There are two very significant remarks about John the Baptist made by Jesus Christ, but recorded in a mysterious way. The first remark about the Baptist is that in, which John is presented to the world as the reincarnate Eliah (Elijah) the Old Testament. The mystery with which this appellation is enveloped consists in the significant silence of Christ about the identity of the person whom Eliah (not Elias) was expected to officially announce and introduce to the world s the Last prophet. The language of Jesus in this respect is exceedingly obscure, ambiguous, and mysterious. If John was Eliah, as is expressly and fearlessly declared, why, then, is the person whose precursor was Eliah not expressly and fearlessly mentioned? If Jesus were the "Messenger of the Covenant" and the Dominator [as the Vulgate translates the Hebrew Adon (Mal. iii. 1).], why does he not openly say so? If he courrageously declared that it was not he himself but another Prophet who was that "Dominator," it must, indeed, have been a criminal hand which erased and effaced the words of Jesus from the original Gospel. At all events, it is the Gospels that are responsible for this ambiguity and obscurity. It cannot but be described as diabolical tampering with the text that has misled billions of Christians for so many centuries. Jesus, whatever he believed he represented, ought to have, to say the least, shown himself straightforward, and to have frankly declared: "John is the Eliah who was sent as a precursor to prepare the way for me!" Or if such was not the case, then he could have made the following declaration: "John is the Eliah who was sent to prepare the way for Muhammad." Perhaps this is due to the love of Jesus for ambiguity. There are, in fact, several instances - as reported in the Gospels - where Jesus give an nswer or makes a statement which is obscure and entirely unintlligible. Leaving his godhead aside, as a Prophet, nay even as a teacher, he was expected to be a straightforward teacher and leader.

The other remark is shorouded in still a thicker mystery. "No man born of woman was ever greater than John the Baptist," says Jesus, "but the least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John." Does Jesus Christ mean to teach us that John the Baptist, all the Prophets, and the righteous men were outside the Kingdom of God? Who is the "least" that was "greater" than John, and consequently than all the people of God precedingthe Baptist? Does Jesus mean by the "least" himself, or the "least" among the baptized Christians? It cannot be himself, because in his time that Kingdom was not yet established on earth; if it be, then he could not be the "least" in it since he was its founder. The Churches - rather each Church, orthodox or heterodox, from its own peculiar point of view - have discovered a very abstruse or a very absurd solution for this problem; and that solution is that the "least" Christian washed with the blood of Jesus - either through the Sacrament of Baptism, according to the belief of the Sacerdotalists, or through the regeneration of some kind, according to the superstition of the Evangelicals - becomes "greater" than the Baptist and all the army of the holy men and women, including Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Eliah, Daniel, and John the Baptist! And the reason or proof of this marvellous claim is that the Christian, however, sinful, ingnorant, low, nd poor he may be, providing he has faith in Jesus as his Saviour, has the privileges which the holy Prophets coveted to have but did not enjoy. These privileges are innumerable; purification from original sin through the Christian Baptism; the knowledge of the "Holy Trinity" (! hasha! astaghfiru 'llah! - Allah forbid and pardon this term); the feedingupon the flesh and the blood of Jesus in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; the grace of making the sign of a cross; the privilege of the keys of Heaven and of Hell delivered to the Sovereign Pontiff; and the rapturous ecstasies of the Puritans, Quakers, Brethren, and all other sects called Nonconformists who, each in its own way, while claiming the same privileges and preogatives, all agree that each good Christian will become on the day of resurrection a pure virgin and present herself as a bird to the "Lamb of God"!

Do you not think, then, that the Christians are right to believe tht the "least" among them is "greater" than all the Prophets? Do you not think, then, that a sturdy Patagonian monk and a peniterntiary Parisian nun are higher than Adam and Eve, because the mystery of the Trinity is revealed to these idiots and not to our first parents who lived with Allah in Paradise before their fall? Or, don't you think that this sort of belief is most unbecoming and undignified in these lofty times of advanced science and civilization? To claim that an English prince or an orphan Negro is "greater" that John the Baptist because they are Christians is, to say the least, abominable!

Yet all these diverse beliefs and creeds are derived from the New Testament and from the words put into the mouth of Jesus and of his Apostles. For us Muslim Unitarians, however, there are a few scintillating sparkles left in the Gospels; and they are enough for us to discover the truth about the real Jesus and his cousin, Yohannan Ma'mdana (John-Baptist).

JOHN-BAPTIST FORETOLD MUHAMMAD

1. According to the testimony of Jesus, no man born of woman was ever greater than John the Baptist. But the "least" in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than John. The comparison made by the "Spirit of Allah" (Ruhu 'llah, i.e., Jesus) is between John and all the preceding Prophets as the officers and administrators of the Kingdom of Heaven. Now in chronological order the last Prophet would be the least of them all, he would be their junior and their youngest. The word "z'ira" in the Aramaic, like the Arabic "Saghir," signifies "little, small young." The Pshittha Version uses the word "z'ira or "z'eira" in apposition to "rabba" for "great, old." Every Christian will admit that Jesus is not the "last" Prophet, and therefore he cannot be the "least." Not only were the Apostles themselves endowed with the gift of prophecy, but also many other holy men in the apostolic age were favoured with it (Acts xi. 27, 28, xiii. 1; xv. 32; xxi, 9, 10, etc).

And as we cannot determine which of these numerous Church Prophets was the "last, we are naturally forced to seek elsewhere a Prophet who is indisputably the Last and the Seal of the Prophetic List. Can we imagine stronger and more brilliant evidence in favour of Muhammad than the fulfilment, in his holy person, of this wonderful prophecy of Jesus Christ?

In the long list of the prophetic family, certainly the "youngest," the "least" is Muhammad; he is the "Benjamin" of the Prophets; yet he is their Sultan, their "Adon" and their "Glory." To deny the prophetical and apostolical character and nature of Muhammad's mission is a fundamental denial of the whole Divine Revelation and all the Prophets who preached it. For all other Prophets put together had not accomplished the gigantic work which the Prophet of Mecca did alone in the short period of but twenty-three years of his apostolic mission.

The mystery of the pre-exixtence of the spirits of the Prophets has not been revealed to us, but every true Muslim believes it. It was that pre-existing spirit that by the power of the Word of Allah "Kun" ("Be!") a Sarah, a Hanna, and a Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to Isaac, to the Baptist, and to Jesus. There are several other names as recorded in the Old Testament - for instance, Samson, Jeremiah.

