The "Paraclete" Is Not The Holy Spirit

In this article we can now discuss the famous "Paraclete" of the Fourth
Gospel. Jesus Christ, like John the Baptist, announced the advent of the Kingdom
of God, invited the people to repentance, and baptized them for the remission of
their sins. He honorably accomplished his mission, and faithfully delivered the
message of God to the people of Israel. He was not himself the founder of the
Kingdom of God, but only its herald, and that is why he wrote nothing and
authorized no one to write the Holy Gospel that was inscribed in his mind. He
revealed the Gospel which meant the "good news" concerning the "Kingdom of God"
and the "Pereiklitos" to his followers, not in writing, but in oral discourses,
and in public sermons. These discourses sermons, and parables were transmitted
by those who had heard them to those who had not. Later on it was that the
sayings and teachings of the Master were reduced to writing. Jesus was no longer
the Rabbi, but the Logos – the Divine Word; no longer the Forerunner of the
Paraclete but his very Lord and Superior. His pure and true words were
adulterated and mixed with myth and legend. For a time he was expected at any
moment to come down from the clouds with legions of angels. The Apostles had all
passed away; the second coming of Jesus Christ was delayed. His person and
doctrine gave rise to a variety of religious and philosophical speculations.
Sects succeeded one another; Gospels and Epistles under different names and
titles appeared in many centers; and a multitude of the Christian scholars and
apologists combated and criticized each other’s theory. If there had been
written a Gospel during the lifetime of Jesus, or even a book authorized by the
College of the Apostles, the teachings of the Prophet of Nazareth would have
preserved their purity and integrity until the appearance of the Periqlit –
Ahmad. But such was not the case. Each writer took a different view about the
Master and his religion, and described him in his book – which he named Gospel
or Epistle – according to his own imagination. The high-soaring flight of
thought concerning the Word; the prophecy about the Periqlit; the inexplicable
discourse of Jesus upon his flesh and blood; and a series of several miracles,
events, and sayings recorded in the Fourth Gospel were unknown to the Synoptics
and consequently to a great majority of the Christians who had not seen it at
least for a couple of centuries.

The Fourth Gospel, too, like every other book of the New Testament, was
written in Greek and not in Aramaic, which was the mother-tongue of Jesus and
his disciples. Consequently, we are again confronted with the same difficulty
which we met with when we were discussing the "Eudokia" of St. Luke, namely:
What word or name was it that Jesus used in his native tongue to express that
which the Fourth Gospel has translated as "the Paraclete" and which has been
converted into "comforter" in all the versions of that Gospel?

Before discussing the etymology and the true signification of this
unclassical or rather corrupt form of the Paraclete it is necessary to make a
brief observation upon one particular feature of St. John’s Gospel. The
authorship and authenticity of this Gospel are questions which concern the
Higher Biblical Criticism; but it is impossible to believe that the Apostle
could have written this book as we have it in its present shape and contents.
The author, whether Yohannan (John) the son of Zebedee, or someone else under
that name, seems to be familiar with the doctrine of the celebrated Jewish
scholar and philosopher Philon concerning the Logos (Word). It is well known
that the conquest of Palestine and the foundation of Alexandria by Alexander the
Great opened up, for the first time, a new epoch for culture and civilization.
It was then that the disciples of Moses met with those of Epicurus, and the
mighty impact of the spiritual doctrines of the Bible on the materialism of the
Greek paganism took place. The Greek art and philosophy began to be admired and
studied by the Jewish doctors of the law both in Palestine and in Egypt, where
they had a very numerous community. The penetration of the Greek thought and
belles-lettres into the Jewish schools alarmed their priests and learned men. In
fact, Hebrew was so much neglected that the Scriptures were read in the
Alexandrian Synagogues in the Septuagint Version. This invasion by a foreign
knowledge, however, moved the Jews to make a better study of their own law, and
to defend it against the inauspicious new spirit. They endeavored, therefore, to
find a new method for the interpretation of the Bible in order to enable the
possibility of a "rapprochement" and reconciliation of the Biblical truths with
the Hellenic thought. For their former method of a literal interpretation of the
law was felt to be unworkable and too weak to stand against the fine reasoning
of Plato and Aristotle. At the same time the solid activities of the Jews and
their profound devotion to their religion often aroused against themselves the
jealousy and hatred of the Greeks. Already, under Alexander the Great, an
Egyptian priest, Manetho, had written libels or calumnies against Judaism. Under
Tiberius, too, the great orator Apion had resuscitated and envenomed the insults
of Manetho. So that this literature poisoned the people who, later on, cruelly
persecuted the believers in the One true God.

