|
|
|
|
|
|
.. |
Books
Section
> The
Promised Messiah [The Second Coming of
Jesus] by Maulana Muhammad Ali
Sahib
> Chapter V : Death of Jesus Chapter
V : Death of Jesus: And I was a witness to them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die Thou wast the Watcher over them. 1 Importance of the
question of the death of Jesus: Onus of proof about
Jesus being alive is on those who hold that
view: And for their (the Jews) saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the Cross, but he (the Messiah) was made to appear to them as such. 4 Negation of Jesus'
death on the Cross or negation of his being slain do not
prove that he is alive: The meaning of
qatl (slaying) and salb
(crucifixion): Taj al-`Arus says nearly the same thing. In Mufradat it is stated: "The true meaning of qatl is to separate the soul from the body." As to the meaning of salb, it is mentioned in Lisan al-Arab: "Salb means death in a certain well-known manner and is derived from wadak because ichor mixed with blood of the person so put to death, flowed." Here salb clearly means qatl (killing in a well-known manner) and it is agreed that qatl is to separate the soul from the body. Similarly Taj al-'Arus says: "Salb is wadak which means ichor or watery humour, mixed with blood 9 and further on it is stated: "Maslub is called maslub because the ichor mixed with blood of the person so crucified flows, and salb is causing death in a certain well-known manner and is derived from this because the ichor of the person so crucified, flowed." These are the two famous books of lexicon which do not say at all that salb is just to hang a person on the cross. On the contrary, it has clearly been indicated that salb means qatl (death) in a certain well-known manner and qatl means, to separate the soul from the body. The difference between salb and qatl is that every salb is qatl, but every qatl is not salb. Death by a blow, stoning or poisoning does fall in the category of qatl, but if a person is hit by a blow, or by a stone, and does not die, we cannot say that he has been slain. Similarly, if a person is hanged on the stake (cross) and does not die, we cannot say that he has been crucified. Crucifixion means to be slain in a particular manner. A person who is not slain (maqtul) cannot be called crucified (maslub). Thus, for such a person, the expression that he is neither slain nor crucified is perfectly justifiable, although he may have been attacked by sword, or hit by stone, or may have been hanged on the cross. Salb, as has been proven above, is a kind of qatl. If qatl (slaying) cannot be applied to an incident, then there is no justification for applying the word salb (death by hanging) to that incident. People of the Book
and their concept of crucifixion
(salb): Thus, according to the Arabs, as well as the People of the Book, a person was called "crucified" (maslub) only when he had actually died on the cross and generally his corpse dried up in the process of hanging. If he did not die on the cross, although he may have been put on it, he could not be called maslub (crucified), just as a person could not be called slain (maqtul) if he is wounded by a sword but does not die as a consequence of the attack made on him. The Quran does not
belie the history of the People of the Book, but belies
their false doctrine: They killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross 9 that Jesus was not subjected to an act like that of qatl (killing) or salb (crucifixion), but this is not a necessary conclusion. When we look at history, the Jews claimed on the one hand that they hanged Jesus on the cross and on the other hand, the followers of Jesus admitted that he was, in fact, put on the Cross, and there is no contemporary historical record which shows that Jesus was not at all put on the cross. Now, if after six hundred years, somebody says that Jesus was not put on the cross, who is going to believe it? While interpreting the Quran, it should be kept in mind that if a word can bear two meanings, we should adopt that meaning which is not contrary to historical records. Apart from this, the Quran came to provide conclusive proof against the beliefs of the Jews and the Christians. How would they be silenced? They agree on the fact that Jesus was put on the Cross but we reject their views and advance another theory, that Jesus was only physically lifted up into heaven. How could we ask them to affirm this view which has no historical testimony to support it? Therefore, we should interpret the Quran in such a way that does not belie their history but only belies their belief. This is what the Quran has done. Without rejecting their history, on which both Jews and Christians agree, the Quran has rejected their erroneous beliefs, the details of which will be discussed a little later. The question may be raised here that when we accept their history in which both parties agree, then why should we not accept their unanimous verdict that Jesus died on the Cross as well? The reason for rejecting this presumption is that not only is it against the express teachings of the Quran but also against historical evidence. Even the events mentioned in the Gospels clearly indicate that although Jesus was put on the Cross, he did not die there. Evidence from the
Gospels: Jesus did not die on the
