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.
Evidently it is very convincing that in the quran there is no CLEAR indication with regard to second coming of Prophet ISAA (Alyh salam), neither can we conclusively DENY it from these quranic ayat. The question of Death at the time of the 'crucifying' is very openly denied in the quran, it is possibly subtly implying that he did not die, neither due to crufication, nor as an indirect consequence of crucification (since his death would have meant a virtual victory for the jews, at that time claiming to have defeated him). What could thus be the closest explaination of the verse is the 'physical ascension towards Allah', not death. In both cases, (death or ascension) it has no bearing on ruling out a possible return at a latter time. Now the question comes to mind, why does the quran not categorically put these 'rumors' to rest by either denying, or confirming it, especially since Allah is the architect of the whole domain of time, the path that history has taken, and will take, and his knowledge of such rumors coming to fore would be absolute. One possible explanation is that the Quran does not generally dwell on the details of events, it is just focused on the moral conclusion from historical events. Same way the quran does not dwell into narrating the specific prophecies or signs of last times. THese 'minor details' if at all given are used as a side reference of as a metaphor to some other issue, and their content is left to the prophetic ahadith to detail on. In this case, there are obviously multiple corroborations through independent sources, and from what is usually seen, there is an unspoken >>>>comment2
ReplyDeletecomment 2>>>>>>
ReplyDeletewidespread agreement among all shades of opinion on the validity of such a prophecy, at par with other prophecies, which carry equal, if not more weight. i have not yet gone through all the ahadith regarding this issue, so as to pass a judgement on their validity or invalidity, but at this juncture, it is reasonable to hold a neutral opinion regarding this, till the ahadith are validated. In addition to the Quran and hadith, there seems quite a bite of logical reasoning that seemingly points one to believe there has to be 1) An earthly return of prophet isaa, to refute people who have associated something to him that he was not, and there has not been an issue of such large magnitude, and such importance concerning such a large number of people that has not been drawn to a clear conclusion through divine intervention. This is such an issue, in line with the quranic ideal of reconciliation between ahl al kitab and islam, and the real dawah towards monotheism being oriented at the polythiests.
2)another logical reasoning line, albeit indirect : The world as it exists today is technologically advanced, and it very reasonable to believe that this is the zenith of tehnological and material advancement that mankind will ever achieve. but speaking of moral values, or spiritual development this age is not the best of times. THere have cearinly been civilizations where mankind has achieved spiritual fullfillment and perhaps been to the zenith, but that time has been most possibly when the present level of technological and material advancement was not possible. So in line with logical expectations, there has to be an age, a civilization in the present materially advanced age which is a model civilization, both materially and spiritually at the zenith of mankinds history. The fullfillment of mans absolute mental and spiritual qualities in a complete sense, even if only for a very short period of time in this world. a utopian world, is not something unreasonable to expect throughout with the length of humankinds existence. we find such a possible civilization in the description of the reign of prophet isaa in his 'second coming', after having defeated the dajjal (antichrist in christian sense). there are more than a few references to it in ahadith, eg, eradication of poverty, crime, injustice etc. We would expect that such a time and place will exist, and it is a promise of Allah that man is the 'khaleefatul arz' and for that man has to excel spiritually and materially at the same time, to prove that the concept of man being on earth is not a contradiction, and that religion and world are reconcileable.
continued....
Talha, did you read the second half of my post? You seem to ignore the body of evidence that points to the demise of Jesus.
ReplyDeleteQur'an did put to rest the "rumors" that existed at the time when it was revealed by denying crucifixion. As for "rumors" of later times, is it not categoric enough that Qur'an uses the words mutawaffīka and tawaffaytanī to describe the end of Jesus's life shortly before the alleged crucifixion? Yet the Christian messianism crept into popular Muslim belief and ultimately into the body of ḥadīth literature. Are we going to rid ourselves of this foreign belief?
As for the "logical reasons" you have advanced, Qur'an dismisses this line of thinking as conjecture and vain speculation, or whimsical thinking. The specific words used in Qur'an to describe and criticize this approach are ẓann, kharṣ, amānī, hawá, and possibly others. You might want to do a word search and look up the āyāt where these words occur to better understand the Qur'anic notion of evidence in matters of religion. God's word, and not some socially-created notion of mankind's perfection or even khilāfah, determines which ideas are legitimately religious and which are not. Wishful thinking does not provide acceptable premises in matters of religion.
