Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Muhammad: The Messiah to the Mankind.


"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity."

__________________________George Bernard Shaw.

How does God Works?

Everyone that works, works for an end in which he finds satisfaction. Wherefore, God, as He is perfect, hasn't need of satisfaction, because He has satisfaction Himself. And so, willing to work, He created before all things, the soul of His Habib, for whom He determined to create the whole, in order that the creatures should find joy and blessedness in God [ie. as Mercy of Creations or in short the Messiah to the Mankind], whence His Habib should take delight in all His creatures, which He has appointed to be His Messenger, His slave. And wherefore this is, so save as thus He willed.

Who shall be the Messiah?

"Every prophet when he came, borne to one nation only, which was the mark of the mercy of God. And so their words were not extended save to that people to which they were sent. But the Messiah, when he shall come, God shall give to him as it were the seal of His hand, insomuch that he shall carry salvation and mercy to all the nations of the world that shall receive his doctrine."
He, the Messiah, shall come with power upon the ungodly, and shall destroy idolatry, insomuch that he shall make Satan confounded; for so promised God to Abraham, saying:
 
"Behold, in your seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as you have broken in pieces the idols, O Abraham;, even so shall your seed do.""

From this verse, it is clear, in whom this promise was made. Surely it is "in Ishmael;" not "in Isaac,". Then why the Jews say that the Messiah will be among them and in the lineage of David? Is their claim baseless?

To justify their claim, we have to inquire the lineage of David. And we find, he was of Isaac; for Isaac was father of Jacob, and Jacob was father of Judah, of whose lineage is David.  And the Messiah, when he shall come, of what lineage will he be?

In Zabur (Psalm), we find that David calls him (the Messiah) lord, saying thus: "God said to my lord, "Sit on My Right Hand, Until I make your enemies your footstool."” -[Psalm, 110:1]

According to this verse of Psalms, God shall send forth Jews lord which shall have lordship in the midst of their enemies, not among them. Again, If that Messenger of God whom they call Messiah shall be the son of David, how should David call him lord? Thus it confirms the Promised Messiah shall never be the son of David.

Now the Question is, if this is true, then, 
How it is written in the Book of Moses, that the promise was made in Isaac?

It is so written, but Moses did not write it, nor Joshua, but rather their Rabbins! For its justification, we have to consider the words of the Angel Gabriel, and then we shall discover the malice of (Jew) scribes and doctors. For the angel said: "Abraham, all the world shall know how God loves you; but how shall the world know the love that you bear to God? Assuredly it is necessary that you do something for love of God."Abraham answered: 'Behold the servant of God, ready to do all that which God shall will.'
    
Then spoke God, saying to Abraham: "Take your son, your firstborn; and come up the mountain Marwah [al-Marwah- a mountain now located in the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca and interestingly, the Jews falsely changed it to Moria] to sacrifice him."

Now, what is written in the Bible? 

One may find there Isaac as the firstborn. Then it is a question, "How is Isaac firstborn, if, when Isaac was born Ishmael was seven years old?" Therefore, it is clear, that is the deception of their doctors."

Satan ever seeks to annul the laws of God; and therefore he with his followers, hypocrites and evil-doers, the former with false doctrine, the latter with lewd living, today have contaminated almost all things, so that scarcely is the truth found. And For this, their praises of this world shall turn for them into insults and torments in hell for ever.

Again, And when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House [of God], (Abraham prayed): 
Our Lord! Accept from us (this duty). Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Hearer, the Knower.
Our Lord! And make us submissive unto Thee and of our seed a nation submissive unto Thee, and show us our ways of worship, and relent toward us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Relenting, the Merciful.Our Lord! And raise up in their midst "a messenger" from among them "who shall recite unto them Thy revelations", and shall instruct them in the Scripture and in wisdom and shall make them grow. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Mighty, Wise. -(2:127-129)

And it was then God replied (also stated above)- "Behold, in your seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as you have broken in pieces the idols, O Abraham;, even so shall your seed do.""

Here God mentioned Muhammad because only he had broken the idols of Kaba. And thus God's promise "in your seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth" fulfilled through Muhammad.

But how we consider Muhammad as Messiah for the Mankind?
We can justify him as- 
The appointment of the Prophet Muhammad is indeed a blessing and mercy of God to the whole world. This is because he aroused the neglectful world from its heedlessness and gave it the knowledge of the criterion between truth and falsehood [Quran or Furqan], and warned it very clearly of both the ways of salvation and ruin. This makes him as Messiah to the mankind. 

Thus Qur'an says- Muhammad is .....the Messenger of God and the seal of the Prophets. -[al-Ahzab, 33:40] We have sent you forth as a witness, a bearer of good tidings, and a warner, as one who calls people to God by His leave, and as a bright, shining lamp. -[al-Ahzab, 33:45-46] We have sent you as a blessing for the people of the whole world. -[al-Anbiya, 21:107]


And it is said in the Qur'an:
"Those who disbelieve and avert from the way of God -He (God) will waste their deeds. And those who believe and do righteous deeds and believe in what has been sent down upon Muhammad- He (God) will remove from them their misdeeds and amend their condition and it is the truth from their Lord." -[Muhammad, 47:1-2]

Why so said? 

It is because those who disbelieve follow falsehood, and those who believe follow the truth from their Lord. And in Qur'an God present to the people both their comparisons. -[see, Muhammad, 47:3]

Thus we can conclude that through Muhammad God bless all the tribes [mainly JINN and INSAN] of the earth. So-"The promised Messiah obviously from Ishmael, not Isaac."

Again, Jesus can not be the Messiah for Mankind because- Every prophet except Messiah when he came, borne to one nation only, which was the mark of the mercy of God. Thus Jesus was Messiah for Israelis only, not as blessings for the people of the whole world. As Jesus himself declared, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” -[Mathew, 15:21-24]

Again as he was the Messiah for Israelis only, he cant show any interest for the non Israelis. Thus we see in the Gospel, he tried to overlook a Canaanite women as she was non Israelities. The woman running behind him and crying for his help, saying, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! ......” Yet, Jesus did not answer her, it is not because he is not the son of David, but because he only sent for Bani Israelis. But when his disciples bring it noticed to him and urged, “Send her away, as she is shouting....”, then he answered the above to that woman.

But the women had a strong belief that Jesus was a holy man and if he prayed to God that shall be answered. So she fell on his feet, and cried out, “Lord, help me!”

And Jesus replied that he had bread only for the sons of Israel and he can't toss that to the dogs ie. to non Israelis. Actually he said,  “It is not right to take the "children’s bread" [Gospel] and toss it "to the dogs [non Israel].”-

The women didn't losses her temper as Jesus compare her to the dogs but still with her faith she said, "Yet, lord, the dogs eat that fall from their masters table.” Jesus pleased with the women's strong belief, yet he didn't gave her a small part of the bread that he had with him for the sons of Israel. He only wished that God may fulfill what she asked for. -[Mathew 15:25-26]

What happened after Jesus? 

We will find, what Jesus not did, Paul does, he picked the bread that overlooked by the sons of Israel and toss that to the Dogs. And sure, a neckless of pearl [sayings of Jesus] never be valued by the Dogs [non Israelis]. Example: Pork, see how non Jew made lawful for them misunderstanding the sayings of Jesus. [See my Article, Pork ]

Now, its a Question, why God sent Jesus only for Jews? Why not for mankind? It was because of the promise of God to Abraham. His Lord said to him, "Submit", Abraham said, "I have submitted [in Islam] to the Lord of the worlds." -(4: 131) And when God tried Abraham with His commands and he fulfilled them. Then God said to him, "Indeed, I will make you a leader for the people." Abraham said, "And of my descendants?" He said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers." -(2:124)

That is, Abraham was made leader not only for mankind, but also promised with a prophethoodship among his descendants,with a condition of obedient-ship as His promise can't be applicable for the transgressor, so He said thus- "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers."

And for that covenant, every time the Israelis deviated from the path of God, He sent a messenger among them. But the Jews were inattentive, bad intentional and disgraceful. Most of them ever believed on those Prophets. They denied some of them and killed others. So, they never understood Gods will, or His real Attributes. Qur'an says-
 
And We did certainly give Moses the Torah and followed up after him with messengers. And We gave Jesus, the son of Mary, clear proofs and supported him with the Pure Spirit. But is it [not] that every time a messenger came to you, [O Children of Israel], with what your souls did not desire, you were arrogant? And a party [of messengers] you denied and another party you killed. -(2: 87)

But the Israelis were the Chosen People, and a covenant between God and Abraham already made, so God wished them back to the right path as a try for the last time, through a prophet with some Godly Attributes, so that, they may never slipped from the path of God and no one to blame God for negligence in keeping promise for the chosen people. We came to know such of God's effort from the books of Jeremiah, It is written there- 


“Therefore, 

I will make them to know, once and for all, 
I will cause them to know, Mine hand and My might; 
Then they shall know that I am the Lord, God".- [Jeremiah 16:21]

Why God wanted to make the Jews to know once and for all? And why through a Prophet with Godly Attributes? It is because God sent a lot of Messengers among them and of which a no of prophets with clear proofs ie. backed by signs, but they denied some of them and killed others.

And what they behaved with Moses, the prophet through whom they witnessed most of the signs of God? God Says, "I will turn away from My signs those who are arrogant upon the earth without right; and if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. And if they see the way of consciousness, they will not adopt it as a way; but if they see the way of error, they will adopt it as a way. That is because they have denied Our signs and they were heedless of them." -(7:146)

The Israelis didn't fully believed on Moses, though he was one of the most powerful messenger of God. So, what to do with such a people of these nature? What type of Prophet they need for their salvation, to bring them back to the path of God, after a prophet like Moses who backed by lot of Signs of God of which they all were the witnessed? Surely, no Prophet but only God Himself. And this was the cause of sending them a Messenger with some Godly attributes as a last effort to bring them back to the right path.

Thus Jesus was that Prophet and a messiah to Israelis as a fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham. And this was the cause that Jesus said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” -[Mathew, 15:24] But when Jesus came, he didn't tell the Israelis that he is Messiah to them, he clarified Gods intention through a series of Parables, one of Lost Sheep- [Luke 15:3-7]; one of Lost Coin, -[Luke 15: 8-10]; and through a Parable of the Lost Son -[Luke 15:11-32] so that they may understand.

Now, its a question why Jesus hide that he is Messiah to the Israelis? 

It is because, Israelis reject him and then if he told them he is Messiah, they were not accepted him. So Jesus hide it, so that non Israelis may not thought that he is Messiah to mankind.

Elijah holds a unique place in Judaism, as Elijah never actually died in the Bible. In 2 Kings 2:11, Elijah is brought to Heaven in a chariot of fire, after which Elisha takes over as the primary prophet for the Jewish people. However, Elijah will return, and his return will be quite special. In Malachi 3:23-24, we read that Elijah will return at the time of the Messiah:"23: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the L-RD.24: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction."

So, we learn from the Book of Malachi that Elijah will herald the coming of the Messiah. Now, many in the Messianic "Jewish" movement adhere to the Christian belief that John was Elijah, as Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was Elijah in Matthew 11:13-14 and 17:10-13. However, John actually denied being Elijah in John 1:21. Most importantly, keep in mind what we learned in the Book of Kings. Elijah never actually died, yet we read of John's birth in the first chapter of Luke. So, John was born approximately at the time of Jesus, yet Elijah was born hundreds of years earlier and never died! Clearly, John cannot actually be Elijah. Luke 1:17 tries to get around this by claiming that John had the power and spirit of Elijah. However, we are again left with a basic problem; Malachi does not predict that someone with the "spirit of Elijah" will come, but that Elijah himself will come. Since Elijah did not come, and Elijah must herald the Messiah, Jesus cannot claim to be the Messiah.-[messianicjewishtruth.com/Elijah]

Now, We will back to the Qur'anic verse 2.114, [Allah] said, "My covenant does not include the wrongdoers." Now we will see what God spoke by Hosea the prophet: I will call chosen the people not chosen.’ And as He says in Ezekiel the prophet: "God shall make a new covenant with His people, not according to the covenant which he gave to your fathers, which they did not and He shall take from them, a heart of stone, and give them a new heart": and all this shall be because you do not walk now in His Law. And you have the key and do not open: rather you block the road for those who would walk in it."


Jeremiah says.'The time is coming, when I will make a new covenant with [for] the people of Israel and Judah. It won’t be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. They broke that covenant with me even though I was their husband. 


No, this is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel [Ishmael] after that time. I will put my laws within them and engrave them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.- Jeremiah,(31:31–33), 


And Gospel says in this regard- Jesus said, "There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he leased the vineyard to some farmers and moved to another place. When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.

“The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. Last of all, he sent his son to them. ‘They will respect my son,’ he said.

“But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him and take his inheritance.’ So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
“Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?”
“He will bring those wretches to a wretched end,” they replied, “and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time.”

"Exactly, that will happen", Jesus said "the vineyard will be taken back from Bani Israel and to be leased to Bani Ismael" he said, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:


“The stone, that rejected by the Masons 

has become the cornerstone; 
the Lord has done this, 
and it is marvelous in our eyes’ -[Zabur, 118:22-23] [Matthew 21:33-42]

The most interesting thing is that the stone, which rejected by the Masons (by Angels during construction of Ka'ba, by Abraham and Ismael during its reconstruction) was fallen in the courtyard, as it is. It was said that the stone fell from the Heaven as a guide for Adam where to build Kaba. -[Safi-ur-Rahman al-Mubarkpuri (2002). The Sealed Nectar] It was never worshiped by any and fallen neglected in the courtyard, not ever placed among the 300 idols of the Ka'ba. It was not set as the Corner Stone to the House of God when written in Zabur even when Jesus mentioned it. Later during Prophet Muhammad, in the year 605, it was set intact as the Eastern "Corner Stone" of Ka'ba. Prophet Muhammad placed the stone where it is now.

