Reply to the Doubts raised by
‘Al-Khitabul-Malih fi Tahqiqil-Mahdi wal-Masih’—

A Collection of Maulawi Rashid Ahmad Gangohi’s Absurdities

In this book, the author has tried desperately to disprove my claim. And, to lend weight to his viewpoint, he has used much that is contrary to the facts. This book is utterly untenable, baseless, and full of absurd notions and fabrications. I know that there is no need to refute it at all, and anyone who has basic knowledge of the Holy Quran and Hadith does not require a refutation to be written; however, since I have heard that Maulawi Rashid’s followers in the vicinity of Saharanpur hold this book in great esteem and read it with much reverence—considering it to be a memorable relic of his lifetime—I thought it appropriate that, in order to save such people from being misled, answers be given to some of the more significant objections that have caused the ignorant and unlearned people of that area to fall into a pit of misguidance and take pride in this book, which is a compilation of falsehoods.

In order to open up a straight path for seekers after truth, I deem it appropriate to describe briefly the real issue that is the basis of dispute. It is that my opponents, Maulawi Rashid Ahmad included among them, hold the belief that Hazrat ‘Isa [Jesus], may peace be upon him, has not died and that he has gone to heaven with his earthly body for some purpose,1 and that he will return to the world at some time before the Day of Resurrection. They do not, however, explain the purpose for which he was raised to heaven. Was it merely to save him from the hands of the Jews, or was there something else? And they cannot explain why, now that nearly 2,000 years have passed, he is still in heaven. Is there still some fear in his heart of retribution by the Jews? They also cannot explain why he was given the distinction, withheld from all other Prophets, of being in heaven for such a long period of time—now approaching 2,000 years—and descending to earth at some point in time in accordance with the prophecy of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Moreover, they cannot explain the wisdom that God had in a physical ascension and subsequent descent. Was it the fear of the Jews apprehending him or something else? And they cannot explain why the distinction of this ascension and descent was granted to a person who God knew would be deified, and that 400 million people would believe him to be the son of God—rather, God—merely because this miracle is ascribed to him.

Although these people assert forcefully that Hazrat ‘Isa has not died—rather, he is alive—they still cannot explain on the basis of which explicit and decisive pronouncement of the Holy Quran his continued existence, in contravention to the practice of God, stands proven. On the other hand, the belief on which God has established me, on the basis of enlightened conviction, is that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, has died like other human beings after living a natural lifetime for a human. As for his ascension to heaven with his earthly body and then returning to the earth with his earthly body at some later age, these are all calumnies against him. Allah the Lord of Honour and Glory says:

2

Thus, the real issue that needs to be settled and decided is whether it is true that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, did indeed ascend to heaven with his earthly body, in contravention of divine practice. If it can be proven from the clear and explicit statements of the Holy Quran that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, was in fact raised with his earthly body to heaven, then there would be no need to dispute his physical return, because, in keeping with Quranic authority, if one were to go to heaven with an earthly body, he would necessarily have to return.

So if Hazrat ‘Isa has gone to heaven bodily, there is no doubt as to his return. The reason is that, even if he was not required to return to earth for any other purpose, he would still need to come back to die, as there is no place in heaven for graves. And it is established from the clear and explicit statement of Holy Quran that every human being shall die only on earth, be buried only in the earth, and be resurrected from the earth, as God says:

3

Granted, it is possible that he is ill when he descends from heaven, or becomes ill on the way, and then dies upon reaching the earth. I say this because it is established from ahadith [pl. hadith] that the ‘Isa to come will descend clad in two saffron-coloured sheets, and all interpreters of dreams agree that a saffron-coloured sheet denotes illness.

I have declared many times that I have been ordained by God as the Promised Messiah. These two characteristics are also mentioned among my physical characteristics as recorded in ahadith. Just as a saffron-coloured sheet denotes an illness, and as two saffron-coloured sheets have been mentioned in ahadith with regard to the Promised Messiah, so do I suffer from two illnesses. One illness is in the upper part of my body—and this is the ‘upper sheet’—which is the vertigo from which I suffer; sometimes, I fall to the ground due to its severity and the flow of blood to my heart is reduced, creating a frightening situation. The second illness is in the lower part of the body, and that is polyuria, which is also known as diabetes. I have to pass urine frequently on a daily basis; at times it reaches up to 15 or 20 times, but on occasion it can be a hundred times during the span of a full day and night, and this, too, causes much weakness. So these are the two saffron-coloured sheets that have become my lot. Even those who do not accept me must admit that Hazrat ‘Isa will bring with him this ‘gift’ from heaven at the time of his descent; i.e. he will suffer from two illnesses, one shall be in the upper part of his body, and the other in the lower part of his body.

Now, if someone were to say that these ‘sheets’ signify real sheets, then it would mean that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, at the time of his advent, will be clad in two saffron-coloured sheets in the manner of Hindu yogis. But these meanings go against the interpretation that the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has made concerning his visions. For example, the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, had seen [in a dream] two bangles on his hands, and he interpreted them to mean two false prophets; and he had seen cows being slaughtered, and interpreted it to mean the martyrdom of his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. He had seen a large cloak for Hazrat ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and interpreted it to signify his taqwa [righteousness]. So why, in the case of this hadith, should we not interpret the two saffron sheets in the way it has been done—in accordance with the tradition of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him— unanimously by all the eminent interpreters of dreams in Islam? There is not a single one opposed to this interpretation. And the interpretation is that the two saffron sheets symbolize two illnesses. I can swear by God that this is also my own experience. Countless times I have seen a saffron sheet on the body of a person in a dream—either with reference to myself or someone else—and it has always materialized as an illness. Thus, it is outrageous that just as the word [mutawaffika—‘will cause you to die’] is interpreted differently when it pertains to Hazrat ‘Isa—in contravention of its universal meaning—so should the two saffron sheets be interpreted in contravention of the meaning given by the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, the Tabi‘in [the generation after the Companions], the Taba‘ Tabi‘in [the generation of the Tabi‘in], and the Imams of Ahl-e-Bait [those who belong to the household of the Holy Prophet (sas)].

In short, the critically important discussion at this juncture is whether or not Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, actually died, because, if it is established that he has gone to heaven with his earthly body, then, as I have just mentioned, it is necessary for him to return to the earth in any event—whether to join the Mahdi or merely to die. This is the essential contention which, once settled, will resolve the entire dispute, and the party that possesses strong arguments in favour of the life or death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, is truthful. Once this disagreement is resolved, all peripheral discussions become unnecessary; rather, all the miscellaneous objections of the vanquished party become automatically rejected. Hence, this is the vital issue that a seeker of truth needs to ponder with full attention.

The unfortunate matter here is that despite the fact that the Holy Quran has spoken of the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, in clear words; the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has clearly stated that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, is included among the souls that have departed from this world; and the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, have agreed to this verdict with open and manifest consensus that all Prophets have died,4 our opponents still persist in contending repeatedly that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, is alive.