Cross: 1. Jesus remained on the Cross for a few hours only, according to one report, at the most for six hours and according to another, for about two hours. According to Matthew and Mark, it was at about the ninth hour (3 p.m.) that Jesus complained of having been forsaken by God 10 and it was shortly after this that he died. Mark says "it was the third hour (i.e. 9 a.m.) that they crucified him". 11 Therefore, according to Mark and Matthew, Jesus was on the Cross for six hours. Luke fixes the sixth hour as the time when Jesus "gave up the ghost". He also mentions that the darkness lasted from the sixth to the ninth hour. 12 On the other hand, according to John, it was about the sixth hour (12 noon) that Pilate sat in judgement over Jesus. 13 Even if we assume that Jesus was put on the Cross immediately after the sentence, Jesus would not have remained on the Cross for more than three hours. Death by crucifixion was always tardy. In any case, the person who was crucified could not die within two, three or six hours. All these incidents and references are sufficient to prove, historically, that Jesus was indeed put on the Cross, but did not remain on it long enough for it to have caused his death. His bones were not broken, and in great haste he was taken down from the Cross and placed in a grave, which was actually a spacious place hewn in a rock. His coming out of this tomb, his meeting some women and his disciples, his disguising himself, his walking on foot, his showing his wounds on his hands and side, his feeling hungry and eating food, all point to one fact - that he was finally saved from dying on the Cross. This is something which cannot be rejected light-heartedly. 27 Subsequent events show that he migrated from that place for afterwards he went to Galilee. And migration (hijrah) is the practice of prophets - when they are persecuted beyond limits at one place, they have to go to another. The Jews claim that
they slew Jesus; the Quran denied that he was slain or that
he was crucified: In reply the Quran has rejected their claim by saying: They killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross. 28 That is to say, slaying (qatl) and crucifixion (salb) have both been rejected. Death by crucifixion really meant that the victim should die on the cross-bar and his corpse should remain hanging there. But sometimes to cause quick death his legs or bones were broken. As has been shown above, Jesus' body was taken off the Cross in great haste. To cause real death, the other method, that is, breaking the legs, was not resorted to in his case. Therefore, the Quran refuted the Jewish claim that "we slew" him by saying that they neither broke his bones to cause death nor did they let him stay hanging on the Cross long enough that he could die through exposure and exhaustion - the usual rigours and tortures of crucifixion. Otherwise, there was no need of using the two words in this connection. The meaning of
wa lakin shubbiha lahum: This question has been answered in two ways by Imam Razi: 1. Shubbiha lahum is like (khuila ilaih) and thus the meaning rendered is but the incident appeared to them as such. Thus the pronoun him was directed towards someone else. What a feeble manner of reasoning! It is as if during a discussion, the claim itself has been put forward as an argument! Ma qataluhu only shows that the person mentioned in the text (in this case Jesus) has not been slain. How "someone else" is reported to have been slain, according to these words, I fail to understand. If someone says: "Zaid has not been slain," does it mean that "Bakr has been slain?" The point that has to be established first is that someone else was killed in place of Jesus. Before settling this issue, a presumption was made and strangely enough then, that presumption was put forward as an argument. An erroneous notion has compelled most of the commentators to take a conjectural notion as a real incident. The other interpretation that it means, "it happened as they thought it to be," is also mere conjecture and this interpretation cannot be supported by the lexicons. The question was simple. Who was the person who was "likened to" or made mushabbah for them? Obviously all the pronouns refer to Jesus; thus Jesus was made mushabbah and no one else. Now, with what was he "likened"? The meaning becomes clear by the words: ma qataluhu wa ma salabuhu (They slew him not nor did they crucify him (i.e. caused his death on the Cross). Jesus was neither slain nor crucified, but his condition became dubious like the one who was slain or crucified. And the historical incidents quoted above from the Gospels clearly support this view. The Quran has also made a reference affirming what has been said in the Gospels. It is surprising that a simple statement which would have made the whole matter clear has been twisted in such a way as to mean that Jesus was not put on the Cross but someone else of the same appearance, or one who was made to resemble him, was crucified. This is not borne out at all by the words of the Quran or any saying of the Holy Prophet. As has been mentioned above, the pronoun hi in shubbiha (he was made to appear as such) refers to Jesus whose mention has previously been made in the same verse. Thus the statement would read like this: wa-lakin shubbiha (`Isa) lahum (but he (Jesus) was made to appear to them as such.) This is itself an independent and a clear statement; only that thing is omitted to which he was likened. The word lakin (but) is a letter of emendation (istidrak) for removal of a doubt or for the elucidation of a point. The rendering of a statement could only be like this: wa la-kin shubbiha `Isa lahum bil-maslubi wal-maqtul (but Jesus was made to resemble them as if he was crucified and slain), that is, he became like the one who was crucified). The pronoun he in shubbiha refers to no one who was slain because no maqtul (slain person) has been mentioned afterwards. To get out of this impasse, some people think that the statement should read like this: "They slew him not, nor did they crucify him, but they