"Periqlytos” Means ”Ahmed”
By
Professor David Benjamin Keldani (Abdul-Ahad Dawud)
“And when Jesus, the
son of Mary said:
“Children
of Israel, I am sent to you by Allah to confirm the Torah that is before me,
and to give news of a Messenger who will come after me whose name shall be
Ahmed.” Yet when he came to them with clear proofs, they said: “This is clear
sorcery” (Qur’an 61.6 ).
And
I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Periqlytos, that he may
stay with you for ever (John xiv. 16, etc.).
There is some
incoherency in the words ascribed to Jesus by the Fourth Gospel. It reads as if
several Periqlytes had already come and gone, and that “another Periqlytos”
would be given only at the request of Jesus. These words also leave behind the
impression that the Apostles were already made familiar with this name which
the Greek text renders Periqlytos.
The adjective
“another” preceding a foreign noun for the first time announced seems very
strange and totally superfluous. There is no doubt that the text has been
tampered with and distorted. It pretends that the Father will send the
Periqlyte at the request of Jesus, otherwise the Periqlyte would never have
come! The word “ask,” too, seems superficial, and unjustly displays a touch of
arrogance on the part of the Prophet of Nazareth. If we want to find out the
real sense in these words we must correct the text and supply the stolen or
corrupted words, thus:
I
shall go to the Father, and he shall send you another messenger whose name
shall be Periqlytos, that he may remain with you for ever.
Now with the
additional italicized words, both the robbed modesty of Jesus is restored and
the nature of the Periqlyte identified.
We have already seen
that the Periqlyte is not the Holy Spirit, that is to say, a divine person,
Gabriel, or any other angel. It now remains to prove that the Periqlyte could
not be a consoler nor an advocate between God and men.
1. The Periqlyte is not the “Consoler”
nor the “Intercessor.” We have fully shown the material impossibility of
discovering the least signification of “consolation” or of “intercession”.
Christ does not use Paraqalon. Besides, even from a religious and moral point
of view the idea of consolation and intercession is inadmissible.
(a)
The belief that the
death of Jesus upon the Cross redeemed the believers from the curse of original
sin, and that his spirit, grace, and presence in the Eucharist would be for
ever with them, left them in need of no consolation nor of the coming of a
consoler at all. On the other hand, if they needed such a comforter, then all
the Christian presumptions and pretensions concerning the sacrifice of Calvary
fall to the ground. In fact, the language of the Gospels and that of the
Epistles explicitly indicates that the second coming Jesus upon the clouds was
imminent (Matt. xvi. 28; Mark ix. 1; Luke ix. 27; 1 John ii. 18; 2 Tim. ii. 1;
2 Thess. ii. 3, etc.).
(b)
Consolation can never
make restitution of the loss. To console a man who has lost his sight, wealth,
son, or situation, cannot restore any of those losses. The promise that a
consoler would be sent by God after Jesus had gone would indicate the total
collapse of all hope in the triumph of the Kingdom of God.
The promise of a
consoler indicates mourning and lamentation and would naturally drive the
Apostles into disappointment if not into despair. They needed, not a consoler
in their distress and afflictions, but a victorious warrior to crush the devil
and his power, one who would put an end to their troubles and persecutions.
(c)
The idea of an
“intercessor” between God and man is even more untenable than that of the
“consoler.” There is no absolute mediator between the Creator and the creature.
The Oneness of Allah alone is our absolute intercessor.
The Christ who
advised his audience to pray to God in secret, to enter the closet and shut the
door and then to pray – for only under such a condition their heavenly “Father”
would hear their prayer and grant them His grace and succor – could not promise
them an intercessor. How to reconcile this contradiction!
(d)
All believers, in
their prayers, intercede for each other, the prophets and angels do the same.
It is our duty to invoke the Mercy of Allah, pardon, and help for ourselves as
well as for others. But Allah is not bound or obliged to accept the
intercession of anyone unless He pleases.