Despite this, our opponents set aside the Holy Quran, they set aside the Hadith, they set aside the ijma‘ [consensus] of the Companions, and hold fast to the errors of their forefathers. They do not possess an iota of evidence that Hazrat ‘Isa is alive and will return to the world in the Latter Days. Their opposition is being fuelled by the jealousy that is ever born in the hearts of arrogant people under the prevailing contemporary influence. And even if, contrary to my arguments, they did possess some arguments from the Holy Quran or Hadith pertaining to Hazrat ‘Isa still being alive, even then righteousness should have demanded that they should exercise some shame and modesty in the face of a person who has appeared at the time of need, right at the head of the century, and is accompanied by powerful signs in favour of his claim. After all, Almighty God has not named them Hakam [Arbiter], so as enable them to give credence to their own thoughts over the words of the Promised Messiah. Rather, He has named the Promised Messiah as Hakam. Thus it was a demand of righteousness that even if they did possess some presumptive arguments, they should have given them up in the face of a person who has presented definitive arguments based on the Shariah and shows Heavenly Signs. Unfortunately, these people walk in the footsteps of the Jews and support only falsehood. I have been sent by Almighty God as Hakam yet they desire to be arbiters over me.

Now I will turn my attention to the fact that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, has indeed died and that the belief that he is still alive is contrary to the Holy Quran and authentic ahadith.

Keep in mind that the Holy Quran proclaims loud and clear that Hazrat ‘Isa (as) has died a natural death. At one place Allah the Almighty, by way of promise, says:

5

In another verse, He speaks of the fulfilment of this promise, as He says:

6

The first verse means, ‘O ‘Isa! I will cause you to die a natural death,7 meaning you will not die by being killed or crucified, and I shall raise you towards Myself.’ Thus, this verse was by way of a promise.

And the second verse quoted above points to the fulfilment of this promise; its translation and commentary is as follows. The Jews themselves do not believe with certainty that they have killed ‘Isa; and where killing is not confirmed, natural death is established, which is inevitable for every human being. In this case, the matter that the Jews considered as barrier to Jesus’s [exaltation to Allah]—his murder and crucifixion—stands refuted, and God, in keeping with His promise, exalted him towards Himself.

Here it is futile to insist that the meaning of [tawaffi] is not ‘to cause to die’,8 since all the scholars of the Arabic lexicon are agreed that when the word [tawaffi] is used for a proper noun—i.e. it is used with reference to someone after identifying him—for instance if it is said that , it can mean only that ‘God caused Zaid to die.’

This is why in such instances linguists provide no meaning other than ‘to cause to die’. And so, in keeping with my argument, it is written in Lisanul-‘Arab: Meaning that when it is said that or , it will mean only that so and so died and that God caused him to die.

In this context, it is written in Tajal-‘Arus: i.e. The expression is spoken at the time when God takes possession of someone’s soul.

It is written in the [lexicon] Sihah: , i.e. The term [tawaffahullahu] means that God has taken possession of someone’s soul.

Furthermore, I have scrutinized Sihah Sittah [the Six Authentic Books of Hadith] and other ahadith as far as possible, and I have not found any instance among the words of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, of the Companions (ra), the Tabi‘in, or the Taba‘ Tabi‘in, which shows that the verb [tawaffi]—when used with reference to a specific individual, where God is the fa‘il [subject] and that person is the maf ‘ul bihi [object]—has any meaning other than death. Rather, on every occasion when a specific person has been named and the word [tawaffi] has been used with regard to him, and while God is the fa‘il and that person is the maf ‘ul bihi, it means only that the person has died. I found over 300 such instances in ahadith which show that wherever God is the fa‘il [doer] of the verb [tawaffi] and is used for the person whose name has been specified as the maf ‘ul bihi, it meant ‘to cause to die’, and nothing else. But despite all my research, I did not come across even one hadith where the word [tawaffi], where God is the fa‘il and a proper noun is the maf ‘ul bihi—that is, an individual has been specified by name as the maf ‘ul bihi—meant anything other than ‘being caused to die’.

Similarly, when I reviewed the Holy Quran from beginning to end, it also proved the same, as is evident from these and other verses:

9

and the verse:

10

And then, for this sole purpose, I also read collections of Arabic poetry and reviewed the verses written prior to and after the advent of Islam with great attention, and spent a great deal of time reading them, but I did not find even one instance among them wherein God is the fa‘il of the verb [tawaffi], which is used for a proper noun as the maf ‘ul bihi—that is, some individual has been made the object by specifying him—and it has any other meaning besides ‘causing to die’.

I then queried many Arab scholars and experts as well, and verbally learned from them, too, that the idiom prevalent in the Arab world to this very day is that when a person says with regard to another person, it is taken to mean categorically and definitively that God caused that person to die. And when an Arab receives a letter from another Arab wherein it is written, for instance, it is understood from this that ‘God has caused Zaid to die.’

After all this research, which has reached the level of true certainty, it is confirmed—and attained the level of an established and incontrovertible fact—that when the word [tawaffi] is used in this way with regard to an individual, it means that he has died and nothing else. And since the word [tawaffi] has been used in this fashion twice in the Holy Quran with reference to Hazrat ‘Isa, it is therefore established categorically and to the degree of certainty that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, has indeed died, and his raf ‘a is no more than a spiritual exaltation, and that his death did not occur through murder or crucifixion, as God Himself has said, but rather he died of his own natural death.

It is also established on the basis of Lisanul-‘Arab and other lexicons that the true meaning of the word [tawaffi] is ‘to cause someone to die a natural death’. I have already said that a peerless Imam of the Arabic language, against whom no one has room for argument, namely ‘Allamah Zamakhshari,11 similarly interprets the verse [inni mutawaffika] as [‘O ‘Isa, I will cause you to die a natural death’].

The word means ‘death’ in the Arabic lexicon while the word means ‘nose’, and it has been a long-standing belief among the Arabs that a person’s soul leaves through the nose. This is why they termed natural death as . In the Arabic language, the proper use of the word [tawaffi] is to connote natural death, whereas when someone dies by being killed, the word [qatl] is employed. This usage is not hidden from anyone who knows Arabic.