The Gospel of Barnabas reports Jesus as speaking of the Spirit of Muhammad, which he declares to have been created before everything else. Hence the Baptist's witness about the Prophet whom he foretold "He who comes after me has become before me, for he was before me" (John i. 15).

It is useless to interpret these wonderful words of the Baptist about Muhammad as referring to Jesus as the author of the Fourth Gospel attempts to do.

There is a remarkable chapter about John the Baptist in the well-known book of Ernest Renan on La vie de Jesu. Long ago I carefully read this work. If the learned French writer had the least consideration for Muhammad's claim in the world of Prophets, I am sure his profound investigations and comments would have led him entirely to a different conclusion. He, like all other dissident and Biblical critics, instead of finding out the truth, criticizes religious adverely and leads his readers to scepticism.

I am happy to say that it is my privilege, by the grace of Allah, to solve the problem, to ring up the curtain of mystery which has covered the true sense and meaning of 'the Least in the Kingdom of Heaven!"

2. John the Baptist recognizes Muhammad as superior and more powerful than himself. That significant expression made to the Jewish multitudes, "He that cometh after me" reminded their Scribes, pharisees, and Lawyers of the ancient prophecy of their great anshestor Jacob, in which that patriarch uses the unique title of "Shilokhah" for "Rasul Allah," the epithet frequently used by Jesus for Muhammad as preserved in the Gospel of Barnabas. At the time of writing my article on the "Shiloh" I said that the word might be a corruption of "shiloukh" or "Shilokhah," which means the Apostle of Allah, but I did not then recollect that St. Jerome, as well, had understood the Hebrew form in that sense, for he has translated it as "qui mittendis est."

We have only an epitome of John's sermon in a few lines, written not be himself but by an unknown hand - at least not in his own original tongue - and much tampered with by transcribers and redactors who had already made his disciple Jesus an idol or a god. But when we come to compare this sermon preached in the wilderness of Judea and on the shores of the Jordan with the marvellous grace, elegance, eloquence, and power so manifest in every verse and page of the Holy Qur-an, we understand the sense of the words, "He is more powerful than I!"

When I picture to myself the ascetic Baptist preaching aloud in the wilderness, or on the banks of the Jordan, to the masses of the Jewish believers, with a theocratic history of some four thousand years old behind them. and then make a brief review of the quiet, orderly, and dignified manner in which Muhammad proclaimed his celestial verses of the Quran to the unbelieving Arab pagans; nd, finally, when I examine and behold the effect of the two preachings upon the hearers and the final result, I understand the magnitude of the contrast between them, and of the significance of the words "He is more powerful than I!"

When I contemplate the seizure and imprisonment of the helpless Baptist by Herod Antipas and his cruel decapitation - or when I persue the confused but tragical accounts of the flagellation of Jesus (or Judah Ishariot) by Pilate, his coronation with a crown of thorns by Herod, and the catastrophe upon the Calvary - and then turn my eyes upon the triumph entry of the great Adon - the Sultan of the prophets - into Mecca, the total destruction of all the ancient idols and the purification of the Holy Ka'ba; upon the thrilling scene of the vanquished deadly enemy headed by Abu Sufyan at the feet of the victorious Shilohah - the Apostle of Allah - begging his clemency and making the profession of faith; and upon the glorious worship, devotion, and the final sermon of the Seal of the Prophets in these solemn Divine words: "Al-yauma akmaltu lakum dinakum" ("To-day I have completed for you your religion"), etc., then I fully understand the weight and value of the Baptist's confession, "He is more powerful than I!"

3. "The Coming Wrath."Have you ever met with a sensible, judicious, and convincing interpretation of this phrase in any of the numerous commentaries on the Gospels? What does John means, or wish his audience to understand, by his expression: "Behold the axe is already set at the root of the tree"? Or his remark: "He holds the van in his hand to purge out his threshing-floor"? Or when he reduced the title "Children of Abraham" to nothing?

I will not detain you on the vagaries of the commentators, for they are reveries which neither John nor his hearers had ever dreamed of. Could John ever teach those haughty Pharisees, and those rationalistic Saduqees who denied the corporeal resurrection, that on the day of the last judgment Jesus of Nazareth would pour down upon them his wrath and burn them like the fruitless trees and like the chaff in the fire of hell? There is not a single word in all the literature of the Scriptures about the resurrection of bodies or about hell-fire. These Talmudistic writings are full of eschatological material very similar to those of the Zardushtees, but have no distinct origin in the canonical books.

The Prophet of repentance and of good tidings does not speak about the remote and indefinite wrath, which certainly awaits the unbelievers and the impious, but of the near and proximate catastropher of the Jewish nation. He threatened the wrath of Allah awaiting that people if they persisted in their sins and the rejection of his mission and that of his colleague, Jesus Christ. The coming calamity was the destruction of Jerusalem and the final dispersion of Israel which took place some thirty years afterwards during the lifetime of many among his hearers. Both he and Jesus announced the coming of the Great Apostle of Allah whom the Patriarch Jacob announced under the title of Shiloha, and that at his advent all prophetic and royal privileges and authority would be taken away from the Jews; and, indeed, such was the case some six centuries later, when their last strongholds in the Hijaz were razed to the ground and their principalities destroyed by Muhammad. The increasingly dominating power of Rome in Syria and Palestine was threatening the quasiautonomy of the Jew, and the emigration current among the Jews had already begun. And it was on this account that the preacher inquires, "Who has informed you to flee from the coming wrath?" They were warned and exhorted to bear good fruits and good harvest by repentance and belief in the true Messengers of God, especially in the Rasul Allah, who was the true and the last powerful Commander.

4. The Jews and the Christians have always charged Muhammad of having established the religion of Islam by force, coercion, and the sword. The Muslim modernists have always tried to refute this charge. But this does not mean to say that Muhammad never wielded the sword. He had to use it to preserve the name of God. Every patience has limits, every favour has an end. It is not that Allah's patience or favour is finite; with Him all is settled, defined and fixed. The chance and the time graciously granted by Allah to the Jews, to the Arabs, and to the Gentiles lasted for more than four thsousand years. It was only after the expiry of this period that Allah sends His beloved Muhammad with power and sword, with fire and spirit, to deal with the wicked unbelievers, with the ungrateful children of Abraham - both the Ishmaelites and the Israelites - and to deal with the power of the Devil, once for all.