crucified and killed him who was made to resemble them (like Jesus)." Obviously it is introducing at will words to the text of the Quran to distort its meaning. Here, after lakin, a complete statement, shubbiha lahum is present, and in shubbiha the verb is clearly indicated. In the presence of a verb, to accept that another verb has been omitted from the statement is against the rules of grammar. Nevertheless, if the word is omitted (mahzuf) after lakin, in this case the omitted verb from the previous statement should govern the statement that follows. For instance: Zaid did not stand but Umar, should mean that Zaid did not stand but Umar stood. Although one verb was mentioned after lakin (but), the verb of the previous clause was implied in the clause that followed. The Quran says (literally): Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the messenger of Allah. 29 Because there is no verb in the clause wa lakin rasulullah, therefore, the verb kana in the beginning of the verse should be considered implied in the subsequent clause which should read: "but he is the messenger of Allah." Similarly the Quran says: It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it. 30 Here after wa lakin the verb has been omitted. Therefore, again the verb kana in the beginning of the clause should be considered implied in the clause after wa lakin. This principle is neither something unheard of, nor is there any rule of syntax, that when there is a clear implied verb after wa lakin in a clause, another verb should be forced into the text. It is surprising that people consider a verb omitted in the presence of the verb shubbiha. The Quran is full of such instances where after wa lakin the verb has been clearly indicated, in which case we cannot place the previous verb in the clause which is followed by wa lakin. An obvious example is the following verse: And Allah wronged them not but they wronged themselves. 31 Here after wa lakin the verb is clearly indicated, therefore no other supposedly omitted (mahzuf) verb could be forced in the text after wa lakin. If the construction is adopted in the style of: "but they slew and crucified him who was made to resemble them (like Jesus)" then the above verse should read like this: "And God wronged them not, but God wronged them who wronged themselves." The fact is that God does not wrong anyone: And your Lord is not in the least unjust to the servants. 32 Similar is the position with the verse: Allah knows that you will have them in your minds, but give them not a promise in secret. 33 Here the verb is also found after wa lakin, therefore, no other omitted verb can be added to the text after wa lakin. Again: Yet why did they not, when Our punishment came to them, humble themselves? But their hearts hardened. 34 Here after wa lakin the verb qasat is clearly specified; therefore, no other omitted verb could be introduced after wa lakin. If the previous verb is introduced in the text after wa lakin the statement would read like this: "But those people humbled themselves whose hearts hardened", which does not make any sense. This would be the case with every statement where, in spite of the presence of a clearly specified verb (fi'l musarrah), another fi'l musarrah is added. Let us take another instance from the Quran: And if the people of the towns had believed and kept their duty, We would certainly have opened for them blessings from the heavens and the earth. But they rejected. 35 Now after "but", the verb "rejected" has clearly been mentioned and the pronoun they in the verse can only refer to those people who have been mentioned before, that is, the people of the towns, as is the case in 4:157: but he was made to appear to them as such. In this verse too, after but, the verb, "was made to appear" has been explicitly mentioned and the pronoun he can only refer to Jesus who has been mentioned in the earlier part of the verse. If, against all rules of grammar, we introduce an extra verb after "but" and change the construction of a simple statement "he was made to appear to them as such" to read: "they crucified and killed him who was made to resemble to them (like Jesus)," this rendering would be contrary to the text of the Quran. If we change the construction of the verse 7:96 in the same way, it would read like this: "but we opened for them blessings from the heavens and the earth, for those who rejected." This kind of construction has twisted the whole meaning of the text. Similarly, adding words and changing the construction of words in 4:57 distort the meaning of the verse and this is eventually contrary to the true meaning of the Quranic text. History verifies
the statement of the Quran and rejects the beliefs of the
People of the Book: What was the need
of executing someone else who resembled
Jesus?: The following story, too, is totally absurd, that is, the one which says that Jesus was in the company of twelve or thirteen companions of his when the Jews came to arrest him. At that time, Jesus asked his companions which one of them would like to be with him in paradise so that he should be made to resemble him (Jesus) and be crucified in his place. A young man (in some reports called Sarjus), offered himself and he was eventually crucified and Jesus was lifted up to heaven. It is surprising that when Jesus knew that he would be physically exalted, then why did he get one of his companions killed unnecessarily? What was the benefit, spiritual or otherwise, behind such a plan? When the Holy Prophet Muhammad left Makkah, Hazrat `Ali slept in his bed so that the enemies could not find out that the Holy Prophet had escaped and they could not immediately go after him. At that stage, his enemies could