Of course, it is a common rule among Arabs that a word that is meant for a specific occasion in its original form, is applied in a different sense after establishing the context—that is, its application is widened. But when such a different context does not exist, then it is necessary that the word should be used in its original sense. Hence when ‘Allamah Zamakhshari, with reference to the verse , writes 12 i.e. ‘O ‘Isa, I will cause you to die a natural death,’ the ‘Allamah has not merely considered the original use of the word [tawaffi]; rather, by considering the verse 13 and the verse , he determined that the context required that the word [mutawaffika—‘will cause you to die a natural death’] must necessarily be used in its original meaning. That is, in this context it means, ‘O ‘Isa, I will cause you to die your natural death.’ And this is why he interpreted the verse [inni mutawaffika] to mean [‘I will cause you to die of your natural death’].14

Thus, ‘Allamah Zamakhshari’s deep insight is truly laudable in that he did not confine himself to the use of the word [tawaffi] in its original context, but also kept in view those verses of the Holy Quran which say that ‘Isa was neither killed nor crucified, and then interpreted [mutawaffika—will cause you to die a natural death] in keeping with the original meaning of the word. None but a true master of the art of language could have interpreted it in such a way. Keep in mind that ‘Allamah Zamakhshari is the recognized master of the Arabic language, and that all those who came after him bow their heads before him. Lexicologists present his opinion as authority. For instance, the author of Tajal-‘Arus frequently presents the authority of his quotes.

Readers can now understand that the verse 15 and the verse 16 have been set out only to explain the word [tawaffi], and have no new purpose. This verse was meant only to elucidate that, just as it was promised in the word [mutawaffika] that ‘Isa would die his natural death, so did he die naturally, and that he was neither killed nor crucified. Thus the notion that had arisen in the minds of the Jews that ‘Isa is—God forbid—accursed and, therefore, did not have a spiritual exaltation is falsified simultaneously. This is because the very basis of this notion was his murder and crucifixion, and from that it was concluded that—God forbid—‘Isa was accursed and estranged from the divine court and was not raised towards God Almighty.

Through the word [mutawaffika], God testified that ‘Isa died a natural death, but He did not stop there. He then explained the true meaning of the word [mutawaffika]—i.e. to die a natural death— through the verse [they neither killed nor crucified him] and the verse [‘and they were not certain that they had killed him’]. For, when someone has died without any external causes such as murder etc., it will be understood concerning him that natural death. Thus, there is no doubt that the statement [‘and they neither killed nor crucified him’] has come as explanation for the word [mutawaffika—‘will cause you to die a natural death’]. And once absence of killing and crucifixion has been proven, then, in accordance with the maxim, ‘When the premise is falsified, the conclusion is also falsified’, it stands proven that the exaltation of Hazrat ‘Isa was spiritual; and that is what we had set out to prove.

I will now return to the earlier discussion. It is an established fact that wherever the word [tawaffi] is used in a statement, wherein God is the fa‘il [subject] and some person specified by name is the maf ‘ul bihi [object], such a sentence always means that God has caused that person to die or will cause him to die. It can have no other meaning at all. A long time has elapsed since I published an announcement regarding this established fact and challenged that if anyone produced, contrary to the above, any statement from ahadith or from authentic collections of Arabic poetry where the word [tawaffi] is used, and where God is the subject and a proper noun is the object—i.e. someone who has been identified by name is the object—and yet it does not mean ‘causing to die’, I shall give a reward of this much amount to such a person. No one has answered this challenge to this day.

Now, in order to bring home this argument, I once again publicly offer 200 rupees that if any of my opponents does not consider this statement of mine to be convincing and conclusive, he should produce just one sentence from authentic ahadith of the Prophet, or from the works of ancient Arab poets—who are considered an authority and who are Arabic-speaking and who are established masters in their art— in which the word [tawaffi] is used where the subject is God and the object is a proper noun like Zaid or Bakr or Khalid, and yet the sentence clearly means something else and does not mean ‘causing to die’. In that case, I will award such a one with 200 rupees in cash. Such a person will only have to prove that the hadith he presents is indeed an authentic hadith of the Holy Prophet (sas), or that it is the statement of a poet from the ancient Arab poets whose mastery over the science of Arabic idioms is established.

It will be necessary to provide evidence that the hadith or the couplet does in fact conclusively bear meaning that is in conflict with my assertion; and that the meaning becomes perverted if the definition that I deduce is applied. In other words, that hadith or that couplet should irrefutably signify the other meaning. For, if that hadith or couplet allows the possibility of the meaning that I render, then such a hadith or couplet is not worth presenting at all, since for it to be presented as precedence, it is essential that the contrary meaning should be irrefutable. The reason being that when it has been proven from hundreds of irrefutable examples that the word [tawaffi]—in the setting wherein God is its subject, and a proper noun, i.e. a human being specified by name, is its object—cannot have any meaning other than ‘causing that person to die a natural death’, the onus is upon the one who makes a claim contrary to such numerous and consistent examples to produce a clear example that is irrefutable.

17

The second firm and conclusive argument for the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, is God’s word [‘but Allah exalted him to Himself’] for it is evident from reviewing the Holy Quran and ahadith that [exaltation to God]—which is obviously indicated in the verse [‘He exalted him to Himself ’]—is not used with respect to any context other than the context of death, as God says in the Holy Quran:

18

Meaning, ‘O soul at peace that is comforted by God, come back to your God while God is pleased with you and you are pleased with God. And enter among My servants, and enter into My Paradise.’

Obviously, no one from among the Muslims takes these words of Allah, the Lord of Glory, to mean that one should go and sit in Heaven alive with their earthly body. Rather, the verse [‘return to your Lord’] is taken only to mean death. Thus, when ‘returning to God’, on the basis of decisive Quranic dictum, means deatْh, then why does not ‘raising to God’, which is evident from the verse [‘but Allah exalted him to Himself ’], also mean death?19

It is simply contrary to justice, reason, and righteousness that the meaning which is established and validated by decisive pronouncements of the Quran is discarded, while a meaning and usage is adopted for which one has no argument at all. Can anyone explain if the words [raf ‘un ilallah] have any meaning in the Arabic language and Arabic diction other than ‘to be caused to die’? Of course, the reference is to such a death after which the soul is raised towards God Almighty, as is the death of the believers. The same is the usage found in the earlier divine scriptures.

And when God says in the above verse 20—which, when read with the first sentence, means, ‘return to God and then enter among the servants of God’—it proves that no one can enter among the past souls unless he first dies. So when, on the basis of decisive dictum of the Holy Quran, it is prohibited and impossible for one to enter among past souls without first dying, then how did Hazrat ‘Isa (as) go and sit beside Hazrat Yahya (as) in the Second Heaven without first dying?

Here, keep in mind another point as well: In the above verse God Almighty has also said, 21 which, when this sentence is read with the entire verse, means, ‘O soul at rest, come back to your God, you being pleased with Him and He being pleased with you, and enter among My servants and enter My Paradise.’ It is proven from what the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, witnessed on the night of the Mi‘raj [Spiritual Ascension] that, in keeping with this verse of the Holy Quran, the souls of the Prophets and Messengers who have passed away from this world are like a jama‘at [community] in the next world, who immediately join those who have passed away before them and enter among them, as is the import of the verse:

22

And then the last sentence of these verses—23 —also demands that all those servants of God enter into Paradise without any delay. The connotation of the 24 is not of an event to wait for, which is to transpire a after long period of time; rather, it transpires immediately upon the death of a righteous one. In other words, the party that dies later goes and joins those who passed before, without any delay. Thus, it inevitable that the second part of the verse, [enter you My Garden], should also transpire without any delay. That is to say, when anyone from among the righteous and sinless believers dies, he should enter into Paradise without any delay. And this, indeed, is the reality.