This Eastern Corner stone of Ka'ba is a Black Stone, called as al-Hajar al-Aswad. Muslim pilgrims circle the Ka'ba as a part of the Tawaf ritual during the hajj and many of the Hazi try to stop and kiss the Black Stone, emulating the kiss that Islamic tradition records that it received from Muhammad.-[Elliott, Jeri (1992). Your Door to Arabia. Lower Hutt, N.Z.: R. Eberhardt]

The Black Stone fell from Heaven to show Adam and Eve where to build an altar, which became the first House of God on Earth. -[Muhammad, Martin Lings, Ch.-1. The House of God] Some Muslim believe that the stone was originally pure and dazzling white, but has since turned black because of the sins of the people who touch it.-[Saying of the Prophet, Collection of Tirmizi, VII, 49] According to a prophetic tradition, "Touching them both (the Black Stone and al-Rukn al-Yamani) is an expiation for sins."-[Muhammad. Jami at-Tirmidhi: Book of Hajj. 2nd, Hadith 959]

Adam's altar and the stone were said to have been lost during Noah's Flood and forgotten. Ibrahim was said to have later found the Black Stone at the original site of Adam's altar when the angel Gabriel revealed it to him.-[Cyril Glasse, New Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 245] Abraham ordered his son Ismael —[who was in Muslim belief is an ancestor of Muhammad]— to build a new temple, the Kaaba, into which the Stone was to be embedded.

A hadith records that, when the second Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab (580–644) came to kiss the Stone, he said in front of all assembled: "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither harm anyone nor benefit anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Messenger kissing you, I would not have kissed you."-[University of Southern California. "Pilgrimage"] Now we back to the story-

Jesus concluded “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.” -[Matthew 21:43-44]

What happen later? 

Those stand against Muhammad and Muslim, they all broke into pieces. On the other hand, Muhammad and Muslin stand against those, they all destroyed.

Now we will find, what is said in the Hadith- Narrated by Abu Hurayrah, Prophet Muhammad said, "My similitude in comparison with the prophets before me is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: 'Would that this brick be put in its place!' So I am that brick, and I am the seal of the prophets (fa’anā ’l-labinah, wa anā khātamu ’n-nabīyīn)". -[Kitab al-Manaqib. Hadith 44; al-Bukhari #3293; Sahih Muslim #4246, Kitab al-Fada'il, Hadith 24; Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, #8959; an-Nasa'i; Sunan al-Kubra, #10907; Ibn Hibban, #654]

The birth of prophet Muhammad was not silent to the Magian world. A lot of incident happened serially at the night Muhammad Born. Though the Arabs were unaware of this. The Palace of the Persian King was shaken by an earthquake, so that fourteen of its battlements fell to the ground; the Sacred Fire, which had burned continuously for a thousand years was extinguished and the Lake of the Sawa suddenly dried up; while the chief priest of the Zoroastrians saw in a dream the West of Persia overrun by Arabian camels and horses from across the Tigris. At these portents Nushirwan was greatly troubled, nor was his trouble dispelled by the oracular answer brought back by his messenger 'Abdu'l-Masih, a Christian Arab of the tribe of Ghassan, from his uncle, the aged Satih, who dwelt on the borders of the Syrian desert. This answer, conveyed in the rhyming rajaz regarded by the Arabian soothsayers (kahana) as the appropriate vehicle of their oracles, was couched in the following strain:

    "On a camel 'Abdu'l-Masih
    Hastens toward Satih,
    Who to the verge of the Tomb
    Is already come.
    Thee hither doth bring
    The command of the Sasanian King
    Because the Palace hath quaked,
    And the Fire is slaked,
    And the Chief Priest in his dream hath seen
    Camels fierce and lean,
    And horse-troops by them led
    Over the Tigris bed
    Through the border marches spread.

    "O Abdu'l-Masih!
    When reading shall abound,
    And the Man of the Staff' be found
    And the hosts shall seethe
    in the Vale of Samawa,
    And dried up shall be the Lake of Sawa,
    And the Holy Fire of Persia shall fail,
    No more for Satih shall Syria avail!
    Yet to the number of the turrets
    Your kings and queens shall reign,
    And their empire retain,
   Though that which is to come cometh am'in!"  -[EG Browne, A literary History of Persia]

Muhammad was the promised prophet as selected before the creation of all. Thus he was blessed by all Muslims, even by angels and through God Himself- Indeed, Allah confers blessing upon the Prophet, and His angels. O you who have believed, ask blessing upon him and ask [Allah to grant him] peace. [Qur'an, 33: 56] ...truly Allah is his Protector, and Gabriel, and (every) righteous one among those who believe,- and furthermore, the angels - will back (him) up.-[66:4]

And strong evidence of finality of prophethood: seen in the declaration of God to Muhammad and Mankind as- "This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My Mercy upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion."-[5:3]

Who brought Mercy to the Mankind? From the above verse it is clear it was Muhammad not Jesus. And he who brought Mercy to the Mankind, surely was the Messiah to them.
 
Maimonides describes the identity of the Messiah. To him- the Messiah will impel all of Israel to follow it [Muhammad did that with the sword] and to strengthen breaches in its observance [Qur'an corrected all previous scripture], and will fight God's wars [surely Muhammad did], this one is to be treated as if he were the anointed one [sure]. If he succeeded and built the Holy Temple [ie Ka'ba] in its proper place [n its own glory, as Kaaba cleaned from false idol] and gathered the dispersed ones of Israel Ismael together [surely, the scattered Arabians for the first time became a nation], this is indeed the anointed one for certain, and he will mend the entire world to worship the Lord God together [surely entire world to Ka'ba, mecca], as it is stated: "For then I shall turn for the nations [all men of religion] a clear tongue [Muslims ordinance Arabic as the state language], so that they will all proclaim the Name of the Lord [Allah], and to worship Him with a united resolve -(Zephaniah 3:9)."[Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 11:4]
That is, what the Rabbins defined Messiah, all that pointing to none but Muhammad directly.

Thus it is Now, we confirmed Prophet Muhammad was the seal of the Prophets, the Promised Messiah, and the blessings of mankind. Then how you justify him?
 
We find Muhammad as a splendour one, who gave gladness to nearly all that God has made, for he was adorned with the spirit of understanding and of counsel, the spirit of wisdom and might, the spirit of fear and love, the spirit of prudence and temperance, he was adorned with the spirit of charity and mercy, the spirit of justice and Piety, the spirit of gentleness and patience, which he had received from God three times more than He has given to all His creatures.

For this, Jesus said, "when will he come to the world, the time shall be blessed, He also proclaimed that He had seen him and had done him reverence, even every prophet had seen him, seen that of His spirit, God gives to them prophecy. And when he saw him his soul was filled with consolation, saying-: "O Muhammad;, God be with you, and may He make me worthy to untie, your shoelatchet, for obtaining this I shall be a great prophet and holy one of God." -Jesus rendered his thanks to God.- [Barnabas, CH-44] And its proof, Qur'an says-  


And recall when Allah took a covenant from the Prophets: 'This is the Book and the Wisdom which I have given you. But should a Prophet come to you confirming that which is already with you, you shall believe in him and shall help him. So saying, Allah asked: 'Do you agree and accept to take up the burden of the covenant?' They answered: 'We agree,' He said: 'Then bear witness; and I will be with you among the witness. -[al-Imran, 3:81] Indeed, Allah confers blessing upon the Prophet, and His angels. O you who have believed, ask blessing upon him and ask [Allah to grant him] peace. -[Qur'an, 33: 56]

Two kinds of testimony to the truth of the prophets claim- "And those who have disbelieved say, "You are not a messenger." Say, "Sufficient is Allah as Witness between me and you, and [the witness of] whoever has knowledge of the Scripture." -(13:43) ie. [for the worst case] if there find no men in the world, whoever has knowledge of the Scripture, surely the prophets have, and they shall be the witness too.

Of all the prophets, it was Muhammad alone, about whom prophecies were made in all Divine books by all prophets. It is because of their testimony to God that given above -[al-Imran, 3:81] And a strong evidence of finality of prophethood we find in the verse-[5:3]

If the last Prophet to be the Messiah for all creature, he should be known to all prophets and his presence should be clearly marked in all scriptures.Though the previous scriptures were changed a lot in the course of time by the rabbis, who were in-charge of them, yet we think there should have some sign still may present. I declare very honestly as a Muslim, it was written there or not will never changed anything, the proof we got and the the faith we hold, shall never change, because we are under the shed of God and His religion. And we surely doubtless from the Qur'an that Promised Messiah for Mankind is Muhammad not Jesus, yet here for the arguments of the article we have to analyze the prophesies those were still found in all prophetic and religious holy books, so that the reader can satisfy and understand who actually was the Messiah, the "Guide and Prophet of whole universe", the Last Kalki Avtar (Messenger)-Jesus or Muhammad according to their own Scripture?

Muhammad in Hindu Scripture:
The Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, and Brahmanas Granth are the four sacred books in Hindu religion. The last one is a commentary on the Vedas. These books are in Sanskrit. The Vedas are divided into four books: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and Atharva Veda. The Rig Veda was compiled in three long and different periods. According to Swami Daya Nand, founder of the Arya Samaj, the Vedas were revealed 1.3 billion years ago, but the Hindu scholars and orientalists hold a opinion that they are not more than 4-6 thousand years old. Nevertheless, the Vedas considered the most authentic scriptures of the Hindus. Hindus are free to choose any of these beliefs. Now it is our quires what was told in those sacred books about Muhammad-
 


Sam Veda:
   "Ma' [M] dau bartita Deva,
    Da' [D]-Karante Prakirtiat,
    Brishanang Vakhwaet,
    Soda Veda Shastray Chasmrita"

Meanings: The dev, whose name starts with a 'M' and ends with a 'D' and who re-estabishes the tradition of eating beef, according to the Vedas, he is the man who is highly adorable.

Uttarayan Veda:
  "La Ilha Harti Papam
   Illa Ilaha Param Padam
   Janma Baikuntha Par Aup-inuti
   Janpi Namo Muhammadam "

Meanings:There is no shelter but "La Ilaha ... ... ... ..." to get rid of sin. The shelter of Ilah (Allah) is the actual shelter. If one is born on earth, there is no alternative to getting salvation from sin but to take shelter in Ilah (Allah). And for this, it is essential to follow the path shown by Muhammad.

Atharva-Vedic Upanishad:
  "Aushwa illaley Mitravaruna-Raja Tashmat-Tani Divyani
   Punastang Dudhya Habaiyami Milang Kabar Illallang
   Alla-rahsul Mahamad Rakang Baraswa
   Alla Allam Illallotey Illalla" \9\

Meanings: At an appropriate time, a Great man named Muhammad will appear, whose abode will be in the desert (Arabia). He will be accompanied by his companions.

Bhavishya Purana:
   Ato Slinnastare Mlecchacharjen Sabannita.
   Muhamad iti khatya, Shishya-Sakha-Samannitha \5\
   Niripashcheb Mahadev Marusthal Nivasinam
   Ganga jaleisch Snanya-pya punch-gavua Samannithe,
   Chandanadi Virvarch Tustaba Manasa Harom \6\
   Namaste Girijanath Marusthal Nivasine
   Tripura Surnashay Bahu-Maya Pravathiney. \7\ 

Meanings: In the appointed time, a spiritual teacher named Muhammad will appear. He will live in the desert of Arabia with his companions.
O lord of the desert, O master of the world, all praise to you. You know the way to destroy all the sins of the world, Salam to you.

Allopanishad:
   "Hotermindra Hotermindra Mahashurindraiy:
    Alla Jeyshthang Paramang Purnang Brhman
    Aullam Aulley Mahamad Kang
    Barasha Aulley Aullam Aadalla Bukme
    kkam Allabuk Nikhatkam." \3\

Meanings: The Supreme! The Most Exalted! The Most Powerful is HE. Alla is the best and the Greatest (or Highest). Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah. Allah is the Supreme, Complete and One without any Fault. He is Un-comparable. Alla is Comparable to Alla alone.

Atharvaveda:
    Idang Jana Upasuruta Narasangsasta Vishate.
    Shashting sahasra Nabatinch Kauram Arush Meshu dabahe. \1\  

Meanings: O Mankind! listen attentively, "the Praised One" [ie. Muhammad] will be raised among the men of protection [inhabitant surrounding Ka'ba]. We found him in the midst of sixty thousands enemy [the population of Mecca, during Muhammad was sixty thousands (60,090)]


Muhammad in Buddhist Scripture:
Gospel of Buddha: "Ananda asked Buddha (the Blessed One), "Who shall teach us when thou art gone?"
And Buddha replied, 'I am not the first Buddha who came upon the earth nor shall I be the last. In due time another Buddha will arise in the world, a holy one, a supremely enlightened one, endowed with wisdom in conduct, auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of angels and mortals. He will reveal to you the same eternal truths, which I have taught you. He will preach his religion, glorious in its origin, glorious at the climax and glorious at the goal. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure such as I now proclaim. His disciples will number many thousands while mine number many hundreds.'
Ananda asked, 'How shall we know him?'
Buddha replied, 'He will be known as Maitreya'."
-[Carus, Gospel of Buddha. p. 217-18]

This Maitrea (Arabic Maitrea means Rahmat) is Muhammad. According to Qur'an, he is Rahmatullilalamin. We have sent you as a blessing for the people of the whole world". -[al-Anbiya, 21:107]

Muhammad in Zoroastrian Scripture:
The main book of persi religion founded by Spitama Zarathushtra, is Zend Avesta and Dasatir.  Actually, these books are the knowledge (dualism) he earned as the result of his meditation in a quite and calm place, the sum of ancestral religion and some ancient foretold.

Zend Avesta: "I am declaring, O Spitama Zarathushtra, the holy Ahmad (blessings of the righteous) shall come. From whom you will get good thought, good words, good deeds and a pure religion."

Dasatir: When the Zoroastrian people will forsake their religion and will become dissolute, a man will rise in Arabia, whose followers will conquer Persian and subjugate the arrogant Persians. Instead of worship fire in their own temples, they will turn their faces in prayer towards Kaaba of Abraham which will be cleared of all idols. They (the followers of the Arabian Prophet), will be a mercy unto the world. They will become masters of Persia, Madain, Tus, Balkh, the sacred places of the Zoroastrians and the neighboring territories. Their Prophet will be an eloquent man telling miraculous things.