have reached him and killed him. Was Jesus also really worried that if he flew away to heaven without leaving a counter-part of his on earth, that the Jews would follow him up to heaven and bring him down? And was it for this reason that another person was made to appear like Jesus so that the Jews may keep on thinking that they had actually killed Jesus and that they would give up the idea of following him to the fourth heaven? After all, God's actions are not devoid of wisdom. What was the wisdom behind this strategy? If Jesus had gone to heaven without making another person look like him, could the Jews cause any harm to him? On the other hand, it would have become a great miracle on Jesus' part, especially since he was considered an impostor by them. It would have been still more impressive if such a miracle were performed in a big assembly of the Jews so that they could all have had faith in him. But the execution of the reported plan looks meaningless and absurd - that Jesus himself escaped by going to heaven but let one of his companions to be unnecessarily killed in a cursed manner - the kind of death which he did not like to suffer himself. Was it lawful for a prophet to take recourse to such action? When it is clearly mentioned in the Torah that "he that is hanged is accursed of God", 37 then why did Jesus choose a cursed death for any one of his friends? To get out of this muddle, another version of the same incident has been introduced, that is, that one of the companions of Jesus was a traitor and he accepted thirty rupees as a bribe and disclosed to the Roman police the place where Jesus was. At that very moment Jesus was lifted up to heaven and that very person became like Jesus in appearance. The same objection could be raised against the narration of the incident above and one may well ask: Why did there arise such a need that another person like Jesus should fall in the hands of the Jews? Is it God Himself who did not wish that the Jews should have faith in the Messiah? Did He Himself force them to believe that Jesus was actually hanged and killed on the Cross? And according to their belief that "he that is hanged is accursed of God" therefore, did God Himself allow the Jews to be blamed for rejecting him? If we consider the first report concerning Sarjus as a fabrication and accept the other one about a traitor-companion of Jesus as true and make him suffer an accursed death, then another question arises: Why did this traitor not create an uproar that he was not Jesus, that Jesus had gone up to heaven and that he himself was a different person? After all, those who came to arrest Jesus knew that a hypocrite friend of Jesus had accompanied them and he was going inside the house to get Jesus arrested. What happened to him? How is it that none of them made any further inquiry about him? And the wrong culprit never denied his being Jesus? He was led to Pilate and he never protested! He was mocked and a crown of thorns was put on his head and he kept quiet! He was hanged on the Cross and uttered loudly "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" (My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?) 38 but did not say a word that he was wrongly and unjustly being crucified in Jesus' place? Then, after being taken off the Cross, he met with his mother and other disciples and never gave a hint that he was someone else and that the real Messiah was sitting in heaven? When even this report was not found suitable, another story was invented in its place that the Jews had surrounded Jesus' house but when they did not find him there, they became worried that with his disappearance people would accept him as a messenger of God. Therefore, they got hold of somebody from among themselves and crucified him and did not permit people to come near him for fear of his being recognised. Then later on his appearance changed (i.e. he started looking like Jesus). This is how the whole incident is reported in Ruh al-Ma`ani. One may escape from some of the problems met with in other reports, but new difficulties arise by accepting such a fanciful story. The obvious contradiction is that the Jews caught hold of another person and crucified him as they did not find Jesus at his place and they did not bother to look for him elsewhere - he might have absconded. They immediately understood that he had gone to heaven (they were really clever people!) and then they made one from among themselves agree to play the part of Jesus and told him to keep quiet and not make any fuss! As if there was no Roman Government at that time! One wonders at the imagination and ingenuity of those who invented such historical myths. Let us forget that the Jews crucified such a person and did not allow anyone to come near him. Let us also forget that he was taken to Pilate in the presence of a big assembly, including his mother and other disciples. The trouble is, however, that even God had such regard for the Jews that He produced a miracle for them and the appearance of that person was instantly changed into that of Jesus. God forbid, but was it His intention that Jesus should be proven an impostor? According to this report, the changing of appearance, it seems, was not the miracle of Jesus but of the Jews. The whole narrative is baseless and cannot stand the least rational or historical test. The Quran and the Holy Prophet cannot be held responsible for teaching such fables. Further evidence
from the Quran that Jesus appeared like the one who was