This is expounded in other parts25 of the Holy Quran, too. Among others, there is one instance where God says:

26

Meaning: ‘It was said, “Enter into Paradise.”’27. Similarly, there are many other instances—the mention of which would cause this to become too lengthy—that prove that the souls of the pious and sinless enter Paradise immediately upon their death. Likewise, there are many ahadith that confirm the same meaning, and ‘the souls of martyrs eating the fruits of Paradise’ [narrations] are such well-known ahadith that it is no secret to anyone. Almighty Allah says too:

28

Meaning: ‘Do not imagine, with regard to those who are slain in the cause of Allah the Almighty, that they are dead. Rather, they are living, they are provided with food from God Almighty.’

The same is proven by the earlier Scriptures. Thus, when the entrance of the souls of the pious and sinless into Paradise is proven— and it is obvious that Paradise is the place which will also have material delicacies of diverse types and fruits of many kinds, and entry into Paradise indeed means that one would partake of those delicacies—in such case the entry of only the soul into Paradise is meaningless and useless. Will it, after entering into Paradise, keep sitting destitute and not benefit from the bounties of Paradise?

Thus, the verse,

29

shows clearly that a believer is bestowed a body after death.30 For this reason, all Imams and Sufis are agreed that the believers who are pious and sinless are invested with a holy and glorious body upon death, through which they enjoy the bounties of Paradise. To reserve Paradise for martyrs alone is an injustice, indeed it is a heresy. Can a true believer utter such an impertinence as to say that the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, under whose grave Paradise lies, is still outside Paradise, but those who acquired faith and righteousness through him and became martyrs are dwelling in Paradise due to their martyrdom and are eating the fruit of Paradise? The truth is that those who devoted their life to the cause of Almighty God have already become martyrs. So by this token, our Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is the foremost of martyrs. Inasmuch as this is established, we, too, say that the Messiah was raised to heaven with his body (but with a body that differs from his elemental body), and then he entered among Almighty God’s servants and entered Paradise.

From this perspective, the point of contention between our opponents and us turns out to be only in terminology. And when, with this perspective, bodily exaltation is proven, why then must Hazrat ‘Isa be considered to have risen to heaven with his earthly body while it contradicts the established divine practice with regard to all Prophets, of being bestowed glorious bodies? And if the contention is that he too was bestowed a glorious body—as was bestowed upon Hazrat Ibrahim (as), Hazrat Musa (as), Hazrat Yahya (as), and other Prophets—and with it he was raised to God Almighty, this is not something we ever deny. We agree to Hazrat Masih’s exaltation to heaven with such a body with all our heart and soul. [As is said:] [We are content and happy.]

While the aforementioned verses are clear, explicit, and conclusive regarding the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, if the Holy Quran is perused carefully, we would find that there are many more verses which prove the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him. Among them is the verse:

31

Meaning that: ‘Hazrat Muhammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is only a Messenger. And all Messengers have passed away before him. If then he dies or is slain, would you give up the religion of Islam?’

As I have just explained, it is not right that the word [khalat], when applied to all other Prophets, means ‘to cause to die’, but when it comes to Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, it means that God Almighty raised him to heaven with his elemental body. Such claim is utterly baseless, and no evidence has been presented to support it.

In fact, everywhere in the Holy Quran that the word [khalat] has been used, it has only been used to connote death. No one can produce a single example from the Holy Quran where this word has been used to mean that someone was raised to heaven with his elemental body. Moreover, as I have just explained, in these very verses Almighty God has Himself explained the word [khalat] and has confined it only to death or murder. And this is the noble verse on whose authority the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, reached the ijma‘ [consensus] that all the Prophets and Messengers had died and none of them was going to return to this world. In fact the real purpose of this ijma‘ was to assert that it is not possible for anyone to return to this world. The objective of this ijma‘ was to dispel the notion that had developed in the mind of Hazrat ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, that the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, would return to this world and cut off the noses and ears of the hypocrites. This being the context, it is obvious that had Islam admitted the possibility of any Prophet to return to this world, it would not have been possible to dispel the thought of Hazrat ‘Umar (ra) by reciting this verse, not to mention that it would entail a denigration of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Indeed in such a case it would have been out of place for Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) to even recite this verse. In short, this verse is also one such wonderful verse that proclaims aloud the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him. [God be praised for this].

Then there is another verse that proves the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him. Allah the Exalted says:

32

Meaning: ‘Isa, Masih [Jesus the Messiah] is but a Messenger; all Messengers before him have died. And his mother was a pious woman, and both of them used to eat food when they were alive.

In this verse, Allah the Exalted refutes the divinity of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, and says that all Messengers before him have died. To think, despite this fact, that the Messiah is sitting alive in heaven, is a fallacy. How can this argument be used to prove his divinity when the argument itself is false, for the truth is that death did not spare anyone and they all died. The second argument for him being a human is that he had a mother of whom he was born, while God has no mother. The third argument for him being a human is that when he and his mother were alive they both used to eat food, whereas God is in no need of food. That is, food restores the body as it wastes away, while God is free from the attribute of wasting away. But the Messiah continued to consume food. Thus, if he is God, then does the body of God, too, continue to waste away? This refers to the fact that, according to physiological research, the human body is replaced completely in three years, as earlier cells are broken down and new cells develop as their replacement. But this imperfection is by no means to be found in God. This is the argument invoked by Almighty God to prove that Hazrat ‘Isa was a human being.

But alas for the people who, having raised Hazrat ‘Isa to heaven, believe that his body does not possess this trait that, like all human beings, the process of dissolution should continue in him, and believe that his body would have remained safe from annihilation even without obtaining the replacement for the dissolution through food. They wish to break thereby the argument given by God and the reasoning put forth in the above-mentioned verse. God, on the other hand, gives the argument to prove that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, was human. Namely that, like other human beings, he too was dependent on food, without which his body could not have sustained itself, and that it required replacement for what was being consumed. The people who raise Hazrat ‘Isa to heaven with his elemental body, hold the belief that his body can continue to exist without food, and in this manner they present an argument for the divinity of ‘Isa in contradiction to Almighty Allah’s purport.

It is shameful that these people disrespect the argument that God has presented with the purpose of proving that Hazrat ‘Isa was human. While Almighty God refutes that the Messiah had the attribute on the basis of which he could be deified, these people assert that he does possess that attribute. This is disrespect of the consummate argument that God puts forth with regard to Hazrat ‘Isa being human. If it is true that Hazrat ‘Isa, despite possessing his elemental body, does not require food, and that his body is able to continue to exist on its own, like the person of God, then this would be an argument for his divinity, which that the Christians have put forth since ancient times. It is not enough to say, in response to this, that he used to eat food while he was on earth though he does not eat in Heaven, as the opponents can say that his eating while on earth was by his own volition and that he was not dependent on food as human being are, otherwise if he was dependent on food on earth he would also be dependent on it in heaven. I deplore these people who, time and again, while God cites the eating of food as evidence that Hazrat Masih was human, believe that though Hazrat Masih did eat food for thirty years while on earth, he is subsisting without food in heaven for 1,900 years.

