Page 254 - New English Book L

253

The purport of the Sibyllian Revelation is that the
Hebrew [1] Son of Man or the Messiah will come to destroy
the power of Rome and to establish the religion of the true
God for all men.

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

Arguments from the Gospels, and from the
Apocalypses

In the most coherent and significant passages in the
discourses of Jesus (pbuh) where the appellation “Barnasha”
- or “the Son of Man”- appears, only Muhammad (pbuh) is
intended, and in him alone the prediction contained therein
is literally fulfilled. In some passages wherein Jesus (pbuh)
is supposed to have assumed that title for himself, that
passage becomes incoherent, senseless, and extremely
obscure. Take for instance the following passages: “The
Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said,
Behold …” [2] John Baptist (pbuh) was a teetotaller, he fed
himself only on water, locusts, and wild honey; they said
he was a demoniac; but “the Son of Man,” id est Jesus
(pbuh) (?), who ate and drank wine, was branded as “the
friend of publicans and sinners”! To blame a prophet for
his fasting and abstinence is a sin of infidelity or a gross
ignorance. However, to reproach a person who claims
to be a Messenger of God of frequenting the banquets
of publicans and sinners, and for being fond of wine,
is quite natural and a very serious charge against the
sincerity of that person who pretends to be a spiritual
guide of men. Can we Muslims believe in the sincerity
of a Khwaja or Mullah when we see him mixing with

[1] The name “Hebrew” in its wider sense is applied to all the descendants of
Abraham (pbuh) , who afterwards assumed the names of their respective ancestors,
such as the Ishmaelites, Edomites Israelites, etc. (the author).

[2] Matt. xi. 19.