The whole of the Old Testament is a tale of theocracy and of idolatry. Now and then a little sparkle of Islam - that is, the religion of Allah - glittered in Jerusalem and in Mecca; but it was always persecuted by the power of the Devil. The four diabolical Beasts had to come and trample under their feet the handful of believers in Allah. Then comes Muhammad to crush and kill the Venemous Serpent and to give him the opprobrious title of "Iblis" - the "Bruised" Satan. Certainly Muhammad was a fighting Prophet, but the object of that fighting was victory not vengeance, defeat or the enemy and not his extermination, and, in a word, to establish the religion of Islam as the Kingdom of God upon the earth. In fact, when the Crier in the desert shouted, aloud, "Prepare the way of the Lord, and make straight His paths," he was alluding to the religion of the Lrd in the form of a Kingdom, which was drawing nigh. Seven centuries before, the Prophet Isaiah had cried out and pronounced the same words (Isa. x1. 1-4); and a couple of centuries later Allah Himself paved the way for Cyrus by raising and filling up every valley, and by lowering every hill nad mountain, in order to make the conquest easy and the march rapid (x1v. 1-3). History repeats itself, they say; the language and its meaning are the same in both cases, the former being a prototype of the latter. Allah had smoothed the path for Cyrus, subdued his enemies to he Persian conquerer because of His House in Jerusalem and His chosen people in the captivity. Now again He was repeating the same providence, but on a larger and wider scale. Before the preaching of Muhammad, idols and falsehood disappeared; before his sword empires tumbled down; and the children of the Kingdom of Allah became equals and formed a "people of the Saints of the Most High." For it is only in Islam that all the believers are equal, no priest, no sacrament; no Muslim high as a hill, or low like a valley; and no caste or distinction of race and rank. All believers are one, except in virtue and piety, in which they can excel each other. It is only the religion of Islam that does not recognize any being, however great and holy, as an absolute mediator between Allah and man.

It is a great pity that Evangelists have not let us a complete and detailed account of the sermon of John the Baptist; and assuming they ever did, it is nothing short of a crime on the part of the Church not to have preserved its text. For it is impossible to imagine the mysterious and enigmati words of the Baptist in their present shape could have been understood even by the most erudite among his audience. We know that the Jewish doctors and lawyers asked him to explain himself upon various points and to make his declarations more explicit and plain (John i. 19-23 and v. 33). There is no doubt that he elucidated those vital points to his hearers, and did not leave them in obscurity; for he was "a burning and enlightening cnadle," who "gave witness concerning the truth" (John v. 33, 35). What was this witness, and what was the nature of the turth about which that witness was given? And what makes it still more obscure is the fact that each Evangelist does not precision about the character of the truth; was it about the person of Christ and the nature of his mission, or was it about the Apostle of Allah as foretold by Jacob (Gen. x1ix.)? What were the precise terms of John's witness about Jesus, and about the future Prophet who was his superior?

In the third article of this series I offered ample proofs that the Prophet foretold by the Baptist was other than Jesus Christ; and in the fourth article we find several arguments in favour of the Apostle of Allah as being a superior and more powerful Prophet than John. Those arguments, in my humble opinion, and in my solid conviction, are logical, true, and conclusive. Each of those arguments could be easily developed so as to make a voluminous book. I am fully conscious of the fact that these argumentations will present a jarring sound to the fanatical ears of many a Christian. But truth exalts itself and extols him who propagates it. The truth about which John gave witness, as quoted above, we unhesitatingly believe to be concerning Muhammad. John gave two witnesses, one about the "Shliha d'Allaha" - according to the then Palestinian dialect, which means the "Apostle of Allah" - and the other about Jesus, whom he declared to hve been born of the Holy Spirit and not aof an earthy father; to be the true Messiah who was sent by Allah as the last great Jewish Prophet to give a new light and spirit to the Law of Moses; and to having been commissioned to teach the Jews that their salvation rested on submitting to the great son of Ishmael. Like the old Jews who threw into disorder their Scriptures, the new Jews of the Christian Church, in imitation of their forefathers, have corrupted their own. But even these corruptions in the Gospels cannot conceal the truth.

The principal point which constitutes the power and the superiority of the Prince of the Apostles of Allah is the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The admission by the author of the Fourth Gospel that Jesus and his disciples also used to baptize with water simultaneously with John the Baptish is an abrogation de facto of the parenthetical note that "Jesus did not baptize himself, but his disciples only" (John iii. 23 and iv. 1, 2). But granting that he himself did not baptize, he admission that his disciples did, while yet initiates and unlearned, shows that their baptism was of the same nature as that of John's. Considering the fact that Jesus during the period of his earthly mission administered that rite exactly as the Baptist was doing at the streams or pools of water, nd that he ordered his disciples to continue the same, it becomes as evident and as clear as a barn door that he was not the person intended by the Crier in the Wilderness when he foretold the advent of a powerful Prophet with the baptism of the Spirit and fire. It does not require much learning or an extraordinary intelligence to understand the force of the argument - namely, Jesus during his lifetime baptized not a single person with the Holy Spirit and with fire. How, then, can he be regarded as the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit and with fire, or be identified with the Prophet foretold by John? If words, sermons, and prophecies mean anything, and are uttered in order to teach anything at all, then the words of the Baptist mean and teach us that baptism with water would continue to be practised until the Appearance of the "Shilohah" or the Apostle of Allah, and then it would cease and five place to the exercise of the baptism with the Spirit and fire. This is the only logical and intelligible conclusion to be deduced from the preaching as recorded in the third chapter of the First Gospel. The continuation of the Christian baptism and its elevation to he dignity of a Sacrament is a clear proof that the Church does nnot believe in a baptism other than that which is performed with water. Logic, common sense, and respect for any sacred writ ought to convince every impartial reader that the two baptisms are quite different things. The Prophet of the desert doesnot recognizes the baptism with fire in the baptism with water. The nature and the efficacy of each baptism is distinctly stated and defined. The one is performed by immersing or washing the body with water as a sign or mark of repentance; and the other is performed no longer by water but by the Holy Spirit and the fire, the effect of which is a thorough change of heart, faith, and feeling. One purifies the body, the other enlightens the mind, confirms the faith, and regenerates the heart. One is outward, it is Judaism; the other is inward, it is Islam. The baptism of John and Jesus washes the shell, but the baptism of the Apostle of Allah washes the kernel. In short, the Judaeo-Christian baptism is substituted by the Islamic "Ghusl" and "Wodhu" - or the ablutions, which are performed, not by a prophet or priest, but by the believing individual himself. The Judaeo-Christian baptism was necessary and obligatory so long as the baptism of Allah - the Qur-anic "Sibghatu 'l-Lah" - was anticipated; and when Muhammad thundered the divine revelations of the Qur-an, then it was that the former baptism vanished as a shadow.