This gets to a point of simply comparing two verses of the Quran and drawing the logical inferences, not interpretations. In any given case, the logical view would be preferred over one's own interpretations. 4:157 is absolutely clear, Jesus Christ was not slayed, at least by the Jews, and 4:158 makes further clear that he was "raised" to the heavens, evidently desisting from using death, "يموت". Taking a look at 158 & 157 we can draw 2 conclusions, which have to be kept in mind when drawing conclusions from other aayat of the Quran... 1) Jesus Christ WAS not crucified, nor was he 'killed'/'murdered'/'lynched' by the jewish-roman mob. In the latter part of 158, it is reiterated, by way of invoking Allah's absolute attributes of HAVING OVER ALL THINGS, any logically thinking person will conclude that this invocation is not made in vain, infact, every word of the quran has a reason, in this case it would be wrong to assume that Allah is invoking his POWER, and reiterating it just because he has "caused jesus christ to die", death of a person not being such an act which requires Allah SWT to invoke his 'ALL MIGHTY' powers, but the reason it is there is that Allah SWT SAVED jesus Christ from death.. It would be pointless to save him from death, and then cause him to die anyway. 2) It is more than clear here Jesus Christ was RAISED to the heavens, (most probably we assume in person), which cannot be called as a euphemism for death. Allah does not need to use euphemisms. Such double entendres are usually used by cowardly military personnel to explain extrajudicial murders.
ReplyDelete//i will analyze the second set of verses at a latter time//
All said, even if with this verse, and other verses suggesting death of jesus Christ does not rule out the second coming, as i said earlier, it is within the power and authority of Allah SWT to cause someone to return from death, we are in no position to put constraints over what Allah wills, nor do we have the jurisdiction to make conclusions or nullify ahadith just on the basis of 'mere conjecture' or 'vain speculation' (i can just as easily label this line of thinking as ẓann, kharṣ, amānī, and hawá'). It is out of line to label what is derived from sahih ahadith as being 'socially created notions', just because something is not mentioned in the Quran. It being a signature tactic of Quranites, a new sect of Islam who lay unnecessary emphasis and rule out everything outside the domain of the quran as mere conjecture.
That God's assertion of power “implies” Jesus could not have died, that God “would not” use euphemisms, that Jesus's death "would have" meant victory for Jews (so he could not have died), that the present age is the zenith of technological and material advancement, that there “must” be an era when material and spiritual advancement exist at the same time, that Jesus "must" return for such an age of simultaneous material and spiritual advancement, that man "must" excel materially as well as spiritually to (1) be God's khalīfah on earth and to (2) prove “religion and world are reconcilable”, is what I referred to as conjecture, vain speculation, whimsical thinking, and socially-created ideas. No matter how "logical" or "self-evident" these ideas seem to you, they are nothing but sheer assumptions that have no basis whatsoever. Any "logical reasoning" that uses such assumptions as the starting point has no place in religion. Perhaps, the only discipline where this kind of "reasoning" found any acceptance historically is philosophy! Even in philosophy, arguments that are based on so many assumptions are not respected.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how, on the other hand, you call my argument as mere conjecture and vain speculation, even though it rests on the very text of Qur'an. I have not relied on any assumptions in my argument, nor have I cooked up any facts. It is plain insistence on the words used in 3:55 and 5:117, which you do not seem to get.
For your information, mawt (موت) and its derivatives is not the only set of words that signifies death in Arabic. Tawaffī (توفي) and its derivatives is another set of words that signifies death in the Arabic language. One of the words of the latter set, wafāt (وفاة), is even used in Urdu to mean death.
Are you suggesting that you would ignore tawaffī in 3:55 and 5:117 because it is absent in 4:158? Would you use the "absence" of a suggestion on one occasion to dismiss overt suggestion on two other occasions? If this is what you argue, I am not sure if further discussion would help. I can only reiterate that 4:158 cannot be understood in isolation from 3:55 and 5:117.
Let me ask you a question: If 18:4 says some people (not named on this occasion) thought God had a son, would you argue that it is NOT a reference to Jews or Christians, even though 9:30 states out that Jews thought 'Uzayr was God's son and Christians thought Jesus was God's son? Can you use the "absence" of a reference to Jews and Christians in 18:4 to argue that Jews and Christians did NOT assume God had son(s) and that God is referring to someone else in 18:4?
In line with what mufassirīn like 'Abduh, Riḍā, Asad, Ghamidi, and 'Abdullāh Ibn 'Abbās (one of the foremost Qur'an teachers among the companions of the Messenger) have held, I have maintained that assigning a non-standard meaning to tawaffī in 3:55 and 5:117 is not justified. You and others who think Jesus did not die need to think if you have good enough reasons to assign a non-standard meaning to tawaffī in these verses.
Applying labels (such as Qur'anites) to dismiss someone's argument, and not paying attention to what they actually say, is an unhealthy habit. Moreover, I have not questioned the value of ḥadīth; I have only reiterated a criterion that muḥaddithūn themselves have identified that a ḥadīth may not be accepted if it is not consistent with Qur’an or more authentic aḥādīth.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, I do not doubt God's ability to send Jesus to earth for a second time. If He can bring every one of us back to life on the Day of Judgment, He can bring any person back to life on earth as well. The question here is not whether He can send Jesus to earth for a second time or not. The question here is: did He actually say He was going to send Jesus back to earth? If there is sufficient scriptural evidence to support this idea, then it is admissible; if there is insufficient evidence, then we have no reason to hope for Jesus's second trip to earth, even though God is all-powerful.
Finally, I urge you to examine the argument in its entirety before engaging in discussion. It is not acceptable that you defer evaluation of part of the argument to a later time, but take the liberty to talk about it.