Yet another argument for the death of Hazrat ‘Isa (as) is the following verse of the Holy Quran, where God says:

3334

(Translation) ‘You [children of Adam] shall live out your lives in the earth, and shall die in the earth, and shall be raised from earth too.’ In the presence of such a clear statement, how is it possible that for about 2,000 years, or an even longer and undetermined period, Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, should stay in heaven—for this necessitates rejection of the Holy Quran.

Again, another argument for the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, is this verse of the Holy Quran:

35

(Translation) ‘Your abode shall be on earth, and until the day of your death, from within the earth shall you find things for your comfort.’ This verse has the same import as the previous one. How is it possible that Hazrat ‘Isa should live on earth—the abode for human beings— for just thirty-three years, and yet he should maintain his residence in heaven—which is not an abode for human beings—for 2,000 years or for an even longer, unknown period. This will lead to the impression that he is perhaps not a human being, particularly when there is no other human being who is his equal in displaying such superhuman qualities.

Then, another argument for the death of Hazrat ‘Isa is this verse of the Holy Quran:

36

(Translation) meaning: ‘Allah is the God who created you in a state of weakness, and after weakness gave you strength; then, after strength, gave you weakness and old age.’ Obviously, this verse applies to all human beings, to the extent that even the Prophets are included in it. Even our Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, who is the Chief of the Prophets, is not outside its scope. The signs of old age became manifest even in him, and some grey hair had appeared in his blessed beard and he felt the effects of the weakness related to the old age in his final years. But, according to our opponents, Hazrat ‘Isa is excluded from this, too. They say that this is one distinction of his which is extraordinary. Indeed, this is the argument for his divinity. Thus, there are five arguments, and not just one, for the divinity of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, which—according to the contention of the Christians and the doctrine of my opponents from our own people [i.e. the Muslims]—exist today and which cannot be refuted without first falsifying that special attribute of his. It is believed that Hazrat ‘Isa holds the sole distinction of going to Heaven with his elemental body, something that no other human being shares with him; and possesses a second distinction, that he alone is acknowledged to have lived in Heaven for hundreds of years without food or water, which also no other human being shares with him; and hold a the third distinction, that he is the only one who is acknowledged to have stayed in Heaven free from old age and its accompanying debility for such a long period of time, which is also something no other human shares with him; and possesses a fourth distinction, that he is the only one acknowledged to descend from Heaven in the company of angels after a protracted period, and not a single human shares this quality with him either. Given this, one should ponder these four distinctions—which are assigned solely to his person, and he is considered to be unique and without any co-sharer in them—just how much of a trial this doctrine can prove to be for the masses.37 Moreover, consider how many reasons it provides to those who deify Hazrat ‘Isa—reasons that stand as ‘proven’ by the admission of the Muslims themselves.

Had Almighty God had not refuted all these distinctions by declaring Hazrat ‘Isa to be dead, another way to refute them was that Almighty God should have provided some precedents that would show that certain other human beings also shared these extraordinary qualities with him, just as God had provided the precedent of Adam in being fatherless. But if God neither declared Hazrat ‘Isa to be dead nor refuted all these distinctions, then in this context God became, as it were, dumbfounded in the face of the Christians’ argument. And if you say that you also believe that Hazrat ‘Isa will return in the Latter Days and then die after a while, then Christians do not accept this assertion. They convict you by your own admissions. And they are not obligated to accept your unsubstantiated claim. For, if Hazrat ‘Isa were to remain alive till the Day of Judgment, and were to have all the features of godhood in him—such as raising the dead—then it is possible that he should remain immune to death. And this is, in fact, what the Christians believe—that Hazrat ‘Isa will not die after descending from Heaven; rather, in his capacity as ‘God’, he will reward and punish people. So in the scenario, where these four distinctions of Hazrat ‘Isa are proven according to your own admission, the Christians will get the better of you, because, according to them, these four distinctions are sufficient to make Hazrat ‘Isa God.

It is far from the wisdom of God Almighty that He should bestow these four distinctions on someone who is being deified by 400 million people. At the time of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, the Christians had presented just one feature as the distinction of Hazrat ‘Isa—that he was born without a father—and Allah the Exalted at once countered it and said,

38

meaning: ‘The case of ‘Isa with Allah is like the case of Adam. God created him out of dust, then He said to him, ‘Be!,’ and he became alive and vibrant.’ This meant that being born without a father was not something peculiar to Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, as that would necessarily imply that he was God, for Adam has neither father nor mother.

Hence while divine honour demanded that Hazrat ‘Isa should not remain peculiar in the distinction of being fatherless so that it may not be claimed as evidence for his godhood, how then is it possible that God should have accepted four supernatural distinctions in Hazrat ‘Isa? Of course, if God has cited some precedents to refute these distinctions, then those precedents should be presented, otherwise it will have to be admitted that God could not answer the claim of the Christians, for these are indeed the distinctions that the Christians cite and declare these distinctions to be the proof of the godhead of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him. So, while God has not refuted these four distinctions by citing some precedents, as He did in the case of Adam’s birth, then it would have to be confessed that God has accepted the Christian claim. But if He has refuted it and has cited some precedent of these four distinctions, then present those verses from the Holy Quran.

Among the verses that categorically prove the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, is this verse of the Holy Quran:

39

Meaning: ‘Those who are worshipped in place of God cannot create anything; rather, they have themselves been created, and they are all dead, not living, and they know not when they will be raised.’ One ought to ponder carefully as to how vividly these verses demonstrate the death of Hazrat Masih and all other people whom the Christians, Jews, and some Arab sects held as deities and worshipped. Keep in mind that this is the declaration of God, and God Almighty is above and free from saying things that are contrary to facts. So when He says in clear and explicit words that all human beings who are worshipped and taken as ‘God’ by different faiths are dead—and not one of them is alive—then what level of defiance, disobedience, and contradiction of the commandment of God is it to consider Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, to still be alive. Is Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, not among those who have been deified or those who are beseeched to help resolve difficulties? Indeed he is the foremost among those people, because the insistence and exaggeration with which 400 million people are striving claim divinity for Hazrat ‘Isa, is not to be found in any other faith.