The extreme importance of the two baptisms deserves a very serious consideration, and I believe the observations made in this article must considerable interest both the Muslims and other readers. For the point under discussion, from a religious standpoint, is vital to salvation. The Christians, I honestly maintain, are not justified in perpetuating their baptism with water ad infinitum, since their own Gospels foretell that it will be abrogated by another one which will exclude the use of water altogether. I submit the following observations to the thoughtful and imprtial judgement of my readers. 

WHAT BAPTISM IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT

(a) It is within our rights to agree or to disagree with a doctrine or a theory, but nothing can justify our conduct if we deliberately distort and misrepresent a doctrine in order to prove our own theory about it. To distort the Scriptures is iniquitous and criminal; for the error caused in this respect is irreparable and pernicious. Now the baptism of John and Jesus is plainly described and illustrated to us in the Gospels, and is entirely alien and opposed to the baptism of the Churches.

We are not positively certain about the original Hebrew or Aramaic word for the Greek baptism. The Pshittha Version uses the word "ma'muditha' from the verb "aimad" and "aa'mid," which means "to stand up like an a'muda" (a pillar or column), and its causative form "aa'mid" "to erect, set up, establish, confirm" and so on, but it has no signification of "to immerse, dip, wash, sprinkle, bathe," as the ecclesiastical baptism is supposed to mean. The original Hebrew verbs "rahas" "to bathe", "tabhal" (read "taval") "to dip, to immerse," might give the sense conveyed by the Greek word "baptizo" - "I baptize." The Arabic versions of the New Testament have adopted the Aramaic form, and call the Baptist "al-Ma'midan," and "ma'mudiyeh" for "baptism." In all the Semitic languages, including the Arabic, the verb "a'mad" signifies in its simple or qal form "to stand erect like a pillar," and does not contain the meaning of washing or immersion; and therefore it could not be the original word from which the Greek "baptismos" is the translation. There is no necessary to argue that both John and Jesus never heard of the word "baptismos" in its Greek form, but that there was evidently another Semitic nomenclature used by them.

(b) Considering the classical signification of the Greek "baptismos" which means tincture, dye, and immersion," the word in use could not be other than "Saba," and the Arabic "Sabagha," "to dye." it is a well-known fact that the Sabians, mentioned in the Qur-an and by the early Christian Fathers - such as Epiphanus and others - wee the followers of John. The very name "Sabians," according to the celebrated Ernest Renan (La vie de Jesus, ch. VI), signifies "Baptist." They practised baptism, and like the old Hassayi (Essenians, or al-Chassaites) and Ibionayi (Ebionites) led an austere life. Considering the fact that their founder, Budasp, was a Chaldean sage, the true orthography of their name would be "Saba'i", i.e. "Dyers" or "Baptist." A famous Chaldean or Assyrian Catholicos or the fourth century, Mar Shimon, was called "Bar Saba'i," "Son of the Dyers." Probably his family belongedto the Sabin religion. The Qur-an writes this name "Sabi'in" with the hamza vowel instead of ain as it is in the original Aramaic "Saba'i." I am congnisant, however, of other interpretations placed on the name "Sabian": some authors suppose it to be derived from "Sabi'," the son of Sheth, and others from the Hebrew "Saba," which means "army," because they used to have a kind of special devotion to the stars as the host of heaven. Although they have nothing in common with the Christian Churches, except their peculiar 'Sab'utha," or Baptism, they are wrongly called "the Christians of St. John-Baptist." The Qur-an, as usual, writes all foreign names as they were pronounced by the Arabs.

An extensive and deep research in the religion of the Sabians, who had almost overrun the Arab nation long before the light of Islam shone with the appearance of the Holy Apostle of Allah, will show us several truths. There were three forms of baptism practised by the Jews, the Sabians, and the Christians. The Jewish baptism, which had no origin in their sacred books, was invented chiefly for the proselytes. Each religion had its definite baptismal formula and a special ritual. The Jewish "Kohen" (priest) baptized his convert in the name of Allah; the Sabian in the name of Allah and of John; but the Christian "Qushisha" (in Arabic "qassis" or presbyter) baptized in the names the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in which the names of Allah and of Jesus are not directly recited. The diversity and the antagonism of the three baptismal systems are apparrent. The Jew, as a true Unitarian, could not tolerate the name of John to be associated with that of the Elohim; whereas the Christian formula was extremely repugnant to his religious taste. There is no doubt that the Christian baptism, with its sacramental character and polytheistic taint, was abhorred also by the Sabians. The symbol of the convenant between Allah and His people was not baptism but circumcision (Gen. xvii.), an ancient institution, which was strictly observed, not only by the three religions, but also by many pagan Arab tribes. These diverse baptismal forms and rituals among the Semitic peoples in the East were not an essential divine institution, but only a symbol or sign, andtherefore not strong and efficacious enough to supplant one another. They all used water for the material of their baptism, and, more or less, in similar form or manner. But each religion apdopted a different name to distinguish its own practice from that of the other two. The original Aramaic "Sab'utha" - properly and truly translated into the Greek 'baptismos" - was faithfully preserved by the Saba'ites (Sabians). It appears that the Semitic Christians, in order to distinguish their sacramental baptism from that of the Sabaites, adopted the appellation of "ma'muditha" which, from a linguistic point of view, has nothing whatever to do with baptism or even with washing or immersion. It is only an ecclesiastical coinage. Why "ma'muditha" was adopted to replace "Sab'utha" is a question altogether foreign to our present subject; but en passant, I may add that this word in the Pshittha is used also for a pool, a basin for ablution (John v. 2). The only explanation which may lead towards the solution of this problem of the "ma'muditha" is the fact that John the Baptist and his followers, including Jesus the son of Mary and his disciples, cause a penitent or a proselyte to stand straight like a pillar in a pool of water or in a river in order to be bathed with water; hence the names of "aa'mid" and "ma'muditha."