Muhammad in Jews Scripture:

In Torah: The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet "like unto me", from the "midst of thee", "of thy brethren"; unto him ye shall hearken; -[Deuteronomy 18:15]

God says, "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brothers, like to you, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in My Name, I will bound them to hear". -[Deuteronomy 18:18-19]

And, Below was the blessings with which Moses blessed the sons of Israel before his death- "The Lord came from Sinai,And rose up from "Seir" to them;"He shined" forth from mount "Paran",And he came "with ten thousands of saints":from his right hand went a "fiery law for them"". -[Deuteronomy 33:1-2]

Torah made all these Prophecy only mentioning Muhammad, not Jesus nor any other as-

i). Like unto me ie. like Moses that means the said prophet shall be with a Divine Book of Complete Shariah Laws like Torah. It indicates no one but Muhammad, as he was the only one who fulfill such criterion.
ii). Midst of thee ie. among the seed of Abraham.
iii). Of thy brethren ie. He shall not come from the seeds/sons of Israel/Issac, but from their brethren ie. from the seeds of Ismael [Ismael was the elder brother of Issac].

iv). I will bound them to hear: Jews, whom were against Muhammad, defeated by Muslims, therefore, they have left options only to accept Islam or die.
v). Seir, masculine noun שער (sha'ar), meaning gate; "the means of controlled access to a city surrounded by mountain" which indicates none but Mecca, as it had the same as stated during the time of Muhammad.

vi). He shined ie. Prophet Muhammad enlighten with Qur'an from mount paran which is called as Jabal-e -Noor at Mecca;
vii). Paran, a place surrounded by mountains in the Arabian desert, ie. the city Mecca; and at mount Paran, where Qur'an Reveled ie Jabal-e -Noor at Mecca;

viii). With ten thousands of saints ie. Muhammad came to conquer Mecca with ten thousand Sahaba (Saints), and
ix). Fiery law for them ie. Qur'an, the law book of God reveled on Muhammad. 


In Jabur: Muhammad is mentioned by name in the Jabur "Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem." -[Song of Solomon chapter 5, verse 16]


Meanings: "His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem."


In the Hebrew language im is added for respect. Similarely im is added after the name of Prophet Muhammad to make it Muhammadim. In English translation they have even translated the name of Prophet Muhammad as "altogether lovely", but in the Old Testament in Hebrew, the name of Prophet Muhammad is yet present.


Muhammad in Christian Scripture:
In Gospel (of John) it is Prophesied: Jesus said to his Disciple,"Nevertheless I tell you the truth;It is expedient for you that "I go away": for "if I go not away", "Ahmad" [Periclytos] [Hibru word Messiah in Greek is Periclytos, which means Ahmad in Arabic] will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he will come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

  Of sin, because they [Jews] believe not on me;
  Of righteousness, because he aroused the neglectful world from its heedlessness and gave it the knowledge of the criterion between truth and falsehood [Quran or Furqan]
  Of judgment, because "the prince of this world" will judge.


I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the "Spirit of Truth", is come, "he will guide you into all truth": for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. "He shall glorify me": for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
-[John 16:7-14].

The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet "like me" from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. -[John 14:16] Ahmad, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will "send in my name", "he shall teach you all things", and "bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you." -[John 14:26]-

Gospel made all these Prophecy only mentioning Muhammad, not any other as analysis shows as-

i). I go away: Not definitely means that he is going to be killed.
ii).  If I go not away: ie it was pre planned for the sake of Jews.

iii). Periclytos: Ahmad [the Praised One] or Muhammad [Who Praise,  is a translation of the Koine Greek word Periclytos. and Qur'an gives the name as Ahmad, one of several ways to say Muhammad. Just as we we say Joseph as "Joe", "Jonathan" as "John" and in the same way we find in Arabic Muhammad as Ahmad or Hamad, where "hamd" means 'praise, ie. "The one who praises (God)" or "the Praised One"; etc. Again Greek Paracletos means Comforter also indicates Muhammad as his presence brought comfort and reconciliation to family of his milk-mother.

iv). 
The prince of this world: As Bosworth Smith defines- "...He [Muhammad] was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports." -[R. Bosworth Smith]


v). "Spirit of Truth": The Spirit of Truth means "as-Sadik" in Arabic, before prophethood, Muhammad called with this name by the Quraish,

vi). He will guide you into all truth: Again Christian believed on a Jesus who died an evil death on cross with thieves. Though it was written in their scriptures, yet that was not written by Jesus but by some who even were not his disciple, not ever seem him. And as there was not a single eye witnessed and as from their scriptures (Canonical Gospels)  one can  prove very easily with simple logic that he was not died on Cross, nor even he Crucified. But the Christian could not able to see that as they are blind. However Muslim rejects their idea, as they failed to prove what they invent and God rejects them and their idea as false. And Muhammad explore this truth, and this was fore told by Jesus and said "He will guide you into all truth". Qur'an says-

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";-but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-[4:157-158]

God lifted him up to a lofty station 4th heaven where angels (those works to the Universes below them as a part of extension of God) lives. And this was said by Jesus.

vii). He shall glorify me: Bani Israelis deny Jesus as their Messiah. But Qur'an declares and confirms that Jesus was the Messiah to them. Again glorify him from falsehood of  "Son of God" and Qur'an declares he was not. and this was also said by Jesus. He said to Barnabas:

"It is necessary that I should reveal to you great secrets, which, after that I shall be departed from the world, you shall reveal to it."

He writes, and said: "Suffer me to weep, O master, and other men also, for that we are sinners. And you, that are a holy one and prophet of God, it is not fitting for you to weep so much."

Jesus answered: ".. For if men had not called me God, I should have seen God here as he will be seen in paradise, and should have been safe not to fear the day of judgment. But God knows that I am innocent, because never have I harboured thought to be held more than a poor slave. No, I tell you that if I had not been called God I should have been carried into paradise when I shall depart from the world, whereas now I shall not go thither until the judgment..."

"....for this I must have great persecution, and shall be sold by one of my disciples for thirty pieces of silver. Whereupon I am sure that he who shall sell me shall be slain in my name, for that God shall take me up from the earth, and shall change the appearance of the traitor so that every one shall believe him to be me; nevertheless, when he dies an evil death, I shall abide in that dishonour for a long time in the world. But when Muhammad shall come, the sacred Messenger of God, that infamy shall be taken away. And this shall God do because I have confessed the truth of the Messiah who shall give me this reward, that I shall be known to be alive and to be a stranger to that death of infamy." -[Barnabas ch-112]

viii). Like me/send in my name: Like Jesus Muhammad also Messiah. Jesus was sent as Messiah to the children of Israel, but Muhammad was sent as  Messiah for the Mankind.
ix). He (Ahmed) shall teach you all things: Quran covers before creation to afterlife.
x). Bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you: Qur'an only remembering Christians what Jesus Teaches and told to his disciples-

"O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah [Almighty God] (sent) to you, confirming the Law (Torah or Old Testament) before me, and giving "Glad Tidings" of a messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." -[Holy Quran 61:6]

Qur'an states, Jesus came to the house of Israel with Gospel [Good News or Tidings], as Messiah to the house of Israel and with a 'Glad Tidings' for them of the upcoming Prophet Ahmad, who shall be the Messiah for the creation.

Again, 

In Gospel of John it is said, -When the chief priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him-Are you "Christ"? 
- [No]
Are you Elijah? 
- [No] 
"If you are not the Messiah (Christ in Koine Greek), and not Elijah, then", They said, "Are you "THAT Prophet?" -[Gospel - John 1:20] 
John - [No],  but then he told them- "Someone will come after me who is greater than I am--so much greater that I'm not even worthy to stoop down like a slave and untie the straps of his sandals."-[Mark 1:7]

Analysis:

i). "Christ": Christians should know that Christ is merely a shortened form of the Koine Greek word "christos," intended to mean the Hebrew word "Messiah."
ii). "THAT Prophet": Here, the question is who is "That Prophet?" John confessed, that he was not "Christ" nor even Elijah.
iii). "Someone will come after me": Jesus not after him, but already came when John said this. So definitely the mentioned one shall be that prophet who shall be the Messiah for the mankind and will come after him.  


Again John said,  "I am baptizing with water, but who shall come after me, shall baptize you with fire."
Is Jesus Baptizes any, ever?
"No".
But Muhammad Baptized people with Blood [symbolically fire]. Thus Torah. -[Deuteronomy 18:19] said, who will not hear, I shall bound them to hear.


NB: For a scholarly explanation of others proof, you may read the following article

Muhammad, Menahem, and the Paraclete: New light on Ibn Ishāq’s (d. 150/767) Arabic version of John 15: 23–16: 11 by Sean W. Anthony, The Ohio State University.

The End.
Not yet Verified.
-----------------------------------------------
## Can anyone show us [with proof logically, scientifically and scripturaly] -how Muhammad is the Mercy to the jews and Christians?


[According to Quran -Muhammad is the Mercy to the Mankind. It means he is also the Mercy to the jews and Christians. But upto this day, we find only Islamic Sword work on them. Then, where is the Mercy of Muhammad to them?

The jews and Christians donot believe in Quran or upon Muhammad. They have their own religion, which is much older than Islam. So why they bother? If this, Then what about Quranic Claim?

Quran reject all other religion except Islam. Its a daring Claim and bold declaration. And if this true, that means all other religions are fale and rejected. A Huge no of people will be ruined, becomes wood of hellfire only if they donot believe in Quran or Muhammad.It cant be for a Merciful God. Then?

The Jews and Christian Scriptures must be itself declare and have proofs tha tpeople from both Judaism and Christianity are absolutely loser.And in that condition, when they shall bother. And try to find a wayout. And in that condition their religion shall told them to test their faith.

Do you know what is faith test according to their Scriptures?
It is actually Death Test.
Only in that condition if Muhammad show them a Guaranteed path wayout from their death that will be his Mercy.
Can anyone able satisfy all these conditions?
A New Era Begins- We able satisfy all these conditions. Just follow us] 

# A Man asked, "In Zabur (Psalm 
110:1), we find that David calls him (the Messiah) lord, saying thus:


"The LORD said unto my Lord, 

Sit thou at my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies thy footstool." -- What actually means by this verse?

@ I said, Muhammad is the Mercy to the creation and Messiah to the mankind, yet he was kicked from Mecca - his homeland to Medina by the Polytheist Quraish. Indicating this, in the above verse of the Jabur [Psalm 110:1], David told us that The LORD ie. GOD comfort Muhammad  ie. Davids Lord, to sit him at His right hand ie. in the "south of al-Aqsa" [in Madina], until God make his enemies [ie. Quraish] as his footstool."


Now, Dear Reader, to enjoy yourself find how this verse Analysed by others [SCHOLARS???] see the "Stupidity of Wikipidea". We termed it as stupidity, because we think Wikipedia should not place anything that is false by any means- logically, scientifically or scriptually.


# Salim asked, "Why the learned Jews and Christians were not see that their Scriptures Mentioning none but Muhammad as a Good Tidings to them?

@ I said, "Do you not know what Qur'an says?"

"Their example is that of one who kindled a fire, but when it illuminated what was around him, Allah took away their light and left them in darkness [so] they could not see. Deaf, dumb and blind - so they will not return [to the right path]". (2:17-18)

You can never see the true picture through a spectacle that is faulty. So, when the Jews and Christians try to measure Qur'an with the book they have with them ie. with Torah or Gospel they find Qur'an faulty. It is because, both their Scriptures are faulty, not its of their stupidity or they themselves are faulty. On the otherhand, Muslims judge Torah and Gospel through Qur'an-which is errorfree. So they can able to see the exact picture.

But you may asked- "how do you know that Qur'an is errorfree?"
So find one [fault] in the Qur'an and forwarded that to me.

Non Muslim find their satisfaction in rejecting Qur'an considering it not from God but was written by Muhammad. Do you ever consider Why?

And the TRUTH has always a power hidden in the words that composes a clear meanings. And  the voice of warnings, as in the Qur'an to the misguided people takes the form as- Certainly, Qur'an is an honored [book], In a Book well-guarded, None shall touch it save the purified ones.-[56:77-79]. [It is written] on honoured leaves, Exalted, purified, (Written) by the hands of scribes- [those are] Honourable and Pious and Just.- [80:13-16]

And surely it is in the original of the Book with Us, truly elevated, full of wisdom.-[43:4] With truth have We sent it down, and with truth hath it descended.-[17:105] [As] a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. Do you then hold this announcement in contempt? And make denial thereof .. -[56:80-82]

Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, also clear (Signs) for guidance and judgment (Between right and wrong)-[2:185] And that which you do not see.

Certainly, it's the Word brought by an honored Messenger [Gabriel], And not the word of a poet; little is it that you believe; Nor the word of a soothsayer; little is it that you mind. It is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. And if he had fabricated against Us some of the sayings,We would certainly have seized him by the right hand,And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart:  And not one of you could have withheld Us from him. And lo! it is a Message unto those who ward off (evil). And most surely We know that some of you are rejecters. And most surely it is a great grief to the unbelievers. And most surely it is Truth of assured certainty. [69:39-51]

Do you not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, you would surely have found therein Much discrepancy. -[4:81] The Satan have not come down with this (Revelation): it behooves them not, and they have not the power to do (it). Surely they are far removed from the hearing of it. -[26:210-212]

And certainly We have set forth to men in this Qur'an every kind of Parable, in order that they may receive admonition. -[39:27]
(It's) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness, that you may guard (against evil).....but many of you have no knowledge. -[39:28-29]

And certainly this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit [Gabriel] has descended with it, upon the Messengers heart that he may the warner, [It is] in plain Arabic language. Certainly it's (announcement) in the Scriptures of former. Is it not a sign to you that the learned men of the Israelite's knew it? -[26:192-197]

And if We had made the Qur'an in a language other than Arabic, you would certainly have said: Why have not its communications been made clear? What [a Wonder]! a foreign [languaged book] to an Arabian [Messenger]!-[41:43]

Surely, those who disbelieve in the [Qur'an as] Reminder when it cometh unto them (are guilty), for lo! it is an unassailable Scripture. Falsehood shall not come to it from before it nor from behind it; [It's]a revelation from the Wise, the Praised One.-[41:41-42]

You will not believe in it until you see the grievous Penalty;  -[26:201] Whatever of good befalleth thee (O you people) it is from Allah, and whatever of ill befalleth thee it is from thyself. We have sent thee (Muhammad) as a messenger unto mankind and [Certainly] Allah is sufficient as Witness. -[4:79]
This is Quran, But THEY DO NOT SEE. 


WHAT IS THIS
"THEY DO NOT SEE?"
To explain WHICH we have to tell a story,

"O Prophet, say to the prisoners in your hands.
‘If God knows of any good in your hearts,
He will give you more than He has taken,
And He will forgive you.
Surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate."