The new method was accordingly found and adopted. It was an allegorical
interpretation of every law, precept, narration and even the names of great
personages were considered to conceal in them a secret idea which it attempted
to bring to light. This allegorical interpretation soon arrogated to itself the
place of the Bible, and was like an envelope enclosing in itself a system of
religious philosophy.

Now the most prominent man who personified this science was Philon, who was
born of a rich Jewish family in Alexandria in the year 25 before the Christian
Era. Well versed in the philosophy of Plato, he wrote his allegorical work in a
pure and harmonious Greek style. He believed that the doctrines of the
Revelation could agree with the highest human knowledge and wisdom. What
preoccupied his mind most was the phenomenon of the dealings of God, the pure
Spirit, with the earthly beings. Following Plato’s theory of the "Ideas," he
invented a series of intermediary ideas called "the Emanations of the Divinity,"
which he transformed into angles who unite God with the world. The fundamental
substance of these ideas, the Logos (Word), constituted the supreme wisdom
created in the world and the highest expression of the Providential action.

The Alexandrian School followed the triumph of Judaism over Paganism. "But,"
as rightly remarks the Grand-Rabin Paul Haguenauer in his interesting little
book Manuel de Litterature luive (p. 24). "mais d’elle surgirent, plus tard, des
systemes nuisibles Li l’hebraisme" indeed noxious systems, not only to Judaism
but to Christendom too!

The origin of the doctrine of the Logos is to be traced, therefore, to the
theology of Philon, and the Apostle John – or the author of the Fourth Gospel,
whoever he be – only dogmatized the theory of the "ideas" which had sprung up
first from the golden brain of Plato. As remarked in the first article of this
series, the Divine Word means the Word of God, and not God the Word. The word is
an attribute of a rational being; it belongs to any speaker, but it is not the
rational being, the speaker. The Divine Word is not eternal, it has an origin, a
beginning; it did not exist before the beginning except potentially. The word is
not the essence. It is a serious error to substantialize any attribute whatever.
If it be permitted to say "God the Word," why should it be prohibited to say,
God the Mercy, God the Love, God the Vengeance, God the Life, God the Power, and
so forth? I can well understand and accept the appellation of Jesus "the Spirit
of Allah" ("Ruhu l-Lah"), of Moses "the Word of Allah" ("Kalamu ‘I-Lah"), of
Muhammad "the Messenger of Allah" ("Rasul Allah"), meaning the Spirit of God,
the Word of God, the Messenger of God respectively. But I can never understand
nor accept that the Spirit, or the Word, or the Messenger, is a Divine Person
having divine and human natures.

Now we will proceed to expose and confute the Christian error about the
Paraclete. In this article I shall try to prove that the Paraclete is not, as
the Christian Churches believe, the Holy Ghost, nor does it at all mean the
"comforter" or the "intercessor;" and in the following article, please God, I
shall clearly show that it is not "Paraclete" but "Periclyte" which precisely
signifies "Ahmad" in the sense of "the most Illustrious, Praised, and
Celebrated."

1. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS DESCRIBED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AS OTHERWISE THAN A
PERSONALITY

A careful examination of the following passages in the New Testament will
convince the readers that the Holy Spirit, not only is it not the third person
of the Trinity, but is not even a distinct person. But the "Paraclete"
foretold by Jesus Christ is a distinct person. This fundamental difference
between the two is, therefore, a decisive argument against the hypothesis of
their being one and the same person.