(c) The Christian baptism, notwithstanding its fanfaronade definitions, is nothing more or less than an aspersion with water or n immersion in it. The Council of Trent anathematizes anyone who would say that the Christian baptism is the same as that of St. John's. I venture to declare that the Christian baptism has not only no spiritual character or effect, but is also even below the baptism of the Baptist. And if I deserve the anathema of the Church for my conviction, I shall deem it as a great honour before my Creator. I consider the pretentions of a Christian priest about the baptism as a means of purification of the soul from original sin and all the rest of it as of a piece with the claims of a sorceror. The baptism with water was only a symbol of baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire, and after the establishment of Islam as the official kingdom of God all the three previous baptisms vanished and were abolished.

(d) From the meagre and scant account in he Gospels we cannot get a positive definition of the true nature of the baptism practised by John and Jesus. The claim that the Church is the depository of the divine revelation and its true interpreter is as absurd as is ridiculous the claim that the baptized infant or adult receives the Holy Spirit and becomes a child of God.

If the Greek word "baptismos" is the exact word for the Aramaic "Sab'utha" or "Sbhu'tha," which I am sure it is, then the Arabic "Sibghat" in the Qur-an, not only does it solve te problem and uncover the veil hiding the mysterious prophecy of John the Baptist, but also is a marvellous proof that the sacred scripture of Islam is a direct revelation of Allah, and that His Apostle was inspired and the real person whom John predicted! The baptist ("Saba'h") plunges or immerses his neophyte or an infant into a pond, as a dyer or a fuller plunges a cloth or garment into a kettle of dye. It is easily understood that baptism is not a "thara," pruification or washing, nor "tabhala," an immersion, nor even a "rahsa," a bathing or washing, but "sab'aitha," a dyeing, a colouring. It is extremely important to know these distinctions. Just as a "Saba'a," a dyer, gives a new colour to a garment by dipping it into a kettle of tincture, so a baptist give his convert a new spiritual hue. Here we must make a fundamental distinction between a proselyte Gentile and a penitent Jew and Ishmelite Arab. The former was formally circumcized, whereas the latter baptized only. By the circumcision a Gentile was admitted into the family of Abraham, and therefore into the fold of God's people. By baptism a circumcized believer was admitted into the society of the penitent and reformed believers. Circumcision is an ancient divine institution which was not abrogated by Jesus nor by Muhammad. The baptism practised by John and the Christ was only for the benefit of the penitent persons among the circumcized. Both these institutions indicated and presented a religion. The baptism of John and of his cousin Jesus was a mark of admission into the society of the pruified penitents who promised loyalty and homage to the Apostle of Allah whose coming they both foretold.

It follows, therefore, that just as circumcision signified the religion of Abraham and his adherents (his slaves were also circumcized), so baptism signified the religion of John and Jesus, which was a preparation for the Jews and the Gentiles to accord a cordial reception to the Founder of Islam and to embrace his religion.

(e) According to the testimony of St. Mark (i. 1-8), the baptism of John had the character of the "remission of sins." It is stated that "all the country of Judaea and the inhabitants of Jerusalem went out to him and were all baptized by him in the River Jordan while confessing their sins." This is tantamount to saying that millions of the penitents Jews confessed their sins were obliterated by the waters of baptism. It is generally admitted that St. Mark's Gospel is the oldest of the Four Gospels. All the ancient Greek manuscripts do not contain the last twelve verses added to chapter xvi. of this Gospel (verses 9-20). Even in these supplementary verses the formula "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost" is not inscribed. Jesus simply says: "Go and preach my Gospel unto the whole world; he who believes and is baptized shall live, and he who does not believe shall be damned."

It is evident that the baptism of Jesus was the same as that of John's anda continuation of it. If the baptism of John was a sufficient means of the remission of sins, then the assertion that the "Lamb of God carries away the sins of the world" (John i.) is exploded. If the waters of the Jordan were efficacious enough to cleanse the leprosy of Naaman through the prayer of the Prophet Elisha (2 Kings v.), and to remit the sins of the myriads through that of the Prophet John, the shedding of the blood of a god would be superfluous and, indeed, incompatible with the divine justice.

There is no doubt that until the appearance of the Apostle Paul on the scence, the followers of Jesus Christ practised the baptismal ritual of John-Baptist. It is significant to note that Paul was "Pharisee" belonging to a famous Jewish sect - like that of the Saducess - whom John and Jesus denounced as "the sons of the vipers."It is also to be observed that the author of the fifth book of the New Testament, called the "Acts of the Apostles," was a companion of this Paul, and pretends to show that those baptized by John the Baptist had not received the Holy Spirit "and therefore were rebaptized and then filled" with the Holy Spirit (Acts viii. 16, 17 and xix. 2-7), not through baptism in the name of Jesus, but through the "laying of hands." It is clearly stated in these quotations that the two baptisms were identical in their nature and efficacy, and that they did not "bring down" the Holy Spirit upon the person baptized whether by John, Jesus, or in the name of either of the two. By the "laying of their hands" of the Apostles upon a baptized person the Holy Spirit touched his heart, to fill it with faith and love of God. But this divine gift was granted only to the Apostles who were really prophets and inspired, and cannot be claimed by their so-called cuccessors.

(f) If the Gospels mean anything at all in their statements concerning baptism, they leave behind the impression that there was no difference between the two baptisms, except that they were administered in the name of one or other of the two Prophets. The great Pharisee Paul or Saul of Tasus has not a single kind word about John the Baptist, who had branded the sect of the Pharisees with the opprobrious epithet "the children of the vipers." There is a tinge of grudge against John and against the value of his baptism in the remarks made by Luke in the "Acts of the Apostles." And Luke was a disciple and companion of Paul. The admission by Luke that the baptism in the name of Jesus, too, was not carried out by the Holy Spirit is a sure proof against the Church, which has arbitrarily and wantonly transformed it into a sacrament or a mystery. The Church's baptism was a perpetuation of John's baptism and nothing more; but the baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire was reserved only for Islam. The expression that some twelve persons in Samaria "had not yet received the Holy Spirit, because they were only baptized in the name of our Lord Jesus" (Acts vii. 16, 17), is decisive to frustrate the pretentions of the Church.

