Relevant Qur’anic Passages
The following Qur’anic verses are relevant to a discussion of whether or not Jesus died and if he would come to this world for a second time.
Why some people think Jesus did not die
Ḥadīth reports attributed to Muhammad (may God's blessings and peace be upon him), at least some of which are believed to have sound chains of narrators, provide the basis for widespread Muslim belief that Jesus is still alive and shall return to this world before the end of time. Some of these reports have occurred in the Ṣaḥīḥayn of Bukhārī and Muslim.Qur’an, on the other hand, does not support the view in clear terms. If anything, some Qur’anic āyāt actually suggest that Jesus has died – most notably 3:55 and 5:117, which we will discuss in the next section.
Interestingly, however, commentators and translators of Qur’an have interpreted a number of Qur’anic āyāt in light of what they have learned from ḥadīth reports concerning the ascent of Jesus and his return. The āyāt are thus made “consistent” with what ḥadīth reports have to say on this matter. Once made consistent with relevant body of ḥadīth, āyāt that were otherwise suggestive of Jesus’s demise (such as 3:55 and 5:117) are neutralized, and some other āyāt (like 4:157–158 and 43:61) start looking like independent evidence of the return of a Jesus who is still alive.
Thus, 4:157–158 are often cited as “evidence” of the alleged fact that Jesus has not died. The āyāt clearly suggest that the Jews failed to kill/crucify Jesus as they had wished, for God raised Jesus unto Himself. But that does not mean Jesus could not have died otherwise – especially if the suggestion of Jesus’s demise in 3:55 and 5:117 is considered. That God “raised” Jesus to Himself does not by itself suggest that Jesus was raised “alive”. After all, people who die also “ascend” unto God. Yet, a lay Muslim reader who reads these āyāt in isolation from other āyāt that suggest demise of Jesus and who has believed all his life that Jesus Christ will return to save the ummah from the fitnah of Dajjāl is liable to think of “bal rafa‘ahū ilayhi” as an evidence of the ascent of a living Jesus unto God.
43:61 is another āyah of Qur’an that has started looking like evidence of the return of Jesus in its own right. The short āyah uses at least three pronouns – wa‑innahū la‑‘ilm lil‑sā‘ah fa‑lā tamtarunna bi‑hā wa‑ittabi‘ūni – that lend to a variety of interpretations. Literally, the āyah may be translated as “And he/it is indeed knowledge of the Last Hour, so doubt it not, and follow me – this is the straight path!” Particularly, the first (wa‑innahū) of the three pronouns poses a difficulty in interpretation. Thus, commentators have differed over who/what is a means to know the Last Hour. Many translators and commentators have thought of this pronoun as a reference to Jesus – because the āyah is preceded and followed by other āyāt that discuss Jesus. This would mean that Jesus is (a source of) knowledge concerning the Last Hour. At least some of the commentators have extended this further to suggest that the “return of Jesus” is a “sign” of the Last Hour. Even if the commentator does not say so, a lay reader is likely to jump to such a conclusion when they read a translation where the pronoun is either replaced by Jesus in brackets or a footnote explains that it refers to Jesus. Part of the problem is that commentators often do not mention – for whatever reasons – that the āyah can be understood otherwise. Thus, a lay reader might as well think that the āyah is “conclusive evidence” for the return of Jesus before the Day of Judgment.
It is pertinent to note that there are commentators who thought 43:61 refers to Jesus, yet did not believe the āyah refers to his return before the Day of Judgment. It is because the later part of the āyah – fa‑lā tamtarunna bi‑hā – is a logical conclusion that must follow from the earlier part of the āyah – wa‑innahū la‑‘ilm lil‑sā‘ah – that serves as the premise. Commentators like Mawdūdī and Iṣlāḥī thought the earlier part of the āyah could not be a reference to the “return of Jesus” because something that is going to happen in distant future could not be presented as a reason why Muhammad’s immediate audience should believe in the establishment of the Day of Judgment. To persuade them to believe in the Last Hour, Qur’an would offer as evidence what they see in their own time or what they have known from before. Thus, Mawdūdī, Iṣlāḥi, and possibly others believe that the āyah refers to the miraculous birth of Jesus, his ability to bring the dead back to life, and his ability to bring to life a bird made out of clay to argue that resurrection of the dead and establishment of the Day of Judgment is not so incredible.
An equally (if not more) plausible interpretation of the āyah is possible if the first pronoun is considered a reference to Qur’an itself. Thus, the word of God constitutes knowledge concerning the Last Hour, so people should have no doubts about the Day of Judgment. Ḥasan al‑Baṣrī and Sa‘īd Ibn Jubayr are known to have held this view. Muhammad Asad has also maintained this view in his translation and commentary of Qur’an. Thus, he translates the āyah as: “AND, BEHOLD, this [divine writ] is indeed a means to know [that] the Last Hour [is bound to come]; hence, have no doubt whatever about it, but follow Me: this [alone] is a straight way.”