crucified: And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. 39 It is obvious that those who differed therein are both the Jews and the Christians; therefore; the Jews are not specifically mentioned here. According to the Quran they are both in doubt about it. If the view is accepted that someone else was crucified in place of Jesus, this is not the point of dispute among them, nor is this view supported by the events recorded in history respecting the fate of Jesus. According to the Jews, it was Jesus who was put on the Cross. There was no eyewitness of Jesus' going to heaven. There were no other special signs to show that he might have gone up there. The person who was put on the Cross made no protest concerning his innocence. His mother and disciples also called him Jesus. However, the incidents narrated in the Gospels - towards which the Quran has made a reference that Jesus was made to appear to them as if he were crucified - do create doubt in the mind of the reader as to the true nature of the fate Jesus suffered at the hands of his enemies. This shows that even those in front of whose eyes these incidents took place were also left groping in the dark. The incidents which have been mentioned above clearly indicate that the Jews were not certain whether Jesus had died on the Cross or not. And the incidents mentioned in the Christian scriptures never conclusively proved that Jesus did die on the Cross. When Jesus was nailed to the cross, a furious windstorm started, and according to the Gospel, darkness fell over all the land "unto the ninth hour," "and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent". 40 At the same time, preparations for the Sabbath were going on, 41 so the Jews left Jesus on the cross in those terrible circumstances and Pilate himself was doubtful that Jesus had died so soon when he was told about it as is mentioned in Mark 15:44.42 Why would the Jews not doubt his death? Then Jesus left the tomb, after somebody had removed the stone - for a spiritual resurrection this would not have been necessary. His meetings with his disciples, sometimes at night, and sometimes away in the country, show that he had not died on the Cross. There is in existence, even now, a Christian sect which holds a similar view. All these incidents show that friends and foes alike remained in doubt about the death of Jesus on the Cross. The Quran has laid great emphasis on this point because it further states: They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture. 43 It was just their speculation that Jesus had died, otherwise all the events surrounding the crucifixion clearly pointed out that he had not died. The Quran completes the statement thus: And they killed him not for certain. 44 Here, some commentators have interpreted qata-lu (killed) as `alimu (knew). Whatever interpretation is given to the words, the meaning is clear, that they were not certain about Jesus being killed. The denial of certainty (yaqin) and following conjecture (zann) and remaining in doubt (shakk) all indicate that the whole matter had become dubious; some events led them to believe that Jesus had died and others, that he had not actually died. That is why the Quran has used such words while describing this incident and the statements made in the Quran corroborate the statements made in history. Further explanation
of 4:159: Thus, first, the history of the case about which they harbour doubts is pointed out. Then, their religious doctrine is mentioned, according to which, following different lines of arguments, of course, both the Jews and the Christians, make a dubious historical occurrence the fundamental principle of their faith, that is, that Jesus died on the Cross. Their history says something different from their belief. For this reason, the verse ends with the words: And on the day of Resurrection he (Jesus) will be a witness against them. 49 It is sometimes asserted that la yu'minanna bihi indicates having faith in a future time (would certainly believe in this), because when the lam of emphasis (lam takid) and the heavy nun (nun thaqilah) enter on an aorist (mudari`) it indicates the future tense only. Although this statement is questionable, even if we accept it as true, the interpretation I have given above denotes the future tense because it applies to the People of the Book, that, in spite of historical facts, they will keep on having a contrary belief. This expression can be compared with another verse of the Quran which says: We shall surely cause thee to turn towards the Qiblah which shall please thee. 50 "We shall surely cause thee to turn" (fa-la-nuwalliyanna-ka) is the future tense (with lam takid and nun thaqilah) but represents the present tense, because the Ka'bah had already been made the qiblah with this order and this was not something which was going to happen at some future date. Still, the Quran used the words fa-la-nuwalliyanna-ka. Similarly, in 4:159, the expression la yu'minanna was used, that, in spite of the knowledge of history, every one of the People of the Book would have faith in this about which he was in doubt historically. In other words, the Jews and the Christians have been put to shame here: that is, the basis of their faith lies on something the authenticity of which they are not sure themselves. The question of