The last three verses in the passage cited are held by many to be an interpolation. They did not exist in the oldest existing MS., which is, of course, the origin of all subsequent versions of the Bible, including the Vulgate. A document is absolutely unworthy of serious judicial notice if a portion of it is proved to be a foregery. But here we go a step farther for the said addition to the original text is admitted to be such even by those who speak of its genuineness.

But let us take the prophecy as it stands. I need not say that it speaks of things at which ordinary common sense can guess, seeing that the events foretold are always occuring from time to time in the course of Nature. Pestilence and war, famine and earthquakes have visited the world so often that a mention of them in a prophecy as a sign of its authenticiy would deprive it of any importance it might otherwise possess. Besides, the first followers of a new faith are sure to meet with persecution, especially if they chance to be of inferior social position. But apart from this, the prophecy speaks in one strain of several things, which may or may not occur together at any one time. They have never yet so occured. The persecution of the disciples began immediately after the departure of Jesus from Judaea. They were "delivered up to the synagogues and into prison, and brought before kings and rulers' for his name's sake. The predicion, however, did not need a prophetic mind, since the persecution had started even when Jesus was with his disciples. These events were the natural sequel of teachings distasteful to the Jews. The disciples no doubt bore every conceivable hardsip and trial with patience and courage, but they were sure of the return of the Master in accoridng with his promise: "Verily I say unto you, that tis generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." Belief in these words created a wonderful patience in the generation referred to. But his words passed away though the time did not come for the "heaven and the earth to pass away." Moreover, the days of the disciples' persecution did not witness any unusual phenomena in the form of earthquake, fighting, or pestilence. Even in the period immediately following, the prophesied four events did not synchronize, In the last two scores of years of the last two centuries we heard "of wars and commotions." "Nations" did "rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom." "Great earthquakes' were experienced in divers places and famines and pestilence, but neither did the sun become darkened nor the moon fail to give its light, which things had to occur before "the coming of the Son of Man." These words may be taken in a metaphorical sense, but in that case, why should the Adventists look for the Second Coming in its literal sense? Moreover, most of the above mentioned phenomena have taken place at times when those who preached and taught in the name of Jesus were not likely, for political reasons, to be brought before kings and rulers for punishment. On the contrary, they had obtained free access into lands that had long been closed against them. All of which goes to prove that either the prediction is folklore or a legendary account of the things of which Jesus spoke on different occasions. Either he himself had had but a hazy notion of coming events, or the recorders of his life, who wrote two centuries after, mixed up hopelessly different things dealing with different matters.

SPIRIT AND WITH FIRE

One of the few religious phenomena I have not been able to explain is this: How is it that the well-known Saba'ites (Sabians), so predominant in the Arabian peninsula and Mesopotamia, did not embrace Christianity if the Prophet John the Baptist had really and openly declared and presented Jesus as the "more powerful" Prophet than himself, and the Messiah whose shoes he was not worthy to unloose? If, as foretold by John, Jesus was the Apostle of Allah who came to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire the myriads whom he "dyed" in the water of the Jordan and elsewhere, why did not Jesus baptize them instantly with the Spirit and with fire and then purge of idolatry all the lands promised by Allah to the sed of Abraham and establish the Kingdom of God by force and fire? It is absolutely inconceivable that the disciples and the believers in the divine mission of John should not follow Jesus if he had been presented to the public as his Lord or Superior on the spot. The followers of John might have been excused for their refusal to enter into the Christian Church if Jesus Christ had come, say, a century later than the Baptist, but happily such was not the case. They were both contemporaries and born in the same year. They both baptized with water unto repentence, and prepared their penitent converts for the Kingdom of God that was approaching but not established in their time.

The Saba'ites, the "Dyers" or "Baptists," were the faithful adherents of John. They may have fallen into error and superstition; but they knew perfectly well that it was not Jesus who was intended in the propphecy of their Prophet. They embraced Islam when Muhammad came. The people of Harran in Syria are not - as they have been posed to be - the remnant of the old Saba'ites. In the promised lands only three non-Muslim religions were recognized and tolerated by the Qur-an, namely, Judaism, Christianity, and Sabianism. It is stated that the Harranians pretended to be the remnant of the old Saba'ites and they were, therefore, permitted to practise their peculiar religion without molestation by the Turkish Government.

The Christian conception of the Holy spirit is entirely different from the Islamic and the Jewish. The Holy Spirit is not a divine person with divine attributes and functions not belonging to this or that other divine persons of a triple god. The Christian belief that this same holy ghost, the third divine person, descends from his (or her, or its) heavenly throne at the bidding of every priest - in his daily celebration of some sacrament - to consecrate its elements and change their essence and qualities into some supernatural elements is extemely repugnant to the religious sentiments of every Unitarian, whether Jew or Muslim. Nothing could horrify a Muslim's feeling more than the belief that the Holy Spirit - always at the intervention of a priest - changes the water of baptism into the blood or a crucified god and blots out the so-called original sin; or a belief that the magic operation upon the material elements of the Eucharist transubstantiates them into the blood and body of an incarnate god. These beliefs were absolutely opposed to the teachings of the Old Testament and a falsification of the real doctrine of John and Jesus. The Christian assertion that the Holy Spirit at the incantations of a priest fills certain individuals and sanctifies them, but does not guarantee their impeccability and ignorance is meaningless. We are told that Hananiah (Ananias) and his wife Shapirah where baptized, which is to say filled with the Holy Ghost. They were thus inspired by the third divine person to sell their field and to place its price in cash at the feet of the Apostle peter, but at the same time were seduced by the devil to conceal a portion of the money. The consequence was that the unfortunate communist couple was stricken dead miraculously (Acts v.).

Think of the belief that the Third person of the Trinity descends upon men, sanctifies them, and then allows them to fall into error, heresy, and atheism, and abandons them to commit murderous wars and massacres. Is this possible? Can the devil seduce a man filled with and guarded by the Holy Ghost and change him into a demon? The Holy Qur-an is very expressive on this point. Allah says to the devil:

"Verily thou shalt have no power over my servants, but over those only who shall be seduced and who shall follow thee" (chap. xv.)