(a) In Luke xi. 13 the Holy Spirit is declared to be a "gift" of God. The
contrast between the "good gifts" which are given by wicked parents and the
Holy Spirit which is bestowed upon the believers by God entirely excludes the
idea of any personality of the Spirit. Can we conscientiously and positively
affirm that Jesus Christ, when he made the above contrast, meant to teach his
hearers that "God the Father" makes a gift of "God the Holy Spirit" to His
earthly "children"? Did he ever insinuate that he believed the third person of
the Trinity to be a gift of the first person of the Trinity? Can we
conscientiously admit that the Apostles believed this "gift" to be God the
Almighty offered by God the Almighty to mortals? The very idea of such a
belief makes a Muslim shudder.

(b) In 1 Cor. ii. 12 this Holy Spirit is described in the neuter gender
"the Spirit from God". Paul clearly states that as the Spirit which is in man
makes him know the things that appertain to him so the Spirit of God makes a
man know the things divine (1 Cor. 11). Consequently, the Holy Spirit here is
not God but a divine issue, channel, or medium through which God teaches,
enlightens, and inspire those whom He pleases. It is simply an action of God
upon human soul and mind.

Just as the philosophy of Plato is not the Plato, and the Platonist Philon
not the creator of that specific wisdom, so Peter was not God because of his
enlightenment by the Spirit of God. Paul clearly sets forth, in the passage
just quoted, that the human soul cannot discern the truths concerning God but
only through His Spirit, inspiration, and direction.

(c) Again, in 1 Cor. vi. 19 we read that the righteous worshipers of God
are called "the temple of the Holy Spirit" which they "received from God."
Here again the Spirit of God is not indicated to be a person or an angel, but
His virtue, word, or power and religion. Both the body and the soul of a
righteous believer are compared with a temple dedicated to the worship of the
Eternal.

(d) In the Epistle to the Romans (viii. 9) this same spirit that "lives"
within the believers is called alternately "the Spirit of God" and the "Spirit
of Christ." In this passage "the Spirit" means simply the faith and the true
religion of God which Jesus proclaimed. Surely this spirit cannot mean to be
the Christian ideal of the Holy Ghost, viz. another third of the three. We
Muslims always wish and intend to regulate our lives and conduct ourselves in
accordance with the spirit of Prophet Muhammad, meaning thereby that we are
resolved to be faithful to the religion of Allah in much the same way as the
Last Prophet was. For the holy Spirit in Prophet Muhammad, in Prophet Jesus,
and in every other prophet was no other than the Spirit of Allah – praised be
His Holy Name! This spirit is called "holy" to distinguish it from the impure
and wicked spirit of the devil and his companions. This spirit is not a divine
person, but a divine ray that enlightens and sanctifies the people of God.

(e) The Gospel formula, "In the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit," even if authentic and truly prescribed by Christ, may be
legitimately accepted as a formula of faith before the formal establishment of
Islam, which is the real Kingdom of God upon earth. God Almighty in His
quality of Creator is the Father of all beings, things, and intelligences, but
not the Father of one particular son. The Orientalists know that the Semitic
word "abb" or "abba," which is translated as "father," means "one who brings
forth, or bears fruit" ("ibba" = fruit). This sense of the word is quite
intelligible and its use legitimate enough. The Bible frequently makes use of
the appellation "Father." God, somewhere in the Bible, says: "Israel is my
first-born son"; and elsewhere in the book of Job He is called "the father of
the rain." It is because of the abuse of this Divine Appellation of the
Creator by Christendom that the Qur’an refrains from using it. From a purely
Muslim point of belief the Christian dogma concerning the eternal birth or
generation of the Son is a blasphemy.