All the verses that I have quoted here are sufficient to prove the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him. And the same is also substantiated when we look at the blessed ahadith of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—the only difference being that, while God testifies to the death of Hazrat ‘Isa with His Word, the Holy Prophet, may peace be upon him, does so through his eyewitness testimony. Thus, God with His Word, and the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, with his action—i.e. by his eyewitness account—have put a seal on the fact that Hazrat ‘Isa has died. For the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, testifies by his eyewitness account that on the night of the Mi‘raj [Spiritual Ascension] he saw Hazrat ‘Isa in Heaven among the previous Prophets who had passed away from this world and had reached the next world. Not only that, but he saw the same kind of body for Hazrat ‘Isa as those for other Prophets, may peace be upon them. Moreover, I have already explained that it is an error to think that it is only the souls of the earlier Prophets, may peace be upon them, who have passed away from this world that are present in Heaven; rather, they have with them luminous and glorious bodies with which they were raised from this world after their death—and the verse 40 represents a clear statement with regard to it. This is because a body is required to enter Paradise, and the Holy Quran time and again says clearly that people who will enter Paradise shall have their bodies with them; no soul shall enter Paradise just by itself.

Thus, the verse 41 shows clearly that every righteous person who enters Paradise after death is necessarily granted a body after death. The second testimony to the bestowal of a body is the observation of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. For, on the night of the Mi’raj, he did not see merely the souls of the Prophets, but rather, he saw their bodies as well; and he did not see any novel body for Hazrat ‘Isa. He saw the same kind of body for Hazrat ‘Isa as he saw for other Prophets. Therefore, if one does not insist unfairly on following falsehood, it is very easy for him to understand that the body with which Hazrat ‘Isa was raised was not the physical one, but was the body that is bestowed upon every believer after death, because God Himself bars the physical body from going to Heaven, as He says:

42

Translation: Have We not created the earth in a manner whereby it is drawing people’s bodies, whether dead or alive, towards itself, and does not let any of them climb to Heaven?

On another occasion He says:

43

Meaning that: When the disbelievers asked the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, to climb to Heaven—in that he need show only the miracle of climbing to Heaven with his physical body—they were told: . Meaning: Say to them, it is unworthy of my Lord to go against His word and promise, and He has already said that no earthly body will go to Heaven, as He said:

44

and

45

and

46

This was mischief on the part of the disbelievers of Arabia, that they sought a miracle that was contrary to the divine promise and pledge, and they knew quite well that such a miracle would never be shown for it was against the aforesaid word of Almighty God. And it is not worthy of Almighty God to break His promise. And then Almighty God said, ‘Say to them that I am but a human being, and it is forbidden for a human being that his earthly body should go to Heaven.’

Pious people can of course go to Heaven, just in a different body, in the same way as the souls of all Prophets, Messengers, and believers go to Heaven after death, and it is specifically with regard to them that Allah the Almighty says:

47

Meaning that the gates of Heaven shall be opened for the believers.

Take note that if there had been only souls, the pronoun [lahum] would not have been used for them. This usage strongly supports that when a believer is raised after their death, it is along with a body, but the body is not an earthly one. Rather, the soul of the believer is granted a different body that is pure and glorious and is immune from the suffering and defects that form a necessary part of the physical body. In other words, it is neither dependent on earthly food nor is it in need of earthly water. All those who are granted a station close to Almighty God receive similar bodies. It is our belief that Hazrat ‘Isa received a similar body after his death and he was raised towards God with that body.

Some ignorant people present the following verses of the Holy Quran:

48

and

49

Then they raise the objection: ‘These verses of the Holy Quran clearly specify that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, will plead before God that people went astray after his death and not in his lifetime. Therefore, if this belief is correct, that Hazrat ‘Isa escaped the cross and went to Kashmir and lived there for 87 years, it would be incorrect to say that his people went astray after his death; and he should instead have said that people had gone astray after his journey to Kashmir, for his death occurred 87 years after incident of the cross.’

So, keep in mind that such a doubt is born only out of lack of reflection. Otherwise, the journey to Kashmir is not in contradiction with this statement, because the meaning of is, ‘As long as I was among my people who had believed in me,’ and does not mean, ‘As long as I was in their land,’ for we do accept that Hazrat ‘Isa had migrated from the Levant to Kashmir, but we do not accept that the mother of Hazrat ‘Isa and his Disciples remained behind. Instead, it is evident from historical records, that the Disciples came and joined him, some accompanying Hazrat ‘Isa and some arriving later. For instance, Thomas went with Hazrat ‘Isa, while the other Disciples came afterwards. Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, chose just one person, Thomas, to accompany him, just as our Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, chose only Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) at the time of the migration to Madinah.

The Roman Empire had declared Hazrat ‘Isa to be a rebel, and even Pilate had been assassinated on the order of Caesar due to the same accusation, because he was a secret supporter of Hazrat ‘Isa and his wife was also the follower of Hazrat ‘Isa. Hence, it was necessary that Hazrat ‘Isa should depart the country secretly and not take a group with him. Therefore, he took only Thomas with him on this journey, just as our Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, took only Hazrat Abu Bakr (ra) with him in his journey to Madinah. And just as the rest of the Companions of our Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, joined him in Madinah having taken different routes, so did the Disciples of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, join him through different routes at different times. And as long as Hazrat ‘Isa remained among them—in keeping with the purport of the verse 50—they all remained firm on Tauhid [the Oneness of God]. Their progeny went astray after the death of Hazrat ‘Isa. It is not known in which generation they fell into this error. Historians maintain that the Christian faith was still on its original principles till its third century. In any case, it appears that all those people returned to their homeland after the death of Hazrat ‘Isa; perhaps because the Emperor of Rome became Christian, so it was no longer necessary for them to remain in exile.

Here, bear in mind that the journey of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, to Kashmir is not without proof. Rather, this matter has been established with strong arguments, so much so that the word ‘Kashmir’ itself is evidence of this, inasmuch as the word ‘Kashmir’ is a word that is pronounced ‘Kashir’ in the Kashmiri language, and every Kashmiri calls it ‘Kashir’. As such, it appears that this word is evidently of Hebrew origin and is the composite of the words kaf and ashir. The land of Syria is called ashir in Hebrew, and [the preَ position] —kaf is used to connote similarity. Hence the word was [Ka-Ashir], where the letter kaf was distinct from ashir, and the term meant, ‘like the country of Syria’. And since this country was the place to which Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, had migrated, and he was the dweller of a cold country, therefore, God, in order to comfort him, named this country Ka-Ashir, meaning, ‘like the country of Ashir’. Then, with frequent usage, the —alif [i.e. the ‘a’ sound in ashir] became obsolete and only Kashir was left. Then, other nations, who were neither the dwellers of Kashir nor possessed its language, added a —mim [i.e. an ‘m’ sound] and made it ‘Kashmir’. But, it is by the grace and mercy of God Almighty that to this day it is spoken and written as Kashir in the Kashmiri language.