The syntax of the āyah obviously favors a reference to Qur’an. A thing like Qur’an better lends to being described as knowledge than a person like Jesus. Understanding the āyah as referring to revealed word of God is also consistent with numerous other instances in Qur’an (such as 2:120, 2:145, 3:61, and 13:37) where the Book is described as knowledge. On the other hand, the person of a Messenger is hardly ever described as knowledge, even though a Messenger is a source of knowledge. The Book is also described as burhān (evidence or proof), al‑hudá (the guidance), nūr (light), al‑ḥaqq (the truth), al‑dhikr or al‑tadhkirah (the reminder), al‑furqān (the criterion) and maw‘iẓah (admonition) – how many times are Messengers described like that? Not just that, several instances in Qur’an specifically suggest epistemic value of the word of God with respect to the Day of Judgment (see 6:130, 7:52, 23:66–71, 39:71, and 67:8–9). Even the claim of a Messenger to nubūwah and his role as a warner seems dependent on the Book (see 13:43, 25:1, 26:192–194, 32:3, and 42:7). All this points to the plausibility of the view that 43:61 actually refers to the word of God as knowledge concerning the Last Hour.
Assuming that 43:61 refers to Qur’an, and not to Jesus, does not affect the way we understand the preceding (i.e. 43:57–60) and the following āyāt (i.e. 43:63–65). Even though both of these passages – 43:57–60 and 43:63–65 – talk about Jesus, they are not otherwise continuous; each of these passages makes complete sense in isolation from the other. Thus, 43:61 does not have to be interpreted such that it would bridge the āyāt that precede it and those that follow it.
The āyah moreover remains consistent with the bigger picture of the sūrah even when interpreted as referring to Qur’an. Thus, the emphasis on the revealed word of God contained in 43:61 is continuous with the emphasis on the Book in the beginning of the sūrah (i.e. 43:3–5), the longer discussion in 43:26–45, and more specifically with 43:43–44.
Finally, it may be pointed out that 4:157–158 and 43:61 do not by themselves suggest ascent of a living Jesus and/or his return to this world. Instead, a belief in the ascent and the return of Jesus founded elsewhere (i.e. ḥadīth reports) is prerequisite to interpreting these āyāt such that they would look like references to the ascent of Jesus and his return. Referring to these āyāt as “proof” of Jesus’s ascent/return is an example of circular reasoning.
Why some people think Jesus died
The standard meaning of the word tawaffī in the Arabic language is death. The word is applied to Jesus on at least two occasions in Qur’an – 3:55 and 5:117.3:55 records the occasion when God said to Jesus, “I shall cause thee to die (innī mutawaffīka) and shall raise thee unto Myself, and cleanse thee of those who are bent on denying the truth.” God further promised Jesus that he was going to give his followers supremacy over those who rejected him until the Day of Judgment. Subsequently, on the Day of Judgment, God would adjudicate the disputes surrounding Jesus and his message.
5:116–117, on the other hand, tell us how God will ask Jesus on the Day of Judgment if he told people to worship him and his mother. Jesus will acquit himself of such a thing, and affirm instead that he only invited people – just as he was instructed by God – to worship God alone who was his rabb as much as theirs. Jesus will go on to say that he could only bear witness to what his people said or did while he was among them. “But after Thou caused me to die (tawaffaytanī), Thou alone watched over them, for Thou art witness unto everything,” Jesus will conclude.
However, the phrases innī mutawaffīka in 3:55 and tawaffaytanī in 5:117 are generally not translated like this. Owing to their belief in the ascent of a living Jesus to the heavens and his expected return to this world, most commentators have tried to interpret tawaffī in these two āyāt – mutawaffīka in 3:55 and tawaffaytanī in 5:117 – as “recalling” Jesus from his mission by appealing to the root word (وفي) consisting of the Arabic letters wāw, fā’, and yā’. Thus, a lay reader who only has access to Qur’an through translations may never realize that some Qur’anic āyāt suggest demise of Jesus.
Yet, some commentators of Qur’an have maintained the suggestion that God caused Jesus to die in their interpretation of these āyāt. Among them are Muḥammad ‘Abduh and his disciple Muḥammad Rashīd Riḍā, and Muhammad Asad. Fakhr al‑Dīn al‑Rāzī has noted in his commentary on 3:55 that ‘Abdullāh Ibn ‘Abbās, one of the foremost teachers of Qur’an among the companions of Muhammad, also shared this view.
In addition to maintaining the suggestion of Jesus’s death in 3:55 and 5:117, Asad went on to dismiss the “bodily” ascent of Jesus in his commentary on 4:158 on grounds that raf‘ (understood as referring to the bodily ascent of Jesus) has been applied to Idrīs as well in 19:57; yet no one thinks God raised Idrīs’s body unto Himself. Thus, from Asad’s point of view, “bal rafa‘ahū allāh ilayhi” in 4:158 implies the “elevation of Jesus to the realm of God’s special grace – a blessing in which all prophets partake.” Likewise, Riḍā observed in his commentary on 3:55 that raf‘ may refer to the ascent of Jesus’s soul following his death – for God caused him to die, then raised him unto Himself.