This verse was revealed when
Muhammad had defeated the unbelievers, slaying, plundering and taking prisoners, whom he tied hand and foot. Amongst the prisoners was his uncle, ‘Abbas. The chained people wept and wailed all night in their helpless humiliation. They had given up all hope of their lives, expecting the sword and slaughter. Muhammad, seeing this, laughed.

“Look!”  the  prisoners  exclaimed.  “He  shows the traits of a person after all. This claim that he is superhuman is not true. There he stands looking at us prisoners in these chains,  enjoying it. Just like everyone ruled by their passions—when they gain victory over their enemies and see their opponents vanquished to their will, they rejoice and feel happiness.”

“Not so,” answered
Muhammad, seeing what was in their hearts. “Never would I laugh at the sight of enemies conquered  by  my  hand, or the sight of your suffering. But I do rejoice, in fact I laugh, because with inner vision I see myself dragging and drawing people by  collars and chains, out of the black smoke of Hell into Paradise, while they complain  and  cry, ‘Why are you pulling us from this pit of self-destruction into that garden of security?’  So, laughter overcomes me.

“But since you have not  yet  been  granted the vision to see what I am saying, listen. God commands me to say this to you: First you gathered your forces  and  mustered  your might, trusting completely in your own virtue and valor. You said to yourselves, ‘We will conquer the Muslims and vanquish them.’ But you did not see that One Power more powerful  than yourselves. You did not know the One Force above your force. And so all that you planned turned out the opposite. Even now in your fear, you still hold onto your beliefs and do not see the One Reality over you. Rather than  facing that Power,  you see my power, because it is easier for you to see yourselves conquered by me."

“But even in your present state, still I say to you: If you recognize my power, and accept yourselves vanquished to my will in all circumstances, I can still deliver you from this grief. He, who is able to bring forth a black bull from a white bull, can also produce a white bull from a black bull. Turn away from your former ways, and likewise I will return to you all the  property that has been taken from you, in fact many times as much. Even more, I will absolve you of all blame, and grant you  prosperity in this world and the world to come.”

“I have repented,” said ‘Abbas. “I have turned from my former ways.”
Muhammad  said,  “God  demands  a  token  of this claim you make, for easy it is to boast of love, but other is the proof thereof.”
“In God’s name, what token do you demand?” asked ‘Abbas.
“Give all the properties that remain to you for the army of Islam, so the army of Islam may  be strengthened,” said 
Muhammad. “That is, of course, if you have truly become a Muslim  and desire the good of Islam and Muslimdom.”
“Prophet of God, what remains to me?” said Abbas, “They have taken everything, leaving me not so much as an old reed-mat.”

“You see,” said 
Muhammad, “you have not yet given up your old ways. You have not yet seen the light of truth. Should I tell you how much property you still have? Where you have hidden it? To whom you have entrusted it? Where you concealed and buried it?”
“God forbid!” exclaimed Abbas.


“Did you not entrust so much property specifically to your mother?” asked Muhammad. “Did you not bury your gold under such and such a wall? Did you not tell your mother in detail, ‘If I return, give this back to me. But if I do not return safely, then spend so much upon such and such an object, and give so much to So-and-So, and so much is to be for yourself’?”

When Abbas heard these  words he raised  his hand in complete acceptance. “Prophet of God,” he said, “truly, I have always thought you carried the fortune of the old kings, such  as  Haman, Shaddad, Nimrod and the rest. But now that you have spoken I know this favor is divine, from the world beyond, from the throne of God.”

“Now you have spoken truly,” said
Muhammad. “This time I have heard the snapping of  the  girdle of doubt, that you had within you.I have an ear hidden within my inmost Soul, and with that hidden ear I can hear the snapping of doubt within anyone. Now it is true for a fact that you believe.”


# Another asked, "How do you conclude that the Jews falsely changed Marwa to Moria?"

Sunday, May 15, 2016

Manichaeism: A short Brief on Manichaean Doctrine and Practice.

Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, lived in the third century CE. His religion, once the state religion of Persia and long a vigorous contender for converts throughout the ancient Near East, is best remembered for the simplicity of its teachings about divine power. For Manicheans, the universe was ruled by a Lord of Light and a Lord of Darkness, who fought continuously for supremacy. All that was good was a gift from the Lord of Light, and all that was evil was an affliction visited by the Lord of Darkness. This dualism extended to cosmogony and ethics, splitting the universe into a spiritual realm that acted on the goodness of the human soul and a material realm that abetted the evil of the human body. These stark oppositions mask a remarkable degree of doctrinal and liturgical complexity, of which have been obscured by centuries of suppression and persecution, first by the Christian church, then by Islam.

Art of Mani [Sogdian]
At the end of the Parthian period, in the fourth year of King Ardawan (CE. 215-216) Manes or Mani, the founder of Manichaeism, was born. His religion notwithstanding the fierce persecutions to which it was exposed both in the East and the West, alike at the hands of Zoroastrians and Christians, from the very moment of its appearance until the extermination of the unfortunate Albigenses in the thirteenth century, continued for centuries to count numerous adherents, and to exercise an immense influence on religious thought both in Asia and Europe.

The system which Mani founded was essentially eclectic though he connects most of the world religions. His main endeavour was "to reconcile the doctrines of Zoroaster and Christ," which resulted Manichaeism and being pursued by the those religions with equal and unrelenting hatred. His system, however, is to be regarded rather as a Christianised Zoroastrianism than as a Zoroastrianised Christianity, since he was certainly a Persian subject, and probably at least half a Persian; wrote one of his books (the Shaburgan, characterised by al-Biruni as "of all Persian books one that may be relied upon," since "Mani in his law has forbidden telling lies, and he had no need whatever for falsifying history") in Persian for King Shapur, whose conversion he hoped to effect, and was finally put to a cruel death by one of Shapur's successors. 

Manichaeism itself claimed the universal validity of its truth. Mani regarded his doctrine not as the religion of a region, a state, or a chosen people, but as the completion of the preceding great religions of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and Buddhism. It incorporated traditions of those and many other religions and doctrines [Henning, 1977, I, pp. 192-93]. A comprehensive but partially destroyed Coptic version of Mani’s speech on the ten superiorities of his religion is given in the Kephalaia [ed. Funk, pp. 370-75. Cf. Sundermann, 1985, pp. 22-23].

Manichaeism left its traces mainly in the works of anti-Manichaean polemicists or historians in the Occident and the Orient, in the Near East and China, where Manichaeism gained the status of a kind of arch-heresy. It was only in the 20th century that genuine Manichaean texts and documents came to light in different parts of the world.

Manichaeism according to Henri-Charles Puech, a “religion de charactère essentiellement missionnaire,” and Muslims identified and treat the religion as “une religion du livre,” a “religion of the Book” [Puech, 1949, pp. 61-68]

Manichaeism promised the redemption of the human soul from the bonds of its corporeal existence in the transcendent World of Light through wisdom and knowledge, [Henning, 1977, I, p. 193; pp. 203-5]. This renders the widespread Gnostic term of Gnosis, the revealed [not taught or excogitated] doctrine of Mani (cf. Mani Codex, ed. Koenen and Römer, 1988, pp. 44-45] that claimed to convince the human mind instead of demanding unquestioning acceptance [Puech, 1949, pp. 70-72; Hoffmann, 2001, pp. 67-112]. But beside the conceptual pair of wihīh/xradud dānišn there is also the pair of (Arabic) al-ḥikma wa’l-aʿmāl “wisdom and works” in Biruni’s translation of a passage of the Šābuhragān [Sachau, 1923, p. 207, ll. 14-15; Tardieu, 1981, pp. 477-81; Henning, 1977, I, p. 193]. This expresses with precision the Manichaean demand that from Gnosis good deeds should follow which would contribute to the redemption, not only of one’s own soul, but also of the World Soul. It implied a strictly ascetic lifestyle of the elect and the support for the elect by the auditors through alms giving and a general confession and atonement of sins.

The heart and core of the Manichaean doctrine is the cosmogony. It gives the answer to the questions “where have you come from, where do you go, what is your desire, for what purpose did you come, where have you been sent to?” etc. [Sundermann, 1997, pp. 74-75]. 

The cosmogony starts with a description of the primeval existence of the two worlds of divine Light and demonic Darkness limiting each other directly without any void space in between [al-Nadim, tr. Dodge, pp. 787-88]. The superiority of the World of Light lies in its blissful, self-sufficient harmony; its weakness is its peaceful nature, which makes it unprepared for any conflict. The World of Darkness is related, in contrast, to anarchic, chaotic strife and sexuality, and destructive concupiscence in every respect. The activities of the World of Darkness are neutralized so long as they are ignorantly directed against themselves. But the time comes when they discover by chance the existence of the World of Light, which now becomes their object of desire. Their whole aggressive force is turned against the completely unprotected World of Light. The attack of the demonic hosts is averted by the self-sacrifice the First Man. The First Man advances towards the enemy, suffers defeat, looses consciousness, and his five sons, the Light Elements, are swallowed up by the demons. But this apparent triumph of the demons turns out to be a hollow victory. It was in the end rather, as BeDuhn illustrates as the First Man’s “victory by self-sacrifice” [BeDuhn, 2005, p. 11, cf. p. 26]. The devoured Light Elements have a poisonous effect on the demons. They paralyze their aggressive force and give the World of Light time to develop militant protective counter-measures against the demonic attack.

Therefore, under the constraint of the demonic menace, the World of Light changes its character, and becomes a mighty warlike power. The warlike aspect of the World of Light is represented by its Second Evocation, the Spirit of Life liberates the First Man, but cannot immediately liberate his sons. He builds instead this world from the corpses of slain demons to serve as a prison for the still living demons and as a grandiose mechanism for the liberation of the swallowed and dismembered particles of the Light Elements which from now on, and as the subject of permanent liberation, appear as the suffering World Soul also called the Living Soul, the Living Self, etc.

It is a result of the encounter of the call of the Spirit of Life and the answer [or the hearing] of the First Man that a Divinely Guided soul comes into being, the Enthymesis of Life, the desire of the imprisoned divine entities to be redeemed [and of the redeeming gods to regain their lost relatives].The Enthymesis of Life is the counterpart of the Enthymesis of Death, the eternal, powerful principle of greed that inspires the whole demonic world as ataktos kinēsis “disorderly motion” according to Alexander of Lykopolis. The divine “intention”, could only arise under the impact of the loss the World of Light had suffered at the hands of the dark powers; and it never played such a predominant role as the Enthymesis of Death. [see Sundermann, “God and his adversary in Manichaeism.The case of the ‘Enthymesis of Death’ and the ‘Enthymesis of Life,’”].

The creation of the world marks the beginning of cosmogony in its proper sense. Although the world is made of demonic substance and is, as such, of an evil nature [plants and animals in particular, Puech, 1949, p. 80; animals are not given access to paradise, Henning 1977 II, p. 538; Asmussen, 1975, p. 82, verse 66], it is the work of a divine demiurge and it fulfills the functions of making the liberation of the World Soul possible and of keeping the still active demons imprisoned.The redemption of the World Soul is the main object of cosmic history [human world history included]. The result of the cosmic history, however, is predetermined by the pre-cosmic events, the sacrifice of the First Man and the defeat of the demons at the hands of the 'Spirit of Life' and the Mother of Life, even if the demons are not yet made powerless and even if the final divine victory will not be a perfect one.

The creation of the world—the Macrocosm [Middle Persian nsʾ (ẖ) wzrg “Big Corpse”]—provokes the demonic counter-creation of the first human couple and their descendents: the Microcosm [Middle Persian šhr ʿyg qwdg, Parthian zmbwdyg qšwdg “Small World,” Manichaean New Persian qwdqbwd (kwdkbwd) “Small Being.”]. The Enthymesis of Death herself, in the form of the demonic couple of Ašaqlūn and Nebrō’ēl, procreates Adam and Eve as the best possible prisons of the Light substance of the World Soul. Therefore, according to Mani’s doctrine it is humankind that is a demonic creation, rather than the world as such.

The cosmic work of the successive, step by step, liberation of the World Soul is the task of the deities of the Third Evocation who act under the guidance of the Third Messenger, mainly in the macro cosmic sphere, and under Jesus the Splendour who is mostly concerned with the liberation of the human souls. In fact, Jesus and his emanation, the Light-Nous, find the means to enlighten men through divine Gnosis, to deprive their demonic ruler, the Spirituality of the Body [Middle Persian mēnōgīh ī tan, explained as xišm ud āz ud āwarzōg “fury, greed and lust,” Henning, 1977, II, p. 197], of power and to imprison it in the corporeal limbs. This Spirituality, in Mani’s Pauline terminology, the Old Man, is then replaced by the New Man as the personality of the enlightened and righteously acting religious person. This is described in great detail in the Sermon on the Light-Nous [Sundermann, 1992, esp. pp. 22-24; Idem, 2001, pp. 27-34]. But not only were Jesus and his helpers successful in rescuing the souls of many men, they even managed to transform some persons—the elect— soul and body, to instruments of the material liberation of the light substance in plants through their digestive system [BeDuhn, 2000, esp. pp. 163-233]. It is the superior aptitude of the divine beings that He with His own Grace creates man as the most sophisticated creature of the demonic world so that they may work as the most effective instrument of the redemption of the World Soul.

God proclaims the divine truth- the salvation of mankind to Adam and makes him the first prophet. A chain of prophets and a series of messiah, inspired by the Light-Nous, follows one by one and at different places in different time, renewing the divine message that is exactly the same as what Mani espoused. The number and sequence of most prominent messiahs as Mani proclaim is Adam, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus and Mani. Unfortunately, none of the forerunners of Mani took sufficient care to preserved their messages in written form as an authorized texts. So their disciples misunderstood their masters in many ways and produced their own falsifications in the name of their master.[cf. Kephalaia, ed. Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, pp. 7-8, Gardner, 1995, p. 13; Henning, 1977, I, pp. 192-93; II, pp. 146-48]. Therefore Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Christianity even Judaism, can no longer claim to teach the eternal truth. Now Mani, the prophet at the end of time (“in this last generation,” Kephalaia, ed. Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, p. 14.6, 146.9-10; Gardner, 1995, p. 20, 153; cf. also Polotsky, 1934, pp. 28.1-6, 32.21-23], who avoided the faults of his forerunners, and his message, composed in canonical books and the traditions of reliable disciples [Kephalaia, ed. Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, p. 6. 24-27; Gardner, 1995, p. 12], are thus contains the ultimate truth.