Besides this, to this day, there are many things in the land of Kashmir that bear Hebrew names; even some mountains have been named after Prophets, from which it is deduced that Hebrew people must have lived in this land at some point in time. For example, there is a mountain in Kashmir by the name of Solomon, the Prophet. To prove this point, I have already published in some of my books a list of Hebrew words and names of Israelite Prophets that are in use in Kashmir to this day. It is also learnt, in great detail, from books on Kashmiri history, which I have collected with much labour and which I have in my possession, that at one time—roughly 2,000 years ago according to our reckoning—an Israelite Prophet came to Kashmir. He was from the Israelites and was known as ‘Shahzadah Nabi’ [‘Prince Prophet’]. His tomb is present in Mohalla Khanyar, and is known widely as the Tomb of Yuz Asaf. Now, it is obvious that these books were published in Kashmir long before my birth, so how can anyone imagine that the Kashmiris wrote these books by way of fabrication. Why did those people need this fabrication and what was their objective for which they perpetrated such a fabrication? What is even more peculiar is that these people, in their utter simplicity, believe, like other Muslims, that Hazrat ‘Isa had ascended to Heaven with his physical body.

In spite of this belief, they know with full conviction that an Israelite Prophet did come to Kashmir and that he introduced himself as the ‘Prince Prophet’. Their books relate that, on the basis of calculation, a little more than 1,900 years have elapsed since that time. The simplicity of the Kashmiris has here benefited us, for had they known who that ‘Prince Prophet’ from among the Israelites was, and who the Prophet was who lived some 1,900 years ago, they would never have shown these books to us. This is why I say that we have benefited greatly from their simplicity. Besides, they say that the name of the Prince Prophet was ‘Yuz Asaf ’. This word clearly appears to be the distortion of ‘Yasu Asaf ’. In Hebrew, ‘Asaf ’ refers to a person who is in search of his people. Since Hazrat ‘Isa had arrived in Kashmir in search of his people who were the missing tribes of Jews, he called himself ‘Yasu Asaf ’. Further, it is written clearly in the scripture of Yuz Asaf that the Injil [Gospel] had been revealed to him by God. Thus, in the presence of so many clear proofs, how is it possible to refute that Yuz Asaf is none other than Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him? Otherwise, the onus of proof is on our opponents, to show us who this person is, who called himself the Prince Prophet and whose time corresponds perfectly with the time of Hazrat ‘Isa. We have also learnt that when Hazrat ‘Isa came to Kashmir, he was mentioned by the Buddhists of that time in their scriptures.

Another potent argument for this is that God says:

51

Meaning: ‘We gave ‘Isa and his mother refuge on a hill which was a place of comfort and was far from the reach of every enemy, and its water was pleasant.’

Be mindful that the word [awa] is used in Arabic when a person is given refuge from a tribulation in a place that is a peaceful abode. That abode of peace cannot possibly be the land of Sham, because the land of Sham was in the jurisdiction of the Caesar of Rome and Hazrat ‘Isa had been declared a rebel against Caesar. Therefore, it was indeed Kashmir, which was similar to the land of Sham, and was a place of shelter—i.e. it was an abode of peace—meaning that the Caesar of Rome had nothing to do with it.

Some people here raise another objection that it is said that the dispensation of Muhammad has been established along the lines of the dispensation of Musa, and this dispensation bears similarity to every good and bad aspect of the dispensation of Musa; therefore, it was essential that just as the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, has been called ‘the like of Musa’ in the Holy Quran, so should the last Khalifah [Successor] of this dispensation be called ‘the like of ‘Isa’; however, the person who would come in the Latter Days of this Khilafat [Institution of Successorship] has been called ‘Isa ibn Maryam [ Jesus son of Mary]—and not ‘the like of ‘Isa’—in both the Gospel and the ahadith of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.

The answer to this misconception is that it was essential that Almighty God should have described the Khalifah of the first part of Islam and the Khalifah of the last part of Islam in the same style in which it was described in the earlier scriptures. Thus, it is not hidden from anyone that the prophecy in the Torah regarding the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, is in similar phraseology, and that is: ‘God Almighty shall raise up a Prophet like unto Musa from among your brethren.’ It was not written there that God Almighty would send Musa. Therefore, it was essential that, with regard to the coming of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, God should have used the phraseology corresponding to that of the Torah, so that no discord would develop between the Torah and the Holy Quran. This is why Allah the Almighty said—concerning the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him:

52

Meaning: ‘We have sent a Messenger to you like the Messenger who was sent to Pharaoh.’

But as for the last Khalifah, who has been named ‘Isa, the Gospel did not say that someone like ‘Isa would come in the Latter Days; rather, it says that ‘Isa will come. So it was essential that, in keeping with the prophecy of the Gospel, the last Khalifah of Islam should have been named ‘Isa so that no discord would develop between the Gospel and the ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sas).

At this point, a seeker after truth does of course have the right to ask the reason and wisdom that, in the Torah, the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, was referred to simply as ‘the like of Musa’, while in the Gospel it was stated that ‘Isa himself would come; moreover, why is it not possible that ‘Isa here refers to ‘Isa himself and that he was the one who would return?

The answer to this is that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, cannot come back in any case, because he has died, and his death has been declared by Allah the Almighty in the Holy Quran in categorical terms. Moreover, the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, saw Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, in Heaven seated among those who have passed away from this world. The third testimony in this regard is that the death of all Prophets is established by the ijma‘ [consensus] of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them. Then there is the testimony of sane reason that supports the above three testimonies; because ever since the world was created, it has never seen an instance like this, and no Prophet has ever gone to Heaven or returned from it with a physical body. These four testimonies together give the definitive verdict that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, has died; and it is slanderous to claim that he ever went to Heaven with his physical body, that he is still alive, and that he will at some point in time return to the earth with his physical body. It is unfortunate that although Islam was far removed from idolatry, in the end this doctrine found its way into Islam as a form of idolatry, in that such distinctions were accorded to Hazrat ‘Isa as are not to be found in any other Prophet. May God Almighty rescue Muslims from this kind of idolatry! If ‘Isa dies, Islam lives; and if ‘Isa lives, Islam dies. May God usher in the day when the heedless Muslims cast a glance toward the right path. Amin.

Now the summary of this discourse is that, when the death of Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, is indubitably proven, then it is demonstrably false to presume that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, will return to this world. Then there is the answer to the part of the aforementioned question, as to the wisdom behind naming an ummati as ‘Isa, and as to why he was named ‘Isa in the Gospel and ahadith of the Holy Prophet (sas), and why he was not referred to here by ‘the like of ‘Isa’ in the same vein as ‘the like of Musa’.