exaltation (rafa`): And in another place it has been mentioned: O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence. 52 At both these places rafa`a ilallah (exaltation toward God) is considered to mean that Jesus was physically taken up alive to heaven because rafa'a means to raise or lift something up. Therefore, it is supposed that when God raises a person it should necessarily mean that He raises him up physically from earth and takes him away somewhere else. But it should be borne in mind that in every language, a word may be used in many different senses. Generally, the use of a word in a particular context indicates in what sense it has been used there. Therefore, first of all we must see whether the word rafa`a in the Arabic language is used in one sense only or more, and then what meaning could be given to it in the context where it has been used. Imam Raghib says: "Rafa`a is sometimes applied to corporeal things, meaning the raising or elevating of a thing from the resting place thereof... sometimes to a building making it high or lofty... and sometimes exalting of one's fame... sometimes exaltation in degree of rank or station." 53 Apart from these, other uses of rafa`a have also been mentioned by Imam Raghib. Taj al-`Arus has also given various examples of the use of the word rafa`a and has also quoted the statement by Imam Raghib. In another lexicon, Lisan al-`Arab, all these meanings have been mentioned with appropriate examples. I will quote a few references from this book. First of all, the following remark has been made while discussing the word rafa`a: "that is, Al-Rafi` (One Who exalts) is one of the (attributive) names of God, the Most High. That is, He exalts the believer by making him prosperous (or happy) and by granting His friends (auliya) nearness and that rafa`a is contrary to wada`a (to be abased, to put down) and then it is stated that it is mentioned in the Quran about the Judgement Day; that is, abasing, exalting (56:3)." 54 About this, Imam Zujaj says that it means that Judgement Day will abase the evil doers and exalt the believers. That is, it will exalt them in rank or station. Another meaning of rafa`a is bringing a thing near one to another and the meaning of nisa'un marfu`at is nisa'un mukarramatun or women who will be honoured; and rafa`a fulanan ilal hakim means he brought him or presented him or brought him forward to the judge. The meaning of rafa' al-ba'ira fi al-sair is, he made the camel to exert himself to the full in going or speed or he made him go with the utmost swiftness. And in a tradition, it is said fa rafa`tu naqati - I made my she-camel go at a pace termed marfu` that is, made her go with the utmost swiftness. In the same sense, in another tradition, it is reported: Wa rafa'na matiyatuna wa rafa` Rasoolullahi sallallahu alaihi wasallam matiyatuhu wa safiyatun khalfahu (We made our animals go in speed and the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, also made his animal go in speed and Safia was sitting behind him). And what God said about the house, that they should be exalted - there an turfa`a means that they should be honoured or be exalted in estimation. 55 The use of the word
rafa`a for Jesus cannot be the basis of the doctrine
of his going up to heaven: Thus the use of the word rafa`a for Jesus does in no way prove his going to heaven in this body of clay. Now I will show that when God exalts a person (or makes his rafa`) towards Himself, it does not mean that He lifts him up alive physically. Such meanings are absolutely against the Arabic lexicons. It is most important to remember here that in both these verses (3:54 and 4:158) the subject of the verb rafa`a is God Himself and rafa`a is also towards Him, which conclusively prove that rafa`a here does not mean raising up physically but only exaltation in rank or station. What is the
significance of rafa` (exaltation) of a person
towards God?: The second piece of evidence in this respect is that of the lexicons. In all the Arabic dictionaries, only one meaning of Al-Rafi` is given: "Al-Rafi` is one of the names of God, Most High, That is, He exalts the believer by making him prosperous (or happy) and by granting His friends (auliya) nearness." This means that God only exalts men in one sense alone. It is not mentioned in any Arabic dictionary that by God's being Al-Rafi`, He lifts them up physically alive to heaven. I have mentioned it before that words in every language may have different meanings and it is the context that decides what meaning should be adopted according to that particular occasion. When God uses the word rafa` for Jesus, it obviously means that this rafa` is similar to the rafa` which He grants to the believers and His auliya and nothing more. If some other meanings were mentioned in the dictionary (of God's rafa` of human beings), then we could think of some different interpretation, but as no other meanings have been given in this context, therefore, the lexical evidence is conclusive, that the rafa` of Jesus was spiritual and not physical. The Quranic evidence also supports this view that God's exaltation of His servants does not mean anything at all except their exaltation in degrees of rank. At one place the Quran says: We exalt some of them above others in rank. 58 It does not mean that some are a few yards above the ground from the others but only the degrees in nearness in rank are implied. Similar is the meaning of the verse: We exalt in degrees whom We please. 59 And about the messengers it has been said: And some of them He exalted by (many) degrees of rank. 60 About him who turns aside from guidance, the Quran says: And if We had pleased, We would have exalted him thereby; but he clings to the earth. 61 Although here clinging to the earth is clearly mentioned and this might lead one to think that rafa` in this context could mean lifting him up from the ground, rafa`nahu here also means exaltation in rank and granting of nearness. These meanings are so clear that the clinging to the earth must necessarily be taken as a metaphor. This goes to establish the fact that God's rafa` of a person, without a shadow of a doubt, clearly and explicitly means the granting of spiritual nearness, and if there are some doubtful words in the context, they should be interpreted metaphorically. Even if in respect of Jesus' rafa` there was an expression indicating that he was lifted up from the ground, it should have been considered a metaphorical expression, mainly because it was God Who was the object of causing his rafa`. About the Prophet Enoch (Idris), the Quran says: And We raised him to an elevated state (or position). 