Whether the Christian baptismal formula is authentic or spurious I believe
there is a hidden truth in it. For it must be admitted that the Evangelists
never authorize the use of it in any other ritual, prayer, or creed other than
that of Baptism. This point is extremely important. St. John had foretold the
Baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire by the Prophet Muhammad, as we saw in
the preceding articles. The immediate Baptizer being God Himself, and the
mediate the Son of Man or the Barnasha of the vision of Daniel, it was
perfectly just and legitimate to mention those two names as the first and
second efficient causes; and the name of the Holy Spirit, too, as the causa
materialis of the Sibghatullah! Now the Divine Appellation "Father," before
its abuse by the Church, was rightly invoked. In fact, the Sibghatullah is a
new birth, a nativity into the Kingdom of God which is Islam. The Baptizer who
causes this regeneration is directly Allah. To be born in the religion if
Islam, to be endowed with the faith in the true God, is the greatest favor and
gift of the "Heavenly Father" – to use the evangelistic expression. In this
respect God is infinitely more beneficent than an earthly father.

As regards the second name in the formula, "the Son," one is at a loss to
know who or what this "son" is? Whose son? If God is rightly addressed
"Father," then one is curious, inquisitive, and anxious to know which of His
innumerable "sons" is intended in the baptismal formula. Jesus taught us to
pray "Our Father who art in heaven." If we are all His sons in the sense of
His creatures, then the mention of the word "son" in the formula becomes
somehow senseless and even ridiculous. We know that the name "the Son of Man"
– or "Barnasha" – is mentioned eighty-three times in the discourses of Jesus.
The Qur’an never calls Jesus "the son of man" but always "the son of Mary." He
could not call himself "the son of man" because he was only "the son of
woman." There is no getting away from the fact. You may make him "the son of
God" as you do, but you can’t make him "the son of man" unless you believe him
to be the offspring of Joseph or someone else, and consequently fasten on to
him the taint of illegitimacy.

I don’t know exactly how, whether through intuition, inspiration, or dream,
I am taught and convinced that the second name in the formula is an ill-fated
corruption of "the Son of Man," viz. the Barnasha of Daniel (vii.), and
therefore Ahmad "the Periqlytos" (Paraclete) of St. John’s Gospel.

As to the Holy Spirit in the formula, it is not a person or an individual
spirit, but an agency, force, energy of God with which a man is born or
converted into the religion and knowledge of the One God.

2. – WHAT THE EARLY FATHERS OF THE NASARA (CHRISTIANITY) SAY ABOUT THE
HOLY SPIRIT.

(a) Hermas (Similitude v. 5, 6) understands, by the "Holy Spirit," the
divine element in Christ, namely the Son created before all things. Without
entering into the useless or rather meaningless discussion whether Hermas
confounds the Holy Spirit with the Word, or if it is a distinct element
belonging to Christ, it is admitted that the latter was created before all
things – that is to say, in the beginning – and that the Spirit in Hermas’
belief is not a person.

(b) Justin – called the "Martyr" (100?-167? A.C.) – and Theophilus
(120?-180? A.C.) understand by the Holy Spirit sometimes a peculiar form of
the manifestation of the Word and sometimes a divine attribute, but never a
divine person. It must be remembered that these two Greek fathers and writers
of the second century A.C. had no definite knowledge and belief about the Holy
Ghost of the Trinitarians of the fourth and the succeeding centuries.

(c) Athenagoras (110-180 A.C.) says the Holy Spirit is an emanation of God
proceeding from and returning to Him like the rays of the sun (Deprecatio pro
Christiarus, ix, x). Irenaeus (130?-202? A.C.) says that the Holy Spirit and
the Son are two worshipers of God and that the angels submit to them. The wide
difference between the belief and the conceptions of these two early fathers
about the Holy Spirit is too obvious to need any further comment. It is
surprising that the two worshipers of God, according to the declaration of
such an authority as Irenaeus, should, two centuries afterwards, be raised to
the dignity of God and proclaimed two divine persons in company with the one
true God by whom they were created.

