visit the Holy Ka'aba, offers sacrifices, and renew their fidelity to Allah and promoise to lead a new life worthy of a Musulman. Not only Mecca, but also Medina and the territory surrounding them have become sacred and inviolable, and forbidden to any non-Muslim man or woman! It was in fulfilment of his vision of Idris or Enoch, too, that the second Khalipha, Omar, rebuilt the Sacred Mosque at Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, on the spot of the Temple of Solomon! All these marvellously prove that the vision was seen by a Seer inspired by God, who saw the Muslim events in a far-distant future. Could Rome or Byzantium claim to be the New Jerusalem? Can the Pope or any schismatic Patriarch claim to be the Apocalyptic White Bull with two large horns? Can Christianity claim to be the Kingdom of Peace (Islam = "Shalom") while it makes Jesus and the Holy Ghost coeval and consubstantial with the Absolute one God? Most decidedly not.

(e) In those chapters dealing with the Kingdom of Peace, the Messiah is called Son of Man, but in the description of the Last judgement which follows at the end of this Reign of Islam or Peace he is called "Son of Woman" and Son of God," and made to share with God in the Judgement of the World. It is admitted by all scholars that these extravagant and foolish statements are not of Jewish origin but belong to the Christian imaginations, inserted and interpolated by them.

The other Apocalypses, those which bear the names of Moses, Baruch, Ezra, the Jubilees, and the Oracula Sibylliana, should be studied impartially, for it is then that they, like those of Daniel and Enoch, will not only be understood but also prove to be fulfilled in Muhammad and Islam.