In the Manichaean view human history is essentially Heilsgeschichte, salvation history, in a double sense: the history of the salvation of human beings and the process of the salvation of other parts of the World Soul through human beings. In spite of the active redemptive role of the Light-Nous, it is also true that man himself is responsible for his own salvation and that of the World Soul [Widengren, 1977, p. 143]. This implies belief in a type of human free will [Birnbaums, 2005, pp. 33, 34]. But in the Manichaean understanding free will could not be the choice between (at least) two options. It could only be the voluntary decision in favor of the World of Light, the ultimate origin and home of any soul and the natural aim of its (subconscious) nostalgia. The faculty or failure of a soul to act according to its “free will” depended only on the degree of contamination with corporeal matter. Alexander of Lycopolis illustrate it as: “When it was mixed with matter, Soul became affected by matter. For just as a change of the contents of a defiled vessel is often due to the condition of the vessel itself, so something happens also to soul embedded in matter when, contrary to its real nature, it is debased so as to participate in evil” [van der Horst, 1974, pp. 54-55; text: Brinkmann, 1895, p. 6, ll. 2-6].

The acceptance of the Manichaean doctrine was the first step to salvation. But it necessarily entailed a submission to the rules of Manichaean ethics (see BeDuhn, 2000). Their raison d’être followed from the events of the cosmogony. For example, the commandment (in Coptic) “that we eat no flesh” (Allberry, Psalm-Book, 1938, p. 161, ll. 21-22, in Parthian more generally dēnčihrīft “chastity,” Sims-Williams, 1985, p. 575) followed from the assumption that animals were the abortions of celestial she-demons and therefore rich in greed-arousing substance [Baur, 1973, pp. 249-51, likewise forbidden was the consummation of alcoholic drinks, ibid, p. 251]. On the other hand, the commandment (in Coptic) “that we do not kill” [Allberry, 1938, p. 573, ll. 21-22, in Sogdian more generally pu-āzarmyā “not to hurt,” Sims-Williams, 1985, pp. 574-75] implied that any living being, but also the earth, the water and the stars in the skies contain particles of the vulnerable World Soul, so that to kill an animal, to cut a plant, to walk on the earth, to take a bath, etc. was a violation of the Living Soul [Baur, 1831 = 1973, pp. 253-54; 1977, I, pp. 446-47].

It is obvious that morals like these are impracticable. The dilemma was solved to a certain degree by the introduction of a double set of ethical demands: strict commandments [or rather prohibitions] for a small elite of “perfect” or “elect” people and ten less demanding commandments for the greater community of the devout lay-people [Puech, 1949, pp. 89-90]. The elect were submitted to five rigorous commandments which confined their lives to the duties of hearing and reading the instructive sermons and scriptures, singing hymns, offering prayers, attending the services and above all the sacramental communal meals, teaching and preaching 'the gospel of truth' to brethren and lay-people, doing missionary work, etc. They were submitted to a strict vegetarian regime and forbidden to drink alcoholic drinks and eat meat, to earn their own livelihood [except for acts of financial business], or practice any sexual activities [Baur, 1973, pp. 267-70; Puech, 1949, pp. 89-91].

But living a holy life affected more than the elect’s personal salvation. It made his body, and his digestive system in particular, a miraculous instrument for liberating the light particles of the World Soul that were imprisoned in melons, cucumbers, grapes, water, fruit juice, etc. By eating those fruits the elect set free the light particles from the material massa damnata and let them ascend to the New Paradise of Light in their hymns of praise, their prayers and, as Augustine derisively says, their belches [Baur, 1973, p. 287]. This happened in their sacramental meals, regularly held whenever fasting was not incumbent. If we call the communal meal of the elect a kind of Eucharist, it is just the opposite of the Christian ceremony. It does not mediate God’s redemption as that of Christian believes through Christ’s sacrifice, it affects the redemption of the suffering divine World Soul through the redeeming force of holy men [Tardieu, 1981, pp. 111-12]. In this way the elect gain a super-human rank, and it is doubtlessly in this function that they are addressed as “gods” [Copt. snout, Parth. yazdān, Kephalaia, ed. Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, pp. 219.34-220.3; Gardner, 1995, p. 227; Zieme, 1975, pp. 28, 29].

The lay-people were exempt from the rigorous obligations and restrictions of the elect. For them a catalogue of ten moderate commandments [al-Nadim, tr. Dodge, p. 789] was valid. Their main obligation, however, reflected in the commandment not to be miserly [al-Nadim, ed. Flügel, pp. 299-302] and frequently enjoined in sermons and parables, was to give alms, but only to the elect people [Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmos, 140, 12, in Adam, 1969, pp. 64-65; Henning, 1977 II, pp. 597-601]. To give alms meant feeding, clothing, and housing the elect, ordaining one of their children for the service of the elect [Puech, 1949, p. 89], and if those hearers belonged to the ruling or upper class “helpers” giving them protection.

Nevertheless it could not be overlooked that neither the elect nor the hearers were in a position to completely fulfill their respective religious duties, and so both communities had to undergo regularly repeated atonement ceremonies, the lay people on Sunday, the elect also on Monday, and all of them on such high feast days as the Bema festival. In Central Asia the practice of confession was completed with the help of all-encompassing confessional forms, both for the elect and the hearers [Henning, 1977, I, pp. 417-557, II, pp. 64-68; Asmussen, 1965; Klimkeit, 1977, pp. 193-228; Sims-Williams, 1991, pp. 323-28]. The Parthian term xwāstwānīft “confession” was taken over in Sogdian and Old-Turkish texts.

The most effective incentive for the fulfillment of the commandments was certainly the conviction that human deeds, both good and evil, accompanied the souls of the deceased on their way to the world beyond [Sundermann, 1992(b), pp. 166-69]. The 90th Kephalaion quotes Mani’s words: “Every person shall follow after his deeds, whether to light or indeed to death” [Polotky and Böhlig, 1940, p. 224, ll. 8-9; Gardner, 1995, p. 232].

The deeds of man had their place in the complex system of Manichaean individual eschatology.The righteous person was promised [usually as the first step to the other world] a meeting with his (good) deeds [Sogd. xw xypδ ʾkrtyh] in the appearance of a beautiful young girl [Henning, 1977, II, pp. 180-81]. In a more developed form, the deceased meet a divine figure whom al-Nadim calls al-ḥakīm al-hādī “the wise guide” and who was probably the Light-Nous or one of his emanations. In his retinue appears inter alia the virgin who resembles the soul of the deceased [al-Nadim, tr. Dodge 1970, pp. 795-96, cf. Sundermann, 2001, pp. 66-70]. The elect will then be given the insignia of victory, and they will be triumphantly led to Paradise, commonly specified as the “New Paradise” of the First Man [Boyce, 1954, pp. 15-23]. The souls of the hearers and the worldly sinners have to undergo as their appropriate punishment a process of painful transmigration. 

There is a post-mortal judgement before the “righteous judge” [Parth. dādwar rāštīgar] whose throne is in the air [Sundermann, 1981, p. 115] and who weighs the works of the deceased [Jackson, 1923, pp. 20-22; Durkin-Meisterernst, 2006, pp. 30-31, ll. 303-307, with n. 126], and the metaphor of [at least three, but up to fifteen] ways which lead to paradise, transmigration and eternal death [Sundermann, 2001, p. 677], namely of the righteous elect people [and, on the same level, the “perfect” hearers], of their helpers, the hearers, and of the worldly-minded sinners.[On the complexity of the Manichaean doctrine of the afterlife see, Widengren, ed., 1977, pp. 128-29].

The Manichaean understanding of the transmigration is best characterized by its Gnostic term (Greek) metaggismos, i.e. “transvasement,” pouring from one vessel to another [Puech, 1979, pp. 22-23], Middle Persian wardišn “turning,” Parthian zādmurd, Sogdian zāδmurδ, both “birth – death”. This may mean that transmigration in the Manichaean sense does not necessarily presuppose being born as a new personality or creature but rather being restricted to a kind of guest-status in another living being, a plant, an animal, a man and preferably an elect. The Parthian term for this kind of light substance is widāragān mihmān “transient guest” [Sundermann, 1992, pp. 91-92].

It is the grim fate of the sinners to transmigrate to animal bodies, to fall into the hands of the merciless demons, and in the end to be imprisoned with them in the eternal Bōlos. The hearers will go the opposite way: transmigration to plants and liberation and ascension as the result of a process that in the end makes them the alimentation of the elects’ sacred meals. But this view may be too simplistic. Mani himself regarded the fate of the hearers after death as so intricate and complicated that he did not try to depict it in his Eikōn, the “Picture Book” [Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, pp. 235-36; Gardner, 1995, p. 242]. Through the transmigration of hearers and sinners the individual eschatology links up with the cosmic eschatology.

Not only was Mani the universal teacher and leader of his community, and not only was he a gifted artist who put painting, music, and the means of storytelling into the service of his message, he was also an able organizer who established a church which spread throughout the world. The core of his church was the elect [Baur 1973, p. 267]. The greater number of the hearers were not always regarded as members of the church. The 87th Coptic Kephalaion compares the church to a good tree and the hearers to good soil that receives the seed of the tree [Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, pp. 217.31 – 218.2; Gardner, 1995, p. 225]. The Latin Tebessa manuscript, however, speaks of electi and auditors as hos duos ecclesiae [gra]dus “these two ranks of the church” [Decret, 2005, p. 87, Böhlig and Asmussen, 1980, p. 139].

The community of the elect was hierarchically structured. There were ideally 12 teachers, 72 bishops, 360 presbyters [not always mentioned] and the simple elect people [Puech, 1949, pp. 86-87, p. 180, note 362]. Mani’s successors at the head of the community were called (Greek) Archēgoi [Henning, 1977, I, p. 491]. For the seemingly amorphous multitude of the lay-people, the hearers, a “chief auditor” (Sogdian niγōšak-pat) and a “chief auditrix” (Sogdian niγōšāk-patānč) are mentioned in the text M 1 [cf. Gershevitch, 1961, sec. 1040]. 

It is hard to tell to what degree it proved possible to preserve the original structure of the church and to uphold its universal unity and cooperation. Was the head of the church, who resided in Ctesiphon, later in Baghdad and then in Samarkand, able to keep in touch with all the wide-spread Manichaean communities, let alone supervise and control their activities? Of the powerful “Church of the East” in Central Asia, also called the dēnāwarīft (Parthian), dīnāwarīya [Sundermann, 2001, pp. 533-35], we know that it regarded itself as Mani’s most promising legacy [Sundermann, 1981, pp. 133-34] and so must have played a rather independent role.

It is highly possible that the constant adherence to the common essentials of the doctrine was the mainstay of the Manichaean community. In any case, schisms of the Manichaean church such as that between the Mesopotamian (Arabic) Mihrīya and Miqlāīya [from the 8th to the 9th century] were provoked by disagreement on ritual matters, not on dogmatic questions. The only exception to the rule seems to be the separation of a sect called by al-Nadim al-Māsiya [by ʿAbd-al-Jabbār, however, Miqlāiya which is, according to de Blois, 2006, p. 77, the correct name of the sect, Sundermann, 2001, p. 564]. It maintained against the majority of its time the genuine Manichaean doctrine that the Light substance of the World Soul cannot be completely redeemed. 

A unique chance was given to the Manichaean church when in about 762 the ruler of the Uighur Steppe empire, Bögü (Bügü) Khan, adopted the Manichaean religion [Clark, 2000, pp. 83-123; Sundermann 2001a, pp. 159-61]. For at least 250 years Manichaeism remained the creed of the Uighur kings, after the breakdown of the steppe empire in 840 it was taken by the fleeing Uighurs to the Turfan oasis and was made the religion of the kingdom of Qocho. In the 11th century Manichaeism was superseded by Buddhism, which had long since been the religion of the majority of the inhabitants of the Turfan area [Moriyasu, 2004, esp. pp. 174-92]. It was only under the favorable conditions of a community enjoying the privileges of a state religion that Manichaeism could produce a wealth of spiritual literature, often written in fine calligraphy and accompanied by superb illuminations, of wall-paintings, textile art objects, etc., the relics of which were, and still are, being retrieved through numerous Turfan expeditions.

Manichaeism found its last refuge in the southern Chinese province of Fujian. At Quanzhou a Manichaean temple with a statue of the prophet has survived through the ages in Buddhist disguise.This and some more traces of a Manichaean presence attest to the “Religion of Light” there from the 10th to the 16th centuries [Lieu, 1992, pp. 264-304].

Manichaeism existed for more than a millennium. Mani himself did not anticipate such a long history for his church. He was convinced that he was the last prophet of truth on earth [Kephalaia, ed. Polotsky and Böhlig, 1940, p. 14.6; Gardner, 1995, p. 20], he was sure that his mission would lead imminently to the eschatological events at the end of the world. More than any other part of the Manichaean myth its eschatology received inspirations from other religions, mainly from Zoroastrianism and Christianity [Sundermann, 2001, pp. 61-65]. This led to an accumulation of somewhat similar motifs, structured as the alternating sequence of dark periods on the one hand and periods of relief on the other. Our main sources on these events are Mani’s Middle Persian Šābuhragān and the Coptic Sermon on the Great War [on which in general see Pedersen, 1993]. After Mani’s death a great war was foretold, during which the Manichaean church would suffer severe persecution [Polotsky, 1934, pp. 8-11, 13-21]. Then a blissful time of peace and the accomplishment of justice would follow. Under the rule of the “great king” the Manichaean church would predominate and liberate much light from the bonds of the world [Polotsky, 1934, pp. 21-33]. Again evil will get the upper hand. The Antichrist [in an Old-Turkish text the false Maitreya, Le Coq, 1919, p. 5] comes into power and establishes a reign of terror. 

But he will be overcome by Jesus the Splendor who returns to earth, rules for 120 years [Sundermann, 2003, pp. 421-27], and will hold the Last Judgement upon mankind. He will do what the biblical parable on the Last Judgement, Matt. 25. 31-46, foretold: separate the righteous from the evildoers like the sheep from the goats. The first he will put on his right side, the second on the left. The Manichaean version, however, makes it clear what right and wrong mean: the righteous ones are the pious elect and next to them their faithful helpers, the hearers. The evildoers are the sinful elect and next to them the multitude of the worldly-minded infidels [MacKenzie, 1979, pp. 504-509; Polotsky, 1934, pp. 35-38].