I would be duly
grateful to the person through whose intercession I obtained pardon, and
relief. But I shall always dread the judge or the despot who was delivering me
into the hands of an executioner. How learned these Christians are, when they
believe that Jesus at the right hand of his Father intercedes for them, and at
the same time believe in another intercessor – inferior to himself – who sits
on the throne of the Almighty! Of course, we do not know for certain but
it is quite conceivable that certain angels, the spirits of the prophets and
those of the saints, are permitted by God to render help and guidance to those
who are placed under their patronage.
The idea of an
advocate before the tribunal of God, pleading the cause of his clients, may be
very admirable, but it is erroneous, because God is not a human judge subject
to passion, ignorance, partiality, and all the rest of it. The Muslims, the
believers, need only education and religious training; God knows the actions
and the hearts of men infinitely better than the angels and prophets.
It is worth noting
that the intercession of any good person for others is limited to those who
followed his prophet and those who accepted the succeeding prophet, but not for
those who followed his prophet then rejected the suceeding prophet.
(e)
The belief in
intercessors emanates from the belief in sacrifices, burnt offerings,
priesthood, and a massive edifice of superstition. This belief leads men into the
worship of sepulchers and images of saints and martyrs; it helps to increase
the influence and domination of the priest and monk; it keeps the people
ignorant in the things divine; a dense cloud of the intermediary dead cover the
spiritual atmosphere between God and the spirit of man.
Then this belief
prompts men who, for the pretended glory of God and the conversion of the
people belonging to a different religion than theirs, raise immense sums of
money, establish powerful and rich missions, and lordly mansions; but at heart
those missionaries are political agents of their respective Governments.
The real cause of the
calamities which have befallen the Armenians, the Greeks, and the
Chaldeo-Assyrians in Turkey and Persia ought to be sought in the treacherous
and revolutionary instruction given by all the foreign missions in the East.
Indeed, the belief in the intercessors has always been a source of abuse,
fanaticism, persecution, ignorance, and of many other evils.
Having proved that
the “Paraclete” of St. John’s Gospel does not and cannot mean either “consoler”
or “advocate,” nor any other thing at all, and that it is a corrupted form of
Periqlytos, we shall now proceed to discuss the real signification of it.
I
take for my authority Alexandre’s Dictionnaire Grec-Francais=Periqlytos, “Qu’on
peut entendre de tous les cotes; qu’il est facile a entendre. Tres celebre,”
etc. “= Periqleitos, tres celebre, illustre, glorieux; = Periqleys, tres
celebre, illustre, glorieux,” from = Kleos, glorire, renommee, celebrite.”
This
compound noun is composed of the prefix “peri,” and “kleotis,” the latter
derived from “to glorify, praise.” The noun, which I write in English
characters Periqleitos or Periqlytos, means precisely what AHMAD means in
Arabic, namely the most illustrious, glorious, and renowned. The only
difficulty to be solved and overcome is to discover the original Semitic name
used by Jesus Christ either in Hebrew or Aramaic.
(a)
The Syriac Pshittha, while writing
“Paraqleita,” does not even in a glossary give its meaning. But the Vulgate
translates it into “consolator” or “consoler.” If I am not mistaken the Aramaic
form must have been “Mhamda” or “Hamida”‘ to correspond with the Arabic
“Muhammad” or “Ahmad” and the Greek ‘Periqlyte.”
The interpretation of
the Greek word in the sense of consolation does not imply that the name
Periqlyte itself is the consoler, but the belief and the hope in the promise
that he will come “to console the early Christians. The expectation that Jesus
would come down again in glory before many of his auditors had “tasted the
death” had disappointed them, and concentrated all their hopes in the coming of
the Periqlyte.
(b)
The Qur’anic
revelation that Jesus, the son of Mary, declared unto the people of Israil that
he was “bringing glad tidings of a messenger, who shall come after me and whose
name shall be Ahmad,” is one of the strongest proofs that Prophet Muhammad was
truly a Prophet and that the Qur’an is really a Divine Revelation.
He could never have
known that the Periqlyte meant Ahmad, unless through inspiration and Divine
Revelation. The authority of the Qur’an is decisive and final; for the literal
signification of the Greek name exactly and indisputably corresponds with Ahmad
and Muhammad.