62 Here, again, the mention of a lofty place could lead one to think that perhaps Enoch was lifted up from the ground and placed on a lofty place but as his rafa` has been attributed to God, therefore, the lofty place could only mean an elevated state or position which in other words is God's granting of honour and dignity to the person concerned. Thus, these two instances from the Quran do not leave the least room for any other interpretation. And if there is any expression giving a contrary indication, that expression should be interpreted metaphorically. As far as Jesus is concerned, there are no such expressions used as in the above two instances (7:176 and 19:57). Therefore, how could it be permissible to give up the true meaning of God's rafa` and introduce something different instead? Perhaps somebody may think that in la rafa`na-hu biha (We exalted him - 7:176) it is quite possible that rafa` here may be physical. Let us see what the commentators of the Quran say on this point. A few references here will suffice. Ibn Khatir says in respect of this verse that la rafa`nahu biha means that We would have raised him above the worldly impurities and filth." Fath al-Bayan renders it "We would have raised him to the stations of the learned." In Baidawi, similar meanings are given that "We would have raised him to the stations of the doers of good." Ibn Jarir says that: "Much signification is attached to the word rafa`. From among them is the exaltation of rank in God's presence, and the granting of honour and benevolence in the world, and the exaltation of one's fame. It is permissible to accept that here all these may be applicable, that is, if God willed, he would have all these things." In the above reference, how clearly has the significance of God's exaltation (rafa`) been explained! However, about Enoch (Idris), some commentators have introduced Jewish stories (isra'iliyat) while interpreting the words wa rafa`na-hu makan-an `aliyya (We raised him to a lofty place or position). Under the influence of isra'iliyat, they have expressed the view that Idris had gone alive to heaven, as has been stated in Fath al-Bayan and Ibn Kathir. After Ibn Kathir has quoted a report by Ka`b al-Ahbar, that an angel carried Idris to the seventh heaven but the angel of death immediately seized his soul there, he says that: "This is from among the isra'iliyat. The reports narrated by Ka`b al-Ahbar and some points therein are questionable.'' After mentioning the same report, the author of Fath al-Bayan says: "These are the isra'iliyat which Ka`b used to narrate.'' The authoritative view on the subject, however, is that in spite of the use of makanan `aliyya, rafa`na-hu here means "We honoured him." In Ruh al-Ma`ani, it is remarked that: "This rafa` to a lofty place means honouring him with prophethood and Divine nearness.'' And it is reported from Hassan concerning makanan `aliyya that this rafa` was granted to him in paradise because paradise is the loftiest place. In another report it is mentioned (see Ruh al-Ma`ani) that when this verse was recited: Balaghna al-sama-a majadna wa sana-u-naa. Wa inna lanarjoo fawqa zalika mazharan. It means: We reached a lofty place and our praise was lofty. And we desired to go above that which was designated for us. And the Holy Prophet asked: "O Abu Laila, towards which place? He said towards paradise (jannah), O Messenger of Allah! (which is above the skies). The Holy Prophet said: Absolutely right.'' The misunderstanding about the Prophet Idris apparently has arisen because the Holy Prophet saw him in the fourth heaven as is stated in the report about the Mi`raj (Ascension); but the Holy Prophet saw Noah, Abraham, Moses, John and others, too. As other prophets had reached heaven, similarly Idris and Jesus had also reached there. Thus rafa`na-hu makan-an `aliyya does not mean anything except the raising of Idris to a high position of dignity. After mentioning all these reports, Ruh al-Ma`ani says: "This rafa` which requires elevation in dignity and rank is used to indicate high praise, otherwise just putting one on a raised place does not (really) mean anything.'' The meaning of
rafa` in hadith: "O Allah! grant me protection, and have mercy on me and guide me, and grant me security, and grant me sustenance, and exalt me (warfa`ni) and set right my affairs" (Ibn-i Majah, p. 64). What do we actually mean when we say the prayer, irfa`ni (exalt me)? Do we for a moment think that God should physically lift us to heaven? When such a thought does not cross our mind at the time of prayer, how could this expression mean something different when God says that He has exalted Jesus? The rafa` which we desire for ourselves is the same rafa` which came to the share of Jesus. There is a report mentioned in Tirmidhi: "People want to disgrace them but God does not want anything for them but their rafa` (i.e. He wants to honour them." 63 From Hazrat `Umar a report is mentioned in al-Muslim and Ibn Majah: "God the Most High will exalt some nations (i.e. give them honour and dignity) on account of this Quran." 64 In another hadith, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said to Hazrat Abbas: "May God exalt thee, O Uncle." 