(d) The most illustrious and learned of all the ante-Nicene fathers and the
Christian apologists was Origen (185-254 A C.). The author of the Hexepla
ascribes personality to the Holy Spirit, but makes it a creature of the Son.
The creation of the Holy Spirit by the Son cannot be even in the beginning
when the Word – or the Son – was created by God.

The doctrine concerning this Holy Spirit was not sufficiently developed in
325 A.C., and therefore was not defined by the Council of Nicea. It was only
in 386 A.C. at the second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople that it was
declared to be the Third Person of the Trinity, consubstantial and coeval with
the Father and the Son.

3. – The "Paraclete" does not signify either "consoler" or "advocate";
in truth, it is not a classical word at all. The Greek orthography of the word
is Paraklytos which in ecclesiastical literature is made to mean "one called to
aid, advocate, intercessor" (Dict. Grec.-Francais, by Alexandre). One need not
profess to be a Greek scholar to know that the Greek word for "comforter or
consoler" is not "Paraclytos" but "Paracalon". I have no Greek version of the
Septuagint with me, but I remember perfectly well that the Hebrew word for
"comforter" ("mnahem") in the Lamentations of Jeremiah (i. 2, 9, 16, 17, 21,
etc.) is translated into Parakaloon, from the verb Parakaloo, which means to
call to, invite, exhort, console, pray, invoke. It should be noticed that there
is a long alpha vowel after the consonant kappa in the "Paracalon" which does
not exist in the "Paraclytos." In the phrase (He who consoles us in all our
afflictions") "paracalon" and not "paraclytos" is used. ("I exhort, or invite,
thee to work"). Many other examples can be cited here.

There is another Greek word for comforter and consoler, i.e. "Parygorytys"
from "I console."

As to the other meaning of "intercessor or advocate" which is given in the
ecclesiastical word "Paraclete," I again insist that "Paracalon" and not
"Paraclytos" can convey in itself a similar sense. The proper Greek term for
"advocate" is Sunegorus and for "intercessor" or "mediator" Meditea.

In my next article I shall give the true Greek form of which Paraklytos is a
corruption. En passant, I wish to correct an error into which the French savant
Ernest Renan has also fallen. If I recollect well, Monsieur Renan, in his famous
The Life of Christ, interprets the "Paraclete" of St John (xiv. 16, 26; xv. 7; 1
John ii. 1) as an "advocate." He cites the Syro-Chaldean form "Peraklit" as
opposed to "Ktighra" "the accuser" from Kategorus. The Syrian name for mediator
or intercessor is "mis’aaya," but in law courts the "Snighra" (from the Greek
Sunegorus) is used for an advocate. Many Syrians unfamiliar with the Greek
language consider the "Paraqlita" to be really the Aramaic or the Syriac form of
the "Paraclete" in the Pshittha Version and to be composed of "Paraq," "to save
from, to deliver from," and "lita" "the accursed." The idea that Christ is the
"Savior from the curse of the law," and therefore he is himself too "Paraqlita"
(1 John ii. 1), may have led some to think that the Greek word is originally an
Aramaic word, just as the Greek sentence "Maran atha" in Aramaic is "Maran
Athi," i.e. "our Lord is coming" (1 John xvi. 22), which seems to be an
expression among the believers regarding the coming of the Last Great Prophet.
This ‘Maran Athi," as well as, especially, the baptismal formula, contains
points too important to be neglected. They both deserve a special study and a
valuable exposition. They both embody in themselves marks and indications
otherwise than favorable to Christianity.

I think I have sufficiently proved that the "Paraclytos," from a linguistic
and etymological point of view, does not mean "advocate, consoler, or
comforter." For centuries the ignorant Latins and Europeans have been writing
the name of Prophet Muhammad "Mahomet," that of Mushi "Moses." Is it, therefore,
small wonder that some sturdy Christian monk or scribe should have written the
true name in the corrupted form of Paraklytos? The former means the "most
Illustrious, Praiseworthy," but the corrupted form means nothing at all except a
standing shame to those who have for eighteen centuries understood it to signify
an advocate or a consoler.