Indeed, the Angel
Gabriel, or the Holy Spirit, seems even to have distinguished the positive from
the superlative form the former signifying precisely Muhammad and the latter
Ahmad.
It is marvellous that
this unique name, never before given to any other person, was miraculously
preserved for the most Illustrious and Praiseworthy Prophet of Allah! We never
come across any Greek bearing the name Periqleitos (or Periqlytos), nor any
Arab bearing the name of Ahmad. True, there was a famous Athenian called
Periqleys which means “illustrious,” etc., but not in the superlative degree.
(c)
It is quite clear
from the description of the Fourth Gospel that Periqlyte is a definite person,
a created holy spirit, who would come and dwell in a human body to perform and
accomplish the prodigious work assigned to him by God, which no other man,
including Moses, Jesus, and any other prophet, had ever accomplished.
We, of course, do not
deny that the disciples of Prophet Jesus did receive the Spirit of God, that
the true converts to the faith of Jesus were hallowed with the Holy Spirit, and
that there were numerous Unitarian Christians who led a saintly and righteous
life. On the day of the Pentecost – that is, ten days after the Ascension of
Jesus Christ – the Spirit of God descended upon the disciples and other
believers numbering one hundred and twenty persons, in the form of tongues of
fire (Acts ii.); and this number, which had received the Holy Spirit in the
form of one hundred and twenty tongues of fire, was increased unto three
thousand souls who were baptized, but were not visited by the flame of the
Spirit.
Surely one definite
Spirit cannot be divided into six-score of individuals. By the Holy Spirit, unless
definitely described as a personality, we may understand it to be God’s power,
grace, gift, action, and inspiration. Jesus had promised this heavenly gift and
power to sanctify, enlighten, strengthen, and teach his flock; but this Spirit
was quite different from the Periqlyte who alone accomplished the great work
which Jesus and after him the Apostles were not authorized and empowered to
accomplish, as we shall see later.
(d)
The early Christians
of the first and second centuries relied more upon tradition than upon writings
concerning the new religion. Papias and others belong to this category. Even in
the lifetime of the Apostles several sects, pseudochrists, Antichrists, and
false teachers, tore asunder the Church (I John ii. 18-26; 2 Thess. ii. 1-12; 2
Peter ii. iii. 1; John 7-13; 1 Tim. iv. 1-3; 2 Tim. iii. 1-13; etc.).
The “believers” are
advised and exhorted to stick to and abide by the Tradition, namely, the oral
teaching of the Apostles. These so-called “heretical” sects, such as the
Gnostics, Apollinarians, Docetae, and others, appear to have no faith in the
fables, legends, and extravagant views about the sacrifice and the redemption
of Jesus Christ as contained in many fabulous writings spoken of by Luke (i.
1-4).
One of the
heresiarchs of a certain sect – whose name has escaped my memory – actually
assumed “Periqleitos” as his name, pretending to be “the most praiseworthy”
Prophet foretold by Jesus, and had many followers. If there were an authentic
Gospel authorized by Jesus Christ or by all the Apostles, there could be no
such numerous sects, all opposed to the contents of the books contained in or
outside the existing New Testament.
We can safely infer
from the action of the pseudo-Periqlyte that the early Christians considered
the promised “Spirit of Truth” to be a person and the final Prophet
of God.
3.There is not the slightest doubt that
by “Periqlyte,” Prophet Muhammad, i.e. Ahmad, is intended. The two names, one
in Greek and the other in Arabic, have precisely the same signification, and
both mean the “most Illustrious and Praised,” just as “Pneuma” and “Ruh.” mean
nothing more or less than “Spirit” in both languages.
We have seen that the
translation of the word into “consoler” or “advocate” is absolutely untenable
and wrong. The compound form of Paraqalon is derived from the verb composed of
the prefix-Para-qalo, but the Periqlyte is derived from the Peri-qluo. The
difference is as clear as anything could be. Let us examine, then, the marks of
the Periqlyte which can only be found in Ahmad – Prophet Muhammad.