After Jesus’ judgment has cleared the world from human life, it remains void for a hundred years [Sundermann, 2003, p. 424]. Then the functionless building of the world, so long a useful means of salvation and protection, will be given up by the divine powers, and a process set in motion which is a reversion of cosmogonic events. The five sons of the Living Spirit who upheld and watched over the cosmos, and the five sons of the First Man, the active part of the World Soul, leave their posts and, together with all the angels, retire to the heavenly sphere. The building of the world breaks down and is devoured in a final conflagration, the “great fire” [MacKenzie, 1999, pp. M I 93-96; Sundermann, 2001, pp. 60-61). The great fire will last for 1,468 years (Ogden, 1930, pp. 102-5; Koenen, 1986, pp. 314, 321-26]. The demons and the irredeemable sinners will find in it their last punishment [MacKenzie, 1999, pp. M I 99-104]. After the extinction of the fire the demons, and with them the irredeemable human souls, will be imprisoned in the Bōlos [Polotsky, 1934, p. 41; MacKenzie, 1999, pp. M I 103-4; Decret, 1974, pp. 487-92], male and female beings separated, so that they cannot multiply and inflict more damage [Kephalaia, ed. Polotsky and Böhlig, p. 105. 30-35; Gardner, 1995, p. 110].

It is less easy to describe how the Manichaeans imagined the final state of the divine world of light. The most likely possibility is that their ideas were contradictory. The end of the Coptic Sermon on the Great War allows Koenen’s interpretation that both the Eternal Paradise of the Father of Greatness and the New Paradise of the First Man will continue to exist forever [Koenen, 1986, pp. 306-307]. On the other hand the 39th Kephalaion and its Middle Persian equivalent, “He teaches the three great days” (M 5750) warrant the conclusion that the New Paradise will ultimately merge with the Eternal Paradise [Sundermann, 2001, pp. 675-76, cf. also Kephalaia, Gardner, 1995, p. 11].

But however that may be, the post-cosmic finitum will not be a re-establishment of the pre-cosmic initium. The beginning-less dualism will be overcome, even if it is not possible to annihilate the immortal demons. The conflict between the worlds of light and darkness ends with the victory of light, but the divine powers are not able to retrieve the whole of the lost light substance. A small part of it [the Manichaean literature tends to minimize or even to ignore the loss, Henning, 1977, I, p. 278] proves to be so irredeemably corrupted by the matter of darkness that it cannot be regained. This meant, since the World Soul is a part of the Father of Greatness himself, that the deity emerges injured and, as it were, imperfect from the cosmic battle, as Augustine and others did not fail to stress (Baur, 1973, pp. 100-11).

It was a remarkable intellectual achievement to develop and present the exceedingly complex and intricate Manichaean doctrine in a more or less understandable way. Mani succeeded in doing so, in spite of serious shortcomings concerning precision of terms, clearness of style, and consistency of description. As far as one can follow the arrangement of Manichaean works one may state that they are systematically grouped subject-wise, however manifold their contents may have been.That is perceptible even in such voluminous works as the collections of the Kephalaia.

More than any other world religion, Manichaeism may be called a syncretistic religion in so far as it adopted manifold motives, terms, ritual and hierarchical institutions from other communities. Mani himself admitted this dependence, and it seems not to have clashed with his claim to have received his wisdom from divine revelation. In his famous speech about the superiority of his religion in ten points he mentions “the scriptures, the wisdom and the parables” of the former religions that came to “this” [religion]. But in that selfsame speech he also underlines the superiority of his universal religion [Henning 1977, I, pp. 192-93; Kephalaia, ed. Funk, pp. 370-75]. So the adoption of alien matters must have been a critical one, the criteria being compatibility with Mani’s own convictions.

The impact of Manichaeism on Christianity is attested in many Manichaean and counter-Manichaean documents such as Mani’s declaration that he himself as the “Paraclete,” of the New Testament passages quoted from canonical and apocryphal Christian Holy books and the fact that even in texts used in a non-Christian environment Jesus is praised.

That this impact was not simply an outward accommodation to a Christian ambiance, as has been assumed [Widengren, 1961, pp. 158-59], follows unmistakably from the Cologne Mani Codex which states that Mani grew up in the Jewish-Christian South Mesopotamian sect of the Elkhasaites [Koenen and Römer, 1988; Cameron and Dewey, 1979]. One is led therefore to assume an already existing Christian influence on the formation of the Manichaean dogma, i.e. on Mani’s own world-view from the outset.

This has most clearly been seen by Böhlig who explained the central Manichaean dogma of the self-sacrifice of the First Man [and the ensuing suffering of his sons] for the sake of the whole World of Light and its protection against the onslaughts of the powers of darkness [Sundermann 2001, pp. 15-16] as a transposition of the central Christian doctrine of Christ’s sacrifice on behalf of mankind beyond all earthly events to the divine, pre-cosmic sphere (Böhlig, 1983, pp. 91-93; 1986, p. 36. Cf. also Skjærvø 1995(a), p. 271, and Sundermann, 2001, p. 49).

Jesus himself plays a perplexingly multifarious role that makes him almost omnipresent in the Manichaean system (Sundermann, 2001, pp. 5-12; cf. Rose, 1979 and now Franzmann, 2003, passim, where the essential unity of the complex Jesus figure, even of its active and passive aspects, is stressed). He has both become a transcendent and earthly active, redeeming, and a passive, redeemed person of the Manichaean pantheon. He is indeed what Richard Reitzenstein called the salvator salvandus (Colpe, 1956, pp. 200-1) in order to characterize the essence of the Gnostic idea of salvation. But in all his capacities Jesus can be replaced by other, less ubiquitous deities, and in such cases, the Manichaean system lost nothing of its essentials. So Manichaeism can be characterized as a de-Christianized religion of Christian origin.

Even as a human prophet Jesus preserved his divine, spiritual nature. Mani adopted the non-orthodox early-Christian doctrine of Christ’s docetic nature, i.e. of his un-born, non-corporeal nature. The question whether Christ was submitted to suffering and death was admittedly disputed, but even this controversy reflected arguments in the early Christian church (Sundermann, 2002, pp. 209-17).

Manichaeism shares so many motives and concepts and even the structure of its doctrine with Gnostic teachings that it is almost communis opinio to regard the Manichaean doctrine as a late formation of Gnostic ideas, according to Hans Jonas as the typical representative of what he called the “Iranian type” [1991, pp. 206, 236-37], according to Henri-Charles Puech the most radical form of Gnosticism (1949, p. 72). It is possibly only Michel Tardieu who strictly separated Manichaeism from Gnosticism because of its positive evaluation of the demiurge and of the creation of the world (Tardieu, 1988, pp. 148-49). Most recently Jason BeDuhn accepts the Gnostic affiliation of Manichaeism only in a very restricted, qualified sense: as Gnosis of the purification of the material body through separation of its opposing forces of material spirituality and the spirituality of the Light Soul (see BeDuhn, 2000, pp. 120-23), not as sheer “intellectual” Gnosis, but as knowledge of how to practice the soul-saving rituals (BeDuhn, 2000, pp. 214-18).

Judging by the bulk of Iranian Manichaean texts and other East Manichaean texts as well, which largely draw on the Iranian tradition, the Zoroastrian influence on Manichaeism must have been overwhelming. Almost all deities, demons, and mythological persons bear names familiar from the religion of Zoroaster [Sundermann, 2001, pp. 127, 150-55]. The Manichaean accommodation to Zoroastrian terms and concepts went so far as to induce the designation of the Manichaean church as the dēn māzdēs “the Mazdayasnian Religion” [in Middle Persian, M 543, Müller, 1904, p. 79, etc]. 

There is, however, evidence for an overwhelming impact of the Zoroastrian on the Manichaean cosmogony and its radical ethical and ontological dualism [cf. Gnoli, 1985, p. 76; Gnoli, EIr. VII, p. 579; Rudolph, 1991, pp. 307-21]. The Zoroastrian cosmogony that can be used for comparison is mainly the teaching of the Zoroastrian Pahlavi books Bundahišn and Wizīdagīhā ī Zādsparam. They were admittedly written down few centuries after Mani’s lifetime, but they contain older traditions. They display a strictly dualistic world-view already in existence before the third century CE according to Plutarch [de Jong, 1997, pp. 163-204] and the Gnostic Basilides [Jonas 1991, p. 214, n. 10]. It is true that under the Sasanians, the dualistic system was grafted to a principle of time and fate, Zurvan, superimposed upon god and devil. Below the time and fate level, however, the antagonism of good and evil remained at full power. It was this second level dualism that agreed with Mani’s own preconceived dualism, and this he accepted, placing the Zoroastrian Zurvan uncompromisingly on the side of the good beings.

A systematic comparison of the Zoroastrian and the Manichaean cosmogonies displays accords and differences. It has been done in a most comprehensive and judicious way by Oktor Skjærvø who admits an Iranian, i.e. orthodox Zoroastrian influence on Manichaeism with the proviso that “wherever we detect Zoroastrian elements in Manichaeism we can be almost certain that their function in Zoroastrianism was different” [Skjærvø, 1995(a), esp. p. 281; cf. also Skjærvø, 1997, pp. 333-40; Sundermann, 1997a, pp. 351-58; Idem, 2001, pp. 47-54].

Both Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism postulate the existence of two independent, primeval worlds, the world of light and goodness and the world of darkness and evil. Both worlds are limitless and at the same time limit each other. The attack of the demons plunges both worlds into turmoil and conflict. The leaders in battle against the dark powers are the Zoroastrian god Ohrmazd and the Manichaean First Man who is called Ohrmazd too in the Iranian Manichaean tradition. But while the Zoroastrian god is always invincible, the Manichaean Ohrmazd has to save the world of light through his self-sacrifice and the sacrifice of his sons, even if this is stylized as a heroic achievement or a clever ruse. The struggle of the two worlds will be, in the Zoroastrian view, settled definitely at the end of the cosmos. For the Manichaeans the outcome of the fight had already been decided before the creation of the cosmos by the victory of the Living Spirit and the Mother of Life over the demons.

The material creation of this world is in the Zoroastrian view a divine act, and matter is a divine substance. In Manichaeism the demiurge is also a god, but he forms the world from the bodies of slain demons. The Zoroastrian assessment of the material world is entirely positive, for the Manichaeans the substance of the world is bad but its function is salutary.

In Zoroastrianism the creation of man is a necessary precondition for the final victory of the divine powers. It is the work of demons according to the Manichaean doctrine, designated to imprison the World Soul forever in generations of human bodies. In this point the views of Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism are incompatible, even if the Manichaean gods find means to convert man into an instrument of salvation.

The world is, in the Zoroastrian as well as in the Manichaean view, the permanent battlefield of the divine powers and their demonic counterparts. In this battle humankind plays an important role. The world is the prison of the demons. This is also the opinion of the Manichaeans. But more than that, for them it is also a grandiose device to set free and purify the dismembered particles of the World Soul.

For the Zoroastrians the end of the world is its return to its original ideal state. For the Manichaeans it is its total destruction and the return of the last redeemable particles of the World Soul to their home and origin, the world of light. Both the Zoroastrian and the quite different Manichaean conception of these events are called in Middle Persian frašgird [Sundermann, 2001, p. 61].

These examples suffice to show that Manichaeism has the basic dualistic concept of its cosmogony (and cosmology) in common with the Zoroastrian doctrine. It comes close to Zoroastrianism in its evaluation of the material world. In other points it keeps a more Gnostic view: the nature of matter, of man, of the world as a prison of the World Soul, the final destruction of the world. Its idea of the sacrifice of the First Man imitated the Christian doctrine of the sacrificium Jesu Christi. Manichaeism, one may conclude, is a Gnostic religion with Christian roots and additional Zoroastrian components.

The Buddha whom Mani recognized as one of his forerunners and the importance of the inclusion of Buddha in the chain of Mani’s forerunners demonstrated that the Manichaean world-wide universality overstepped the limits of Mani’s Christian and Gnostic background.

Manichaeism was twice exposed to the impact of Buddhist ideas and ways of life. The Buddhist origin of the Manichaean doctrine of transmigration (Puech, 1949, p. 69), as well as of the Manichaean monastic life (Jonas, 1991, p. 232) has been taken for granted. As for the first point, the Manichaean term metaggismos denoting the transmigration, suggests a more likely Gnostic origin, and so does the important testimony in Biruni’s Taḥqiq mā li’l-Hind. Even if Biruni himself regarded it as an argument for the Indian origin of the Manichaean doctrine of transmigration, it rather speaks in favor of a Christian-Gnostic source [cf. Sundermann, 2001, pp. 208-9]. It is perhaps of minor importance that the somewhat materialistic Manichaean idea of transmigration is far from the Buddhist concept of rebirth.

There are better arguments for a Buddhist pattern of Manichaean monastic life and especially the monastic institution (mānistān in the Iranian languages). The Manichaean monasteries were initially meant to be places of communal worship and instruction, places for repose for electi who had fallen ill, and perhaps resting-places for religious wayfarers [Chavannes and Pelliot, 1913, pp. 108-14]. They were not initially meant to be the permanent abode of electi who had withdrawn from the world, let alone centers of commercial activity. This seems to agree well with the Buddhist vihāras as they may have been run in the third century CE (Lamotte, 1956, pp. 63-71, 342-43). 

There is a striking similarity between the Manichaean doctrine of the suffering World Soul and how it should be spared from maltreatment, and corresponding ideas in the Jain religion. Strangely enough, Mani does not mention the Mahāvīra as one of his prophetic forerunners, and the Jainas are ignored in Manichaean texts, unless they are to be understood in the Sogdian fragment So 18248 II (TM 393) as the “Brahmanic religion”; [Henning, 1977, II, pp. 144, 147; cf. Gardner, 2005, p. 124]..

Albert Henrichs assumed Indian sources for the Manichaean legends about speaking and lamenting trees (Henrichs, 1979). That might confirm the Indian contribution to the Manichaean doctrine about the suffering World Soul.