Finally, Javed Ghamidi has offered an ingenious argument independent of the interpretation of tawaffī and raf‘ in 3:55, 4:158, and 5:117. In his discussion of the signs of the Day of Judgment in Mīzān, he dismisses the prospect of Jesus’s return in view of the dialogue (recorded in 5:116–117) that will take place on the Day of Judgment between God and Jesus. God will ask Jesus if he told his people to worship him and his mother. Jesus will clarify his position by affirming that he only invited his people to worship God who was his rabb as much as theirs. While defending himself, he would further say he only witnessed what his people said or did while he was among them. As for what they said or did after God recalled Jesus from his mission, God Himself is a witness – Jesus is not. If Jesus were revisiting the world before the Day of Judgment, he would have sounded aware of what his so-called followers did behind his back in his dialogue with God. Ghamidi argues Jesus would have said in his defense that he admonished people for deifying him and his mother on his second visit to this world shortly before the Day of Judgment. Since Jesus does not bring up with God what he did about his own deification and that of his mother on his second trip to this world, Ghamidi believes that he is most likely not going to visit this world for a second time and has died a natural death like all other Messengers.
Ghamidi has similarly noted that God lays out His plan for Jesus and his followers until the Day of Judgment in 3:55. It was an occasion where God could have mentioned His plan concerning Jesus’s second trip to this world. The fact that He did not mention anything to that effect leads Ghamidi to think that sending Jesus to this world for a second time is not part of God’s plan.
While the original Arabic words of Qur’an – mutawaffīka and tawaffaytanī – deserve to be considered in their own right, Ghamidi’s argument significantly reinforces the view that 3:55 and 5:117 actually refer to Jesus’s demise.
Ahmad Shafaat and Geoffrey Parrinder have also advanced an argument that is independent of how tawaffī and raf‘ in 3:55, 4:158, and 5:117 are understood. They have noted the similarity of Jesus’s speech in 19:33 to what God says of John (Yaḥyá) in 19:15. Jesus reportedly said, Peace was upon me on the day when I was born, and [will be upon me] on the day I shall die, and on the day when I shall be raised to life [again]! And God says of John, [God’s] peace was upon him on the day when he was born, and on the day he shall die, and will be [upon him] on the day when he shall be raised to life [again].” The similarity in these two āyāt suggests the same sequence of life, death, and resurrection for Jesus as for other Messengers of God. If Jesus was not going to die the way every other Messenger died, why would God remain surreptitiously silent about it? Why would God talk of Jesus in exactly the same way as He talked about John?
The arrival of an adult Jesus on earth and the resumption of his life from where it was suspended (as many believe) is an extraordinary event. If God foretold the arrival of Muhammad in the Gospel (as Qur’an says), why would He not foretell the arrival of Jesus for a second time in Qur’an? 3:55, 5:116–117, and 19:33 were all opportune occasions in Qur’an where God could have hinted at the second arrival of Jesus, but He did not. Instead, His choice of words suggests the same kind of death and resurrection for Jesus as for other Messengers.
Irony of Method
Consistency with Qur’an is one of the stated criteria for the soundness of a ḥadīth report. Yet we have seen in our discussion of Jesus’s ascent/return how various Qur’anic āyāt have been interpreted such that they are rendered “consistent” with what are deemed as “authentic” ḥadīth reports. The text of these reports that have been accepted merely by reference (of reliable narrators) is not subjected to criticism; instead, the word of God is reconfigured so that it does not contradict these reports.The discussion of the ascent and the return of Jesus further demonstrates how deep inroads Christian messianism has made into the body of ḥadīth literature. Yet we refuse to examine the text of ḥadīth reports. We insist that “reference” of reliable narrators is all that we need to accept reports, and that we shall “qualify” Qur’an in light of these reports as and when necessary.
The discussion moreover demonstrates how translation and commentary (tafsīr) of Qur’an may themselves become veils that block access to the real intent of God’s word.
Conclusion
We may conclude by noting that at least some āyāt of Qur’an (3:55 and 5:117) suggest Jesus has died, though not crucified. The āyāt have used the words mutawaffīka and tawaffaytanī with respect to Jesus that signify “death” in standard Arabic usage. Not letting these āyāt speak for themselves, and getting them to toe the line of ḥadīth reports instead, is methodologically anomalous – ḥadīth reports should be qualified in light of the Qur’anic text and not vice versa. Interpreting these āyāt in such a way that they would no longer suggest Jesus’s demise is unreasonable moreover in view of Ghamidi’s arguments that are independent of the interpretation of the key Qur’anic words (mutawaffīka and tawaffaytanī, which no longer seem to suffice for a lot of people).As for the āyāt allegedly referring to the ascent of a living Jesus (4:158) and his return (43:61), we have seen that the Arabic text of these āyāt does not by itself suggest what we have come to associate with them. In fact, the āyāt may not be interpreted as such unless the translator/commentator has, for other reasons, made up his/her mind concerning the bodily ascent of Jesus and his return to this world. Moreover, there exist alternative explanations to these āyāt that are highly probable and, of course, more consistent with the broader Qur’anic discourse.