(a)
Prophet Muhammad alone revealed the
whole truth about God, His Oneness, religion, and corrected the impious libels
and calumnies written and believed against Himself and many of His holy
worshipers.
Jesus
is reported to have said about Periqlyte that he is “the Spirit of Truth,” that
he “will give witness” concerning the true nature of Jesus and of his mission
(John xiv. 17; xv. 26).
In his discourses and
orations Jesus speaks of the pre-existence of his own spirit (John viii. 58 xvii.
5, etc.).
In the Gospel of
Barnabas, Jesus is reported to have often spoken of the glory and the
splendor of Prophet Muhammad’s spirit whom he had seen. There is no
doubt that the Spirit of the Last Prophet was created long before Adam.
Therefore
Jesus, in speaking about him, naturally would declare and describe him as “the
Spirit of Truth.” It was this Spirit of Truth that reprimanded the Christians
for dividing the Oneness of God into a trinity of persons; for their having
raised Jesus to the dignity of God and son of God, and for their having
invented all sorts of superstitions and innovations.
It
was this Spirit of Truth that exposed the frauds of both the Jews and
Christians for having corrupted their Scriptures; that condemned the former for
their libels against the chastity of the Blessed Virgin and against the birth
of her son Jesus.
It
was this Spirit of Truth that demonstrated the birthright of Ishmael, the
innocence of Lot, Solomon, and many other prophets of old and cleared their
name of the slur and infamy cast upon them by the Jewish forgers.
It was this Spirit of
Truth, too, that gave witness about the true Jesus, man, prophet, and worshiper
of God; and has made it absolutely impossible for Muslims to become idolaters,
magicians, and believers in more than the One and only Allah.
(b)
Among the principal
marks of Periqlyte, “the Spirit of Truth,” when he comes in the person of the
“Son of Man” – Ahmad – is “he will chastise the world for sin” (John xvi. 8,
9).
No other worshiper of
Allah, whether a king like David and Solomon or a prophet like Abraham and
Moses, did carry on this chastisement for sin to the extreme end, with
resolution, fervor, and courage as Prophet Muhammad did. Every breach of the
law is a sin, but idolatry is its mother and source.
We sin against God
when we love an object more than Him, but the worship of any other object or
being besides God is idolatry, the evil and the total negligence of the Good –
in short, sin in general. All the men of God chastised their neighbors and
people for sin, but not “the world,” as Prophet Muhammad did.
He not only rooted
out idolatry in the peninsula of Arabia in his lifetime, but also he sent
envoys to the Chosroes Parviz and to Heraclius, the sovereigns of the two
greatest empires, Persia and Rome, and to the King of Ethiopia, the Governor of
Egypt, and several other Kings and amirs, inviting them all to embrace the
religion of Islam and to abandon idolatry and false faiths.
The chastisement by
Prophet Muhammad began with the delivery of the Word of God as he received it,
namely, the recital of the verses of the Qur’an; then with preaching, teaching,
and practicing the true religion; but when the Power of Darkness, idolatry,
opposed him with arms he drew the sword and punished the unbelieving enemy.
This was in fulfillment of the decree of God (Dan. vii.).
Prophet Muhammad was
endowed by God with power and dominion to establish the Kingdom of God, and to
become the first Prince and Commander-in-Chief under the “King of Kings and the
Lord of Lords.”
(c)
The other
characteristic feature of the exploits of Periqlyte – Ahmad – is that he will
reprove the world of righteousness and justice (loc. cit.).
The interpretation
“of righteousness, because I am going to my Father” (John xvi. 10) put into the
mouth of Jesus is obscure and ambiguous. The return of Jesus unto his God is
given as one of the reasons for the chastisement of the world by the coming
Periqlyte. Why so? And who did chastise the world on that account?
The
Jews believed that they crucified and killed Jesus, and did not believe that he
was raised and taken up into heaven. It was Prophet Muhammad who chastised and
punished them severely for their infidelity.
“Rather,
Allah raised him (Jesus) up to Him…” (Qur’an Ch.4 v158).
The
same chastisement was inflicted upon the Christians who believed and still
believe that he was really crucified and killed upon the Cross, and imagine him
to be God or the son of God.