The Jewish religion, ancient Mesopotamian traditions left their traces in Manichaeism. But their influence was largely an indirect one, that it underwent a Gnostic –negative -evaluation (Judaism) or was more or less mediated by Gnosticism (philosophical traditions) or Judaism (Mesopotamian elements).

The contribution of Judaism to the Manichaeism dogma is smaller than might have been expected from a religion that originated in a Jewish-Christian community.The early formation of Mani’s world-view in a Jewish Christian environment left its traces in the further development of Mani’s doctrine. He made extensive use of those parts of the Old Testament and of Jewish apocryphal texts – in a critical or approving way – which treated of the pre-Jewish history of mankind, i.e. the time of the patriarchs before Abraham. 

This is most clearly expressed in the Manichaean re-interpretation of the creation myth of Genesis 1-3. Mani identified the Biblical creator god with the arch-demon Ašaqlūn of his myth, the procreator of the first human couple (Henning, 1977, I, pp. 25-26). The statement in Genesis 1.27 that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them,” is referred to in the context of the Manichaean Third Messenger whose male and female beauty had once aroused the desire of the demons in the skies and had seduced them [Sundermann, 2001, pp. 683-95). The snake, which according to Genesis 3.1-5 led Eve and Adam into temptation, actually opened Adam’s eyes to the divine truth. By eating the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge" Adam gains Gnosis (Merkelbach, 1986, p. 29; Puech, 1949, p. 175, n. 337). It must not be overlooked, however, that anti-Jewish polemics in the Gnostic manner also attacked, and had perhaps as their main target those Christian communities that had accepted the tales and commands of the Old Testament unreservedly and at face value [Luttikhuizen, 2006, pp. 10, 28].

The most important topic beside the Genesis myth was the legend of the “sons of Elōhīm” who descended on earth, copulated with the daughters of men, and procreated a race of giants [Genesis 6.1-4]. The legend was elaborated in the apocryphal Jewish Book of the Giants and related works which were ascribed to Enoch, fragments of which were discovered among the Qumran texts [Milik, 1971, pp. 117-27; 1976, pp. 4-69, 298-317]. Parts of the Enoch literature found their way into the Christian tradition, and so it is likely that Mani became familiar with the Jewish Book of the Giants during his living in the Elkhasaite community environment. The ancient book may be inspired him to write the corrected form of the Book of the Giants, which became one of his canonical works. The Cologne Mani Codex quotes many more apocryphal works of Jews [Reeves, 1996, pp. 67-206].

The Manichaean religion claimed an all-embracing world-view describing the construction of the world with its eight earths and ten skies, listing the five kinds of animals and explaining such mysterious phenomena as earthquakes, the tides, the eclipses of sun and moon and the diversity of human languages. A claim to omniscience cannot be denied. In the course of its history it attracted the interest of outstanding personalities of spirituality and scholarship - and at the same time disappointed their expectations [for St. Augustine cf. his Confessions V.-3, for Biruni cf. Ruska, 1922, pp. 30-33]. In any case, the main concern of the Manichaean doctrine was its theodicy. The solution offered by Mani is indeed a unique one. More than any other religion, even more than Zoroastrianism, his doctrine drew radical consequences from its dualistic premises. Not only did it deny god’s omnipotence, it even proclaimed a deity inferior to the demonic world in the beginning and imperfect in the end, a suffering god, and a god in need of human help. These concessions to the constantly experienced evil under the sun made this world meaningful for the case of afterlife Judgement, but provoked the question of whether god was able to render man help and protection against earthly and spiritual mischief or at least to lighten and compensate his suffering.

This dilemma, to uncompromisingly uphold the dualistic dogma of god’s exoneration from evil and at the same time to encourage trust and hope in god’s helpfulness, was to a certain degree solved by the grandiose myth of a god developing in history, of a historical god.

At the first clash of good and evil the divine world in its self-sufficient, peaceful harmony was helplessly exposed to the attack of the powers of darkness. The danger could be temporarily averted through god’s subsequent self-sacrifice – in the person of the First Man, his son, and his sons’s sons—as a stupefying bait for the demons. The effect of the sacrifice and the delay of the demonic attack gave god the chance to prepare his world for battle. He evoked the militant force of the Second Evocation that gained a peril-averting victory over the demons. The sons of the First Man, the World Soul, however, remained under the sway of the demons. The fate of the First Man and the imprisonment of his sons led to the development of a divine counterpart of the eternal demonic concupiscentia, the victims’ desire to be saved and the divine desire to save its lost part.

Thus perfected, god puts his superior wisdom to good use. With the clever means developed by the deities of the Third Evocation, the work of the progressive liberation of the World Soul is being undertaken and continued up to the end of the cosmos, though it could not be completely accomplished. A small remainder of irredeemable particles of the World Soul remains with the demons and shares their eternal imprisonment in the Bōlos. God emerges from the cosmic battle as a somewhat injured winner, an incomplete god, an idea that went, as Augustine and others stated [Baur, 1973, pp. 29-40], against the classical definition of god as a perfect being. But this was not the Manichaean concern. Their concern was the ultimate return of the divine world to the aboriginal state of self-sufficient, peaceful harmony. In later times the majority of Mani’s followers came to minimize as far as possible the consequences of Mani’s theodicy. They either denied the irredeemable fate of any part of the World Soul [al-Nadim, tr. Dodge 1970, p. 783], or they maintained that the divine world resigned itself to its loss and would no longer miss its lost parts [Henning, 1977, I, p. 278].

A deity like this could be expected to do his best to redeem human souls from the prison of their bodies for a happy life in the hereafter. But success could not be guaranteed. It was not the main concern of the redeeming gods to ensure a blessed human life on earth. It is the sublunar gods of the five Light Elements, the active aspect of the World Soul, as it were, who alleviated the conditions of everyday life as much as possible (Sundermann, 1997, pp. 15-16). Besides, the Manicheans did what all the world practiced against any kind of mischief: they administered magic spells [Henning, 1977, II, pp. 273-300] or interpreted omina [Sundermann, 2001, pp. 761-78].

The suffering god is the World Soul, it is not the translunar and the soul-redeeming pantheon, even if they may miss their relatives imprisoned on earth. But as the sons of the First Man, the “soul” of the “Father of Greatness,” the World Soul is not only a part of the world of light, but also a part of its highest god. So one could argue that the suffering World Soul is the suffering god himself, and whatever evil befalls the World Soul happens to god himself. Not only is god not the one who produces evil or he who does not prevent it, he is even the victim of evil himself.

The god in need of human help is again the World Soul. How this dependency is to be understood and how the human help worked was described under “Ethics.” It should be added here that the god in need of human help is one of the main topics of Manichaean mythology and poetry and perhaps the core of Manichaean practiced piety. A substantial part of Iranian Manichaean poetry consists of hymns in praise of the World Soul or expressing the complaint of the World Soul. A long hymn cycle, Gōwišn ī grīw zīndag “The Sermon on the Living Self”, thematized the honorable and the disgraceful treatment of the World Soul by mankind [Henning, 1977, I, pp. 215-18; Sims-Williams, 1981, pp. 239-40].

Much more could be said about Manichaean Theology. It had a polytheistic, an emanistic and a pantheistic, and even, for the very first and last times, a monotheistic aspect. It was mythical, but the myth was known to be no more than an image, presenting a temporal diversification of the divine unity [Biruni’s India, in Adam, 1969, pp. 4-5, cf. also EIr. entry “Manichean Pantheon”; Widengren, ed., 1977, p. 110]. All these aspects are not necessarily contradictory. They rather represent the rich variety of Manichaean theological concepts as applied to the ideas of divine formation and development, the sublunar and the translunar spheres of divine reality, and perhaps even the mythical and the abstract view of divine nature. But Manichaeism shared one or the other of these features with other religions and doctrines. It seems as if Mani wanted to convince the world that all possible types of theological speculation had their place in the harmonious system of his doctrine. The unique property of Manichaean theology is its theodicy. It justifies the assessment that Manichaeism is more than the sum of its syncretistic components.

The sources of our information about the life, doctrines, and writings of Manes are both Eastern and Western, and since the former (notably the Fihrist, al-Biruni, Ibn Wadih al-Ya'qubi and Shahristani) have been made accessible, it has been generally recognized that the information which they yield us is of a more reliable than that of Christian sources [collected mainly from the writings of St. Augustine, the Acts of Archelaus, etc.] of European accounts of this remarkable man.   

al-Ya'qubi's account of the life and doctrines of Manes, outlines as: "And in the days of Shapur the son of Ardashir appeared Mani the Zindiq, the son of Hammad, who invited Shapur to Dualism and cast censure upon his religion (i.e., Zoroastrianism). And Shapur inclined to him. And Mani said that the Controller of the Universe was twofold, and that there were two Eternal Principles, Light and Darkness, two Creators, the Creator of Good and the Creator of Evil. The Darkness and the Light, each one of them, connects in itself five ideas, Colour, Taste, Smell, Touch, and Sound, whereby these two do hear, see, and know; and what is good and beneficial is from the Light, while what is hurtful and calamitous is from the Darkness.

"Now these two [principles] were [at first] unmixed, then they became mixed ; and the proof of this is that there was [at first] no phenomenon, then afterwards phenomena were produced. And the Darkness anticipated the Light in this admixture, for they were [at first] in mutual contact like the shadow and the sun; and the proof of this is the impossibility of the production of anything save from something else. And the Darkness anticipated the Light in admixture, because, since the admixture of the Darkness with the Light was injurious to the latter, it is impossible that the Light should have made the first beginning [therein]; for the Light is by its nature the Good. And the proof that these two, Good and Evil, were eternal, is that if one substance be posited, two opposite actions will not proceed from it Thus, for example, Fire [which is], hot and burning, cannot refrigerate, while that which refrigerates cannot heat ; and that where from good results cannot produce evil, while from that which produces evil good cannot result. And the proof that these two principles are living and active is that good results from the action of this, and evil from the action of that.

"So Shapur accepted this doctrine from him, and urged his subjects to do the same. And this thing was grievous unto them, and the wise men from amongst the people of his kingdom united in dissuading him from this, but he did not do [what they demanded].

And Mani composed books wherein he affirmed the Two Principles; and of his writings was the book which he entitled Kanzyu'l Ihyd ('the Treasure of Vivification) wherein he describes what of salvation wrought by the Light and of corruption wrought by the Darkness exists in the soul, and refers reprehensible actions to the Darkness; and a book which he named Shdburgan, wherein he describes the delivered soul and that which is mingled with the devils and with defects, and makes out heaven to be a flat surface, and asserts that the world is on a sloping mountain on which the high heaven revolves; and a book which he named Kudbu'l-Hudd wat-Tadbir ('the Book of Guidance and Administration'), and the 'Twelve Gospels,' whereof he named each after one of the letters of the alphabet, and described Prayer, and what must be done for the deliverance of the soul; and the Sifru'l- Asrdr (' Book of Secrets'),

wherein he finds fault with the miracles of the prophets ; and the Sifni'l-Jabdbira ('Book of the Giants'); besides which he has many other books and epistles. "So Shapur continued in this doctrine for some ten years. Then the Mubadh (Fire-priest) came to him and said, 'This man hath corrupted thy religion; confront me with him, that I may dispute with him.' 

So he confronted them, and the Mubadh bested him in argument, and Shapur returned from Dualism to the Magian religion, and resolved to put Mani to death, but he fled away and came to the lands of India, where he abode until Shapur died.

"Then Shapur was succeeded by his son Hurmuz, a valiant man; and he it was who built the city of Ram- Hurmuz, but his days were not prolonged. He reigned one year.

"Then reigned Bahram the son of Hurmuz, who concerned himself [only] with his minions and amusements. And Mani's disciples wrote to him, saying, 'There hath succeeded to the throne a King young in years, greatly preoccupied [with his amusements].' So he returned to the land of Persia, and his doings became noised abroad, and his place [of abode] became known. Then Bahram summoned him and questioned him concerning his doctrine, and he related to him his circumstances. Then [Bahram] confronted him with the Mubadh, who disputed with him, and said, 'Let molten lead be poured on my belly and on thine, and whichever of us shall be unhurt thereby, he will be in the right.'

But [Mani] replied, 'This is a deed of the Darkness.' So Bahram ordered him to be imprisoned, and said to him, 'When morning comes I will send for thee and will slay thee in such wise as none hath been slain before thee.'

"So all that night Mani was being flayed, until his spirit departed [from his body]. And when it was morning, Bahram sent for him, and they found him [already] dead. So he ordered his head to be cut off, and his body to be stuffed with straw; and he persecuted his followers and slew of them a great multitude. And Bahram the son of Hurmuzd reigned three years."

The account of Mani given in the Fihrist is much fuller, but here only a few important points will be mentioned. His father's name is given as Futtaq (the arabicised form of a Persian name, probably Pataka, represented by Western writers as Patecius, Phatecius, and Patricius), and he was a native of Hamadan, but migrated thence to Babylonia (Badaraya and Bakusaya) and joined himself to the Mughtasila, a sect closely akin to the Mandaeans, from whom Mani probably derived his hatred both of the Jewish religion and also of idolatry. 

Mani's mother's name is variously given as Mar Maryam, Utakhim and Mays, and it is at least possible that she was of the race of the Ashghanis, or Parthian royal family, which, if true, would afford another ground for the mistrust entertained towards him by the Sasanian kings. He was born, according to his own statement in the book called Shaburgan, cited by al-Biruni, in CE. 215 or 216, and was deformed by a limp in one leg. Before his birth the Angel Tawm made known to his mother his high mission in dreams, but he only began to receive revelations at the age of twelve (or thirteen, CE. 227-8, according to al-Biruni), and not till he reached the age of twenty-four was he commissioned to make known his doctrine. His public announcement of his claims is said to have been solemnly made before King Shapur on the day of his coronation, March 20, CE. 242, and it was probably through the King's brother Firuz, whom he had converted to
his doctrines, that he succeeded in obtaining admission on so great an occasion of state. His long journey in India and the East probably followed his loss of the King's favour. That his ultimate return to Persia and barbarous execution took place during the short reign of Bahrain I (CE. 273-6), is asserted by al-Biruni, al-Ya'qubi, and Tabari."