We cannot believe, nor even imagine for a moment, that a servant of God, a righteous believer who has received the Spirit of sanctification, can fall into a deadly sin and perish in hell. Nay, a holy person, so long as he is in this material world, is to combat and struggle against sin and evil; he may rall, but he will rise again and shall never be abandoned by the pure Spirit that guards him. True repentance is the work of the good Spirit that lives in us. If a Christian be baptizedwith the Holy Spirit and fire, in the sense which the book of the "Acts of the Apostles" describes and the Churches accept, then every baptized Latin, Greek, or Abyssinian must not only become a sinless saint but also a linguist and a polyglot prophet!

The truth is that the Christians have not a definite or precise conception about the Holy Spirit filling a baptized Christian. If it be God, then how dare the devil approach, tempt, and seduce the hallowed or rather defied man? And, besides, what is more serious is: How can the devil chase away the Holy Ghost and settle himself in the heart of a baptized heretic or atheist? On the other hand, if the Holy Spirit means the Archangel Gabriel of some other angel, then the Christian Churches roam in a desert of superstition; for an angel is not omni-present. If this Spirit that purifies and fills a baptized Christian is God Himself, for such is their belief in the Third person of the Trinity, then all the baptized Christians ought to claim themselves divine or defied.

Then there is a Protestant conception of the Holy Spirit, which (or who) fills the hearts of those who, at the highest excitement and ecstasy during an inflammatory sermon of an agnorant or learned haranguer, believe themselves to become "new-born"; yet many among them slide back and become what they were before, rogues and swindlers!

Now before I come to explaain, according to my humble understanding, the spiritual and fiery baptism, I wish to admit and confess that there are many pious and God-fearing persons among the Jews and the Christians. For however their religious views and beliefs may differ from ours, they love God and do well in His name. We cannot comprehend and determine the dealings of God with peoples of different religions. The Christian conception of the Deity is only an erroneous definition of the ture God in whom they believe and love. If they extol Jesus and deify him, it is not that they wish to doshonour God, but because they see His beauty in that Ruh-Allah (the "Spirit of God," i.e. Jesus). They certainly cannot appreciate the Apostleship of Muhammad, not, because they deny his unparalleled service to the cause of God by inflicting the greatest blow on the devil and his cult of idolatry, but because they do not understand as he did the true nature of the mission and person of Jesus Christ. Similar reasoning may be put forward with regard to the Attitude of the Jews towards Jesus and Muhammad. God is Merciful and Forgiving!

The Holy Spirit, with the definite article "the," means a special angelic personality, Gabriel, or any of the numerous "pure" spirits created by Allah, and appointed to perform some particular mission. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon a human person is to reveal to him the will and the oracles of Allah, and to make him a prophet. Such an one can never be seduced by the satan.

The baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire, which Muhammad brought, is explained to us by the divine revelation only in one verse of Al-Qur-an:

"The Baptism of God (have we received), and who is better than God to baptize? Him do we worship"

(Chap. ii.)

This is the translation of Sale (cf. The Koran).

The Muslim commentators rightly understand the word "Sibghat," not in its literal signification of "dyeing," but in its spiritual or metaphorical sense of "religion." This Qur-anic verse cancels and abolishes the religions of the 'Sab'utha" and of the "Ma'muditha" or both the Saba'ites and the Nasara. "Sibghatu 'l-Lah" is the baptism of the religion of Allah, not with water, but with the Holy Spirit and fire! The religion professed by any of the companions of the Apostle of Allah in the first years of the Hijrat is to day professed in its entirety by every Muslim. More than sixteen Ecumenical Councils have been summoned to define the religion of Christianity, only to be discovered by the Synod of the Vatican in the nineteenth century that the mysteries of the "Infallibility" and the "Immaculate Conception" were two of the principle dogmas, both unknown to the Apostle Peter and the Blessed Virgin Mary! Any faith or religion dependent upon the deliberations and decisions of General Synods - holy or heretical - is artificial and human. The religion of Islam is the belief in one Allah and absolute resignation to His will, and this faith is professed by the angels in heaven and by the Muslims on earth. It is the religion of sanctification and of enlightenment, and an impregnable bulwark against idolatry. Let us develop these points a little further.

The spiritual baptism is the direct work of God Himself. As a fuller or a laundress washes the linen or any other object with water; as a dyer tints the wool or cotton with a tincture to give it a new hue; and as a baptist blots out the past sins of the true penitent believer, so does God Almighty baptize, not the body, but he spirit and the soul of him whom He mercifully directs and guides unto the Holy Religion of Islam. This is the "Sibghatu 'l-Lah," the Baptism of Allah, which makes a person fit and dignified to become a citizen of the Kingdom of Allah and a member of His religion. When the Angel Gabriel communicated the Word of Allah for the first time to Muhammad, he (Muhammad) was invested with the gift of prophecy. His spirit was purified and magnified with the Holy Spirit to such a degree and extent that when he in his turn pronounced that Word to those whose spirit Allah pleased to guide were also purified, baptized. They, too, thus became holy officers in the new army of the faithful Muslims. This spiritual baptism does not make the Muslims prophets, sinless saints, or miracle-mongers. For after the Revelation of the Will nd Word of Allah in the Holy Qur-an there is the end to the prophecy and of revelation. They are not made sinless saints because their piety and good works would not be the outcome of effort and struggle against evil, and therefore not justly meritorious. They are not appointed to become workers of supernatural miracles because they have a firm and sound faith in their Lord.

Further, this "Sibghatul 'l-Lah" makes the true Muslims grave, constant in their duties to Allah and towards their fellowmen, especially towards their families. It does not move them to the folly of believing themselves holier than their co-religionists, and so to arrogate the post of pastorship to themselves over others as if they were their flocks and herds. Fanaticism, religious conceit, and the like are not operations of the Holy Spirit. Every Muslim receives at his creation the same "Sibghatu 'l-Lah," the same religion and spiritual baptism, and has to run the race of his short earthly life to the best of his ability and effort in order to win the crown of glory in the next world. Every Muslim needs only education and religious training in accordance with the wisdom of the Word of God. But he needs not the intercession of a priest, sacrament, or saint. Every enlightened believer can become an Imam, a missionary, a preacher according to his learning and religious zeal, not for vainglory or lucrative gain.