To these the Qur’an
replied:
“…They
did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but to them (the one crucified) was
given the look (of Jesus). Those who differ concerning him (Jesus) surely are
in doubt regarding him, they have no knowledge of him, except the following of
supposition and they did not kill him – a certainty” (Ch.4 v157).
Several
believers in Jesus in the very beginning of Christianity denied that Christ
himself suffered upon the Cross, but maintained that another among his
followers, Judas Iscariot or another very like him, was seized and crucified in
his stead.The Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Corpocratians and many other
sectaries held the same view.
I have fully
discussed this question of the Crucifixion in my work entitled Injil wa Salib
(“The Gospel and the Cross”) of which only one volume was published in Turkish
just before the Great War. I shall devote an article to this subject. So the
justice done to Jesus by Ahmad was to authoritatively declare that he was “Ruhu
‘l-Lah,” the Spirit of God that he was not himself crucified and killed, and
that he was a human being but a beloved and Holy Messenger of God. This was
what Jesus meant by justice concerning his person, mission, and transportation
into heaven, and this was actually accomplished by the Prophet and Messenger of
Allah, Muhammad.
(d)
The most important
mark of Periqlyte is that he would chastise the world on account of Judgment
“because the prince of this world is to be judged” (John xvi. 11). The King or
Prince of this world was Satan (John xii. 31, xiv. 30), because the world was
subject to him.
I must draw the kind
attention of my readers to the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel written in
Aramaic or Babylonian dialect. There it illustrates how the “thrones”
(“Kursawan”) and the “Judgment” (“dina”) were set up, and the “books”
(“siphrin”) were opened.
In Arabic, too, the
word “dinu”, like the Aramaic “dina,” means judgment, but it is generally used
to signify religion. That the Qur’an should make use of the “Dina” of Daniel as
an expression of judgment and religion is more than significant. In my humble
opinion this is a direct sign and evidence of the truth revealed by the same
Holy Spirit or Gabriel to Prophets Daniel, Jesus, and Muhammad. Prophet
Muhammad could not forge or fabricate this even if he were as learned a
philosopher as Aristotle.
The judgment
described with all its majesty and glory was set up to judge the satan in the
form of the fearful fourth Beast by the Supreme Judge, the Eternal.
It was then that
someone appeared “like a son of man” (“kbar inish”) or “barnasha,” who was presented
to the Almighty, invested with power, honor, and kingdom for ever, and
appointed to kill the Beast and to establish the Kingdom of the People of the
Saints of the Most High.
Jesus
Christ was not appointed to destroy the Beast; he abstained from political
affairs, paid tribute to Caesar, and fled away when they wanted to crown him
King.
He
clearly declares that the Chief of this world is coming; for the Periqlyte will
root out the abominable cult of idolatry. All this was accomplished by Prophet
Muhammad in a few years. Islam is Kingdom and Judgment, or religion; it has the
Book of Law, the Holy Al-Qur’an; it has Allah as its Supreme Judge and King,
and Prophet Muhammad as its victorious hero of everlasting bliss and glory!
(e)
“The
last but not the least mark of the Periqlyte is that he will not speak anything
of himself, but whatsoever he hears that will he speak, and he will show you
the future things” (John xv. 13).
There is not one
iota, not a single word or comment of Prophet Muhammad or of his devoted and
holy companions in the text of the glorious Qur’an. All its contents are the
revealed Word of Allah. Prophet Muhammad recited, pronounced the Word of God as
he heard it read to him by the Angel Gabriel, and then it was memorized and
written by the faithful scribes. The words, sayings, and teachings of the
Prophet, though sacred and edifying, are not the Word of God,. and they are
called Hadith or Traditions.
Is
he not, then, even in this description, the true Periqlyte? Can you show us
another person, besides Ahmad, to possess in himself all these material, moral,
and practical qualities, marks, and distinctions of Periqlyte? You cannot.
I think I have said
enough on the Periqlyte and shall conclude with a sacred verse from the Qur’an:
“
I follow only what is revealed to me, I am only a clear warner” Ch.46:9.
0 Comments