The answer is that God was pleased to make the last Khalifah of this Ummah share that great incident which took place with the Israelite ‘Isa—and he could share this incident if he was given the name ‘Isa. Since God desired to demonstrate the congruity of the two dispensations, He named the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, ‘the like of Musa’. For, the similarity between the incident [i.e. the exodus] that Hazrat Musa experienced with Pharaoh and [the Hijrah of] the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, could become conspicuous only if he was proclaimed ‘the like of Musa’. But the incident that was experienced by Hazrat ‘Isa could stand true for the last Khalifah of this Ummah only if he was named ‘Isa. The reason being, Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, was not accepted by the Jews only because it had been recorded in the book of the Prophet Malachi that ‘Isa would not appear until Prophet Ilyas [Elijah] returned to this world. But Prophet Ilyas did not return, and Hazrat Yahya [John] was declared to be Ilyas. For this reason, the Jews did not accept Hazrat ‘Isa (as). Hence it was decided in the decree of God that in order to complete the likeness, in the Latter Days some people of this Ummah would become like the Jews who had rejected the Prophethood and veracity of Hazrat ‘Isa by failing to understand the real import of the ‘return of Ilyas’. For such ‘Jews’ it was essential that there should have been some prophecy mentioning the return of a previous Prophet—as was the case in the prophecy regarding Ilyas— and it had been decided in the decree of God that such ‘Jews’ would definitely be born in this Ummah as well.

This is why I was named ‘Isa, just as Hazrat Yahya was named ‘Ilyas’.

This is what is indicated by the verse:

53

Thus, the prophecy concerning the coming of ‘Isa was for this ummah like the prophecy concerning the coming of Prophet Ilyas was for the Jews. Therefore, it was to establish this similarity that I was named ‘Isa. And not just that the deniers of this ‘Isa who were to appear in this Ummah were called ‘Jews’, to which the verse 54 refers, i.e. the ‘Jews’ who deny the ‘Isa of this Ummah are akin to the Jews who did not accept Hazrat ‘Isa. Thus, in this way a perfect similarity was established, in that—just as the Jews who were waiting the return of Prophet Ilyas did not believe in Hazrat ‘Isa on the pretext that Ilyas had not returned—these people did not believe in the ‘Isa of this Ummah only for the excuse that the Israelite Hazrat ‘Isa had not returned. A similarity was thus established between the Jews who had not believed in Hazrat ‘Isa because Ilyas had not returned, and these Jews who await the second coming of Hazrat ‘Isa. And this was what God had desired. Just as a similarity between the Israelite Jews and these ‘Jews’ stands proven, so is the similarity between the Israelite ‘Isa and this ‘Isa, who I am, of the perfect order. That ‘Isa was rejected from the perspective of the Jews because a Prophet did not return to the world, and similarly this ‘Isa—who I am—was rejected from the perspective of these ‘Jews’ because a Prophet did not return to the world.

And it is quite obvious that the people who are labelled as ‘Jews of this Ummah’—and to whom the verse 55 refers—are not the actual Jews, but are indeed people of this Ummah who have been named Jews. Likewise, this ‘Isa is also not the actual ‘Isa who was a Prophet from among the Israelites; rather, he is from within this Ummah as well. It is far removed from Almighty God’s grace and mercy that He has for this Ummah that he should give it the title of ‘Jews’— rather, give them the title of those Jews who had called Hazrat ‘Isa a disbeliever and liar on the basis of the argument that Prophet Ilyas was to return—but He should not give an individual from this Ummah the title of ‘Isa. Would it not mean that this Ummah is so wretched and unfortunate in the estimation of God that while it can earn the title of the mischievous and disobedient Jews in His eyes, there is not even one individual in this Ummah who can receive the title of ‘Isa? This was the reason why Almighty God, on the one hand, termed some people of this Ummah ‘the Jews’, while on the other, named one individual ‘Isa.

Some people, out of sheer ignorance or extreme prejudice and in order to deceive, put forward this verse as evidence that Hazrat ‘Isa, may peace be upon him, is alive:

56

The meaning they wish to infer from this verse is that Hazrat ‘Isa will not die until all the People of the Book have believed in him. However, only one who does not possess a thorough understanding of the Holy Quran, or who lacks honesty, will infer such meaning from it. For, this meaning negates a prophecy of the Holy Quran where Allah the Almighty says:

57

And at yet another place He says:

58

The meaning of these verses is, ‘We have caused enmity and hostility between the Jews and the Christians till the Day of Judgment.’ Thus, if the aforementioned verse does indeed mean that all Jews will have believed in Hazrat ‘Isa (as) before the Day of Judgment, then this necessitates that mutual enmity between the Jews and Christians will also come to an end at some point, and the seed of the Jewish faith will not be left on the earth. But it is evident from these verses and many other verses of the Holy Quran that the Jewish faith will persist to the Day of Judgment, albeit disgrace and misery will accompany them, and they will live under the protection of other powers.

Hence, the correct translation of the above-mentioned verse I quoted is, ‘Every person from among the People of the Book will, before his death, believe in the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, or in Hazrat ‘Isa.’ The word [his death] refers to the People of the Book, and not Hazrat ‘Isa. This is why in another reading of this verse the words are [‘their death’]. Why would [‘their death’] be present in the other reading if it referred to Hazrat ‘Isa? See Tafsir Thana’i, for it strongly confirms my statement. It also says that Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, gives the same interpretation, though the author qualifies that Abu Hurairah was deficient in his comprehension of the Holy Quran and many muhaddithin [scholars of hadith] have criticized the soundness of his understanding. Abu Hurairah had the aptitude to quote, but he was quite deficient in understanding and discernment. I contend that even if Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, has interpreted it in this way, it has been a mistake on his part, as it has been proven by muhaddithin that in many instances Abu Hurairah (ra) is mistaken and stumbles in matters that pertain to understanding and discernment. It is an established norm that the opinion of just one Companion cannot be regarded as a valid argument per the law of the Shariah. The valid argument per the law of the Shariah is only the ijma‘ of the Companions (ra), and I have already explained, that consensus of the Companions (ra) occurred concerning the point that all Prophets had died.

Keep in mind that in view of the alternative reading of the verse [‘before his death’], i.e. [‘before their death’]—which, according to the norms held by the scholars of Hadith, is tantamount to an authentic hadith, i.e. it is such a hadith that stands proven to be from the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him—the mere opinion of Abu Hurairah is worth rejecting as it is inconsequential and worthless when compared to the words of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. To insist on it can lead one to disbelief. Not only that, the statement of Abu Hurairah necessitates repudiation of the Holy Quran because time and again the Holy Quran says that the Jews and the Christians will continue to exist till the Day of Judgment and they will not be wiped out completely, whereas Abu Hurairah says that the Jews will be wiped out completely, and this is in clear contradiction to the Holy Quran. Anyone who believes in the Holy Quran ought to discard the statement of Abu Hurairah as a thing of little value. In contrast, the alternative reading of the verse, according to the norms held by the scholars of Hadith, holds the status authentic hadith—and here the alternative reading of the verse does exist, as , which has to be taken as an authentic hadith—so in this case the statement of Abu Hurairah is, in fact, in contravention of both the Holy Quran and Hadith.

[No doubt he is in the wrong, and anyone who follows him is a mischief-maker and a great liar].

THE END