In short, every Muslim, whether at his birth or at his conversion, is baptized spiritually, and becomes a citizen of the Kingdom of God, a free man, and possesses equal rights and obligations, according to his ability, virtue, knowledge, wealth, rank.

St. John the Baptist asscribes this spiritual and igneous baptism to the Great Apostle of Allah, not as a divine being, God, or son of God, but as a holy agent, and as an instrument through which this divine baptismal sacrament was to be operated. Muhammad delivered the Message of Allah, which was His word; he led the prayers, administered the divine service, and fought the holy wars against the unbelievers and the idolators to defend his cause. But the success and the victory achieved was God's. In the same way John preached and baptized, but the contrition, penance, and the remission of sins could only be done by God. The Prophet John's prediction that "he who comes after me is more powerful than I; he will baptize you with the Spirit and with fire" is quite intelligible, because only through Muhammad this spiritual baptism was given and performed.

It is to be remarked that the form and material of this baptism is altogether divine and supernatural. We feel and see the effect of an invisible but real cause, which accomplishes that effect. There is no longer water as the material, nor a baptist to officiate at the ritual or the form. It is God who, through the Spirit, works it out. The materials of the "Sibghatu 'l-Lah" in the words of the Baptist are the Holy Spirit and fire. The form exclusively belongs to Allah. We cannot attribute to the Almighty any form of operation except His Word 'Kun" - "Be!" - and His command is obeyed or created. The result is that a Muslim becomes sanctified, enlightened, and an equipped soldier to fight the Satan and his idolatry. These three effects of the "Sibghatu 'l-Lah" deserve a serious consideration and study. Their exposition is but brief.

1. The Holy Spirit, whether the Archangel Gabriel or another of the created Superior Spirits, by the command of God sanctifies the spirit of a Muslim at his birth or conversion - as the case may be; and this sanctification means:

(a) Engraving a perfect faith in the one true God. The "Subghatu 'l-Lah" makes the spirit of a true Muslim believe in the absolute unity of Allah, to rely upon Him, and to know He alone is his Master, Owner, and Lord. This faith in the true God is manifest in every person who professes himself a Muslim. The mark and the evidence of this ingrained faith in a Muslim shines brilliantly when he affirms, "Ana Muslim, Alhamdu li'l-Lahi ("I am Muslim; praised be Allah!"). What is more impressive and singularly obvious a sign of a holy faith than the hatred and repugnance which a Muslim feels against any other object of worship besides God? Which of the two is holier in the sight of God: he who worships his Creator in a simple building of the Mosque, or he who worships the fourteen pictures and images representing the scenes of the Crucifixion in a building whose walls and altars are adorned with the idolatrous statues, its ground covering the bones of the dead, and its dome decorated with the figures of angels and saints?

(b) The sanctification by the Holy Spirit and fire which God works upon the spirit of a Muslim is that he impregnates and fills it with love for, and submission to, Him. An honourable husband would rather divorce his beloved consort than see her sharing his love with any other man. The Almighty will cast away any "believer" who associates any other object or being with Him. The Muslim's love for Allah is not theoretical or idealistic but practical and real. He will not hesitate for a moment to expel from his house his wife, son, or friend if he should blaspheme the Holy Name or Person. A pagan or a person of other religion may show a similar furious zeal for his object of worship. But that love which is shown for One True God is holy and sanctified; and such love can only exist in the heart of a Muslim. Those auspicatory and doxological formulae "Bismi 'l-Lahi" and Alhamdu li 'l-Lahi," which means, respectively, "In the name of Allah" and "Praised be Allah" at the beginning and the end of every action or enterprise, are the msot sincere expressions of the purified Muslim spirit impressed and inebriate with the "Love of God" that transcends and excels every other love. These ejaculations are not artificial or hypocritical expressions in the mouths of Muslims, but they are the prayer and the praise of the baptized spirit that resides in his body. And if a Christian and a Jew are imbued with the same faith and devotion, and if their soul does effuse those expressions that the spirit of a Muslim does, then he is a Muslim though he knows it not.

(c) The baptismal sanctification which the "Sibghatu 'l-Lah" inspires in the spirit of a Unitarian Muslim, besides faith and love, is a total submission and resignation to the holy will of God. This absolute submission emanates not only from faith and love, but also from a holy fear and from a deep respect so latent in the soul and spirit of every true believer.

Such are the principal characteristics of the spiritual baptism, and nowhere are they manifest but among the adherents of Islam. John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and his apostles believed in, loved, and feared the same Allah as every Muslim does according to the degree of the divine grace and mercy. The Holy Spirit himself, too, is a creature and loves and fears the same Allah whom you and I do.

2. The second mark of the spiritual baptism is enlightenment. The true knowledge of Allah and of His will, so much as men are enable to possess, can only and exclusively be seen in Muslims. This knowledge sparkles dazzlingly in the countenance and the general behaviour of every Muslim. He may not comprehend the essence and the person of God, just as a child cannot understand the nature and the qualities of his parents; yet a baby recognizes its mother among all other women. The analogy is by far below the reality and the comparison infinitely inferior between an enlightened good Muslim in relation to this Creator and a baby crying after its own good mother. Every Muslim, however ignorant, poor, and sinful, sees the signs of Allah in every phenomenon or the nature. Whatever befalls him, in happiness or misery, Allah is in his mind. The Muslim calls to prayer be a living witness of this enlightenment. "There is no object of worship besides Allah," is an eternal protest against all those who associate with Him other objects unworthy of worship. Every Muslim confesses: "I witness that God is the only Being worthy of worship."

In this respect I may hint at the fact that the human soul is quite different from the human spirit. It is this holy spirit that enlightens the soul and implants in it the knowledge of truth. It is again the evil spirit that induces the soul to error, idolatry, and ungodliness.

3. The "Sibghatu 'l-Lah" is that divine baptism with fire which arms and equips the Muslim to become a bulwark against error and superstition, chiefly against idolatry of every kind. It is tis baptismal fire that melts the sould and spirit of a Muslim, thus separating its golden substance from the rubbish and ordure. It is the power of God which strenghthens and consolidates the union between Him and the believing servant, and arms him to fight for the religion of God. The fervour and the zeal of the Muslim for Allah and His religion is unique and holy. The savages also fight for their fetishes, the heathen for their idols, and the Christians for their cross; but what a contrast betweeen these unworthy object of worship and the God of Islam!