According to Sachau (Sachau's tr. p. 191)- Manichaeanism, increased by degrees under Ardashir, his son Shapur, and Hurmuzd son of Shapur, until the time when Bahram the son of Hurmuzd ascended the throne. He gave orders to search for Mani', and when he had found him, he said: 'This man has come forward calling people to destroy the world. It will be necessary to begin by destroying him, before anything of his plans should be realized.'

It is well known that he killed Mani, stripped off his skin, filled it with grass, and hung it up at the gate of Uinde-Shapur, which is still known as the Gate of Manes. Hurmuzd also killed a "number of the Manichaeans. ... I have heard the Ispahbadh Marzuban the son of Rustam say that Shapur banished him out of his empire, faithful to the Law of Zoroaster which demands the expulsion of pseudo prophets from the country. He imposed on him the obligation never to return. So Mani went off to India, China, and Thibet, and there preached his gospel. Afterwards he returned, and was seized by Bahram and put to death for having broken the stipulation, whereby he had forfeited his life." 

The gospel of Mani, which so aroused the enmity of the Zoroastrian priesthood, and which was still so active in the latter part of the eighth century, that the 'Abbasid Caliph al-Mahdi appointed a special inquisitor, called Sahibu (or al Arifuz]-Zandiqa to detect and punish those who, under the outward garb of Islam, held the doctrines of the Manichaeans or Zindiqs. [Zindiq, which, originally used to denote the Manichaeans, was gradually, and is still, applied to all atheists and heretics in Islamic countries. The ordinary explanation is that the term Zandiq is a Persian adjective meaning "one who follows the Zand" or traditional explanation in preference to the Sacred Text, and that the Manichaeans were so called because of their disposition to interpret and explain the scriptures of other religions in accordance with their own ideas, by a process akin to the yvwmg of the gnostics and the tawll of the later Isma'ilis. But Professor Eevan has proposed a much more probable explanation. We know from the Fihrist (Fliigel's Manly p. 64) and al-Elrl.nl (transl. Sachau, p. 190) that while the term Sammir ("Listener," "Auditor") was applied to the lower grades of Manichaeans, who did not wish to take upon them all the obligations concerning poverty, celibacy, and mortification imposed by the religion, the "saints and ascetics" amongst them, who were commanded "to prefer poverty to riches, to suppress cupidity and lust, to abandon the world, to be abstinent in it, continually to fast, and to give alms as much as possible," were called Siddiq, "the Faithful" (pl. Siddiqur).

The Manichaeans, as we have seen, like the followers of Marcion and Bardesanes, were reckoned by Muslim writers amongst the "Dualists." Similarly, the Mazdhaeans the Zoroastrian religion also dualistic. In the former the Good and the Evil Creation, the realm of Ahura Mazda and that of Anra Mainyush (Ahriman), each comprised a spiritual and a material part. Not only the Amshaspands and Angels, but also the material elements and all animals and plants useful to man, and of mankind those who held "the Good Religion," fought on the side of Ahura Mazda against the dlvs and drujes, the khrafstars, or noxious animals, the witches and warlocks, the misbelievers and heretics, who constituted the hosts of Ahriman. In general the Zoroastrian religion, for all its elaborately systematized Spiritual Hierarchies, presents itself as an essentially material religion, in the sense that it encouraged its followers to "be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth," and to "sow the seed and reap the harvest with enduring toil." 

According to the Manichaean view, on the other hand, the admixture of the Light and the Darkness which gave rise to the material universe was essentially evil, and a result of the activity of the Powers of Evil; it was only good in so far as it afforded a means of escape and return to its proper sphere to that portion of the Light ("Jesus patibilis": see Spiegel, Eran. Alt., ii, p. 226), which had become entangled in the darkness; and when this deliverance was, so far as possible, effected, the angels who supported the heavens and upheld the earth would relax their hold, the whole material universe would collapse, and the Final Conflagration would mark the Redemption of the Light and its final dissociation from the irredeemable and indestructible Darkness. 

Meanwhile, by the "Column of Praise (consisting of the prayers, doxologies and good works of the faithful ascending up to Heaven, and visible as the Milky Way 2), the particles of Light, set free from their imprisonment in the Darkness, ascend upwards, and are ferried across by the Sun and Moon to the "Paradise of Light," which is their proper home. All that tends to the prolongation of this state of admixture of Light and Darkness, such as marriage and the begetting of children, is consequently regarded by Manes and his followers as evil and reprehensible, and thus we see what King Hurmuz meant by the words, "This man has come forward calling people to destroy the world." Zoroastrianism was national, militant, materialistic, imperialist; Manichaeism, cosmopolitan, quietist, ascetic, unworldly; the two systems stood in essential antagonism, and, for all their external resemblances (fully indicated by Spiegel in his Eranhche Alterihumskunde, vol. ii, pp. 195-232), were inevitably hostile and radically opposed.

In the case of Judaism, orthodox Christianity and Islam, the antagonism was equally great, and if the Manichaeans suffered less at the hands of the Jews than of the other three religions, it was the power rather than the will which these lacked, since, as we have seen, Judaism was held by Manes in particular abhorrence. 

Into the details of the Manichaean doctrine the causes which led to the admixture of the Darkness and the Light; their theories concerning the "King of the Paradises of Light," the Primal Man, the Devil, and the Mechaenism of the material universe as a means for liberating the Light from its captivity; and their grotesque beliefs concerning Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Hakimatud-Dahr ("the World-wise ") and Ibnatu'l-Hlrs ("the Daughter of Desire"), Rawfaryad, Barfaryad, and Shathil (Seth), and the like, it is not possible to enter in this place. As a set-off against their rejection of the Hebrew prophets the Manichaeans recognized not only Zoroaster and Buddha as divine messengers, but also Christ, who was, in their view, an apparition from the World of Light clad in a merely phantasmal body, and His counterpart and antagonist, "the Son of the Widow" who was crucified. 

As regards the history of the Manichaeans in the East, we have already mentioned that during the Caliphate of al-Mahdi (CE. 775-785), the father of Harunu'r-Rashid, they were so numerous that a special Inquisitor was appointed to detect and destroy them. 

The author of the Fihrist (CE. 988) knew 300 professed Manichaeans at Baghdad alone, and al-Birum (CE. 1000) was familiar with their books, especially the Shaburgan (the one book composed by Manes in Persian, i.e. Pahlawi; for the other six of his principal writings were in Syriac) which he cites in several places, including the opening words (Sachau's tr., p. 190), which run thus:

"Wisdom and deeds have always from time to time been brought to mankind by the messengers of God. So in one age they have been Citation from brought by the messenger of God called Buddha to India, one of the books in another by Zoroaster to Persia, in another by Jesus to the West. Thereafter this revelation has come do-van, this prophecy in this last age, through me, Mani, the Messenger of the God of Truth to Babylonia."

The migrations of the Manichaeans are thus described in the Fihrist: "The Manichaeans were the first religious community to enter the lands of Transoxiana beside the Shamanists. The reason of this was that when the Kisra (Bahrain) slew Mani and crucified him; and forbade the people in his Kingdom to dispute about religion, he took to killing the followers of Mani wherever he found them, wherefore they continued to flee before him until they crossed the river of Balkh and entered the dominions of the Khaqan (or Khan), with whom they abode. Now Khaqan (or Khan) in their tongue is a title conferred by them on the King of the Turks. 

So the Manichaeans settled in Transoxiaua until such time as the power of the Persians was broken and that of the Arabs waxed strong, whereupon they returned to these lands ('Iraq, or Babylonia), especially during the break up of the Persian Empire and the days of the Umayyad kings. Khalid b. 'Abdu'llah al-Qasri took them under his protection, but the leadership [of the sect] was not conferred save in Babylonia, in these lands, after which the leader would depart into whatever land would afford him most security. Their last migration took place in the days of al-Muqtadir (CE. 908-932), when they retired to Khurasan for fear of their lives, while such as remained of them concealed their religion, and wandered through these regions. About five hundred men of them collected at Samarkhand, and their doctrines became known. The governor of Khurasan would have slain them, but the King of China sent unto him saying, 'There are in my domains double the number of Muslims that there are in thine of my co-religionists,' and swearing to him that should he kill one of the latter, he would slay the whole of the former to avenge him, and would destroy the mosques, and would establish an inquisition against the Muslims in the rest of his dominions and slay them. So the Governor of Khurasan let them alone, only taking from them the jizya. So they diminished in numbers in the lands of Islam; but in the City of Peace (Baghdad).

The Manichaeans were divided into five grades the Mttallimun or Teachers, called "the Sons of Knowledge" the isshun or priests, called "the Sons of Under-i standing"; the Siddiqun or faithful, called "the Sons of the Unseen"; and the Sammd'un or hearers, called "the Sons of Intelligence." 

They were commanded to perform the four or the seven prayers, and to abandon idol-worship, falsehood, covetousness, murder, fornication, theft, the teaching and study of all arts of deception and magic, hypocrisy in religion and lukewarmness in daily life. To these ten commandments were added: belief in the four Supreme Essences: to wit, God ("the King of the Paradises of Light"), His Light, His Power, and His Wisdom; fasting for seven days in each month; and the acceptance of "the three seals," called by St. Augustine and other Christian writers the signacula oris, manuum et sinus, typifying the renunciation of evil words, evil deeds, and evil thoughts, and corresponding to the hukht, huvarsht, and humat (good words, good deeds, and good thoughts) of the Zoroastrian religion. Details of the fasts and prayers, and some of the formulas used in the latter, are also given in the Fihristy from which we also learn something of the schisms which arose after Mani's time as to the Spiritual Supremacy, the chief divisions being the Mihriyya and the Miqlasiyya. 

The seven books of Mani (of which, as has been already said, six were in Syriac and one the Shaburgan in Pahlavi) were written in a peculiar script invented by their author and invented by reproduced (in a form greatly corrupted and disfigured in the existing MSS.) by the Fihrist.

To this script, and to the art of writing in general, the Manichaeans (like the modern Babis, who, as is well known, have also invented a script peculiar to themselves called khatt-i-badl "the New Writing") would appear to have devoted much attention, for al-Jahidh (ninth century) cites Ibrahim as-Sindi as saying that "it would be well if they were to spend less on the whitest, finest paper and the blackest ink, and on the training of calligraphists." From this, as Professor Bevan conjectures, arose the idea of Mani as a skilful painter which is prevalent in Persia, where it is generally believed that he produced a picture-1 book called the Arzhang to which he appealed as a proof of his supernatural power and divine mission. [Shdhndma, ed. Macan, vol. iii, pp. 1453-1454]

The End.
Not Yet Revised

Source:
Werner Sundermann, "Manichaeism i. General Survey," Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, 2009, 
Kephalaia, ed. W.-P. Funk, Stuttgart, 2000.
Flügel, Mani, Leipzig, 1862.
“The Book of the Giants,” BSOAS 11, 1943.
“The Murder of the Magi,” JRAS 1944.
“A Grain of Mustard,” Aion-l, 1965.
Cologne Mani Codex, L. Koenen, Opladen 1988;
Gnosis [i.e. Manichaeism], San Francisco, 1993.
Frye, “Manichaean notes,” August 1989,
The Gnostic Religion, Boston, 1991.
BeDuhn, The Manichaean Body In Discipline and Ritual, London, 2000.
Biruni, tr. E. Sachau, The Chronology of Ancient Nations, London, 1879 
de Blois, and D. Taillieu, Dictionary of Manichaean Texts II. Turnhout, 2006.
Wedderburn, The New Testament and the Concept of the Manichaean Myth, Edinburgh, 1983,
W. B. Henning, “On Mithra in the Manichaean pantheon,”, London, 1962.
L. Clark, “The Conversion of Bügü Khan to Manichaeism,”  Berlin, 2000.
J. Dewey eds., “Concerning the Origin of his Body,”  Montana, 1979.
The Hymns to the Living Soul, Turnhout, 2006.
M. Franzmann, Jesus in the Manichaean Writings, New York, 2003.
The Kephalaia of the Teacher.Tr with Commentary, Leiden, 1995.
C. Lieu, Manichaean Texts from the Roman Empire, Cambridge, 2004.
“Two Manichæan Magical Texts with an Excursus on The Parthian ending -ēndēh,” BSOAS 12, 1947.
Williams Jackson, “Studies in Manichaeism,” JAOS 43, 1923.
de Jong, Traditions of the Magi, New York, 1997.
Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval China, Tübingen, 1992.
Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revisions of Genesis Stories and Early Jesus Traditions, Leiden and Boston, 2006.
MacKenzie, “Mani’s Šābuhragān” [I], BSOAS 42, 1979.
Mikkelsen, A Comprehensive Bibliography of Manichaeism, Turnhout, 1997.
The Book of Enoch. Aramaic fragments of Qumrân Cave 4, Oxford, 1976.
Morano, “Manichaean Middle Iranian Incantation Texts from Turfan,” Berlin, 2004.
al-Nadim, Ketāb al-fehrest, tr. Bayard Dodge,, New York, 1970.
Ogden, “The 1468 Years of the World-Conflagration in Manichaeism,” Bombay, 1930.
Pedersen, Studies in the Sermon on the Great War, Århus, 1993.
Rāzi, A Bibliography of Mani, Tehran, 1993.
Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony, Cincinnati, 1992.
“Utnapishtim in the Book of Giants?” Journal of Biblical literature 112, 1993.
Heralds of That Good Realm. Leiden, 1996.
Schwartz, “Qumran, Turfan, Arabic Magic, and Noah’s Name,” Res Orientales 2002, 
Sims-Williams, “The Sogdian fragments of Leningrad,” BSOAS 44, 1981.
“Indian elements in Parthian and Sogdian,”  W. Veenker,  1983.
The Manichaean commandments, Acta Iranica 25, Leiden, 1985.
Skjærvø, “Bardesanes,” EIr. III.
“Counter-Manichaean elements in Kerdīr’s inscriptions.” Naples, 1997.
Iranian elements in Manichaeism. Bures-sur-Yvette 1995.
Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology, Leiden, 1984.
“The five sons of the Manichaean god Mithra,” Rome 1979.
“Mani, India, and the Manichaean Religion.” South Asian Studies 2, 1986.
Jesus’ rulership at the end of the world, E. Provasi, Wiesbaden 2003.
Al-ḥikma wa-l-ʿilm, al-Bīrūnī, Napoli 41, 1981.
G. Widengren, Mesopotamian Elements in Manichaeism, Leipzig, 1946.
C. Kessler, Mani and Manichaeism, London, 1965.