65 In another it is said: "Show humility; God will exalt you." 66 There are several ahadith on tawadu` (humility, modesty) in which God promises that anyone who shows humility is exalted by Him. The obvious reason seems to be that rafa`a and wada`a are contrary to each other. Thus, when a person, for the sake of God, lowers himself, God raises him. Lowering oneself does not mean that a person should enter a pit, nor does raising in this context mean that he is lifted up several yards above the ground, but as lowering implies lowering in character, similarly raising is raising in rank or dignity. In some traditions the words rafa`a ila al-sama' (he raised towards the sky) have been used for the person who shows humility. In one hadith it is said: "When a person show humility, God lifts him up with a chain towards the seventh heaven." 67 How clear are the words in this tradition! Rafa` (raising), sama' (heaven) and silsilah (chain) could lead us to interpret them literally, but we do not take them literally because God's exaltation of a person cannot lend support to such meanings. If that were so, everyone showing humility would have been raised to the seventh heaven with a chain. In that case no one could really raise any objection against Jesus' physically going up to the fourth heaven. In spite of the Divine promise that a person showing humility is lifted up to the seventh heaven with a chain, no such person has ever gone up that way even to the first heaven. And even the Holy Prophet who had been declared the possessor of sublime morals 68 in the Quran, and there was no one who showed humility and modesty like him also, remained on this earth and was not raised up to the seventh heaven. This shows that although God's rafa` may be mentioned in the clearest terms, it cannot be interpreted in its literal sense at all. It only means Divine nearness, or raising in rank. Imam Bukhari has, however, made it exceedingly clear that the meaning of rafa`a ila al-sama' does not at all mean going upwards with this body of clay. He says: "Rafa` towards heaven is contrary to wad'a and from this is the prayer: O God, exalt me and disgrace me not. And God exalts whomsoever He wishes and disgraces whomsoever He wishes." 69 This statement by Imam Bukhari is decisive proof in relation to the meaning of rafa`a ila al-sama' that it cannot mean anything else except the raising of a person in dignity and rank. Thus, from the Arabic lexicons, and from the Quran and the Hadith, it is established that God's exaltation (rafa `) of a person has one meaning alone. This also conclusively proves that the words used about Jesus, rafi`uka ilayya (I shall exalt thee in My presence (3:54) and rafa`hullahu ilaih (Allah exalted him in His presence - 4:158) do not mean anything else concerning Jesus except exalting him in rank. To believe that these words mean the raising of Jesus physically to heaven is absolutely wrong. Not only because God Himself is the cause of Jesus' rafa` but in both cases, this rafa` is towards God. Where the rafa` of a man to God is spoken of in the Quran, or in the religious literature of Islam, it is always in the sense of exalting or making him honourable. Abraham says in the Quran: Surely I flee to my Lord. 70 Although zahaba means to go, Abraham did not mean that he would be going to his Lord on foot and would bodily meet Him, but that he was leaving his people for the sake of God to attain Divine nearness and pleasure. Although zahibun (going) is a physical act, the use of the words ila Rabbi (to my Lord) shows that this going towards God was not with this body of clay. Any ambiguity in zahibun was removed by ila Rabbi which finally decided the true meaning of the verse (37:99). Whatever was allegorical (mutashabih) was solved by the decisive (muhkam) by the use of the words towards my Lord. As compared to this, in rafi`u-ka ilayya and rafa'ahullahu ilaih, the absolute sign was found in rafa'ahullah and the second absolute factor was added by the expression ilaih (towards him). In other words, the verses rafi'uka ilayya and rafa'ahullah ilaih consisted of two parts. The first part is rafi'uka and raf'a'hullah where God talks of the exaltation of a person which undoubtedly and decisively means the granting of Divine nearness. The second part is ilayya or ilaihi which clarifies that this rafa' is towards God. And rafa' towards God or going towards God does not mean going to Him with this body of clay, nor can any example of this fact be found in the Quran or the Hadith. On the contrary, the illustration as quoted above (37:99) inni zahibun ila Rabbi shows that when the ultimate destination is God, it also means Divine nearness and not coming and going with this physical body. Many illustrations of this can be found in the Quran, for example: O soul (nafs) that art at rest, return to thy Lord. 71 Here nafs may not mislead anyone to believe erroneously that the address here is to man with this body of clay. Similarly in the following verses: We created you from a single being (nafs), 72 When men (nufus) are united 73 and Slay yourselves, 74 only human beings are mentioned. Therefore, in the above verse, return to thy Lord does not mean that this return is with the physical body but ila Rabbika (towards thy Lord) has made it clear that ruju` (returning) here only means spiritual nearness. 75 This spiritual nearness is also indicated in the words "rafa`a towards God", and this view has been accepted by some commentators, although some others, without proper investigation, and thinking that the coming of the son of Mary means the actual coming of Jesus, understand rafa` as a physical rafa`. However, the words ilal-lah (towards God) have diverted the attention of some of them - from the correct significance - that it does not mean lifting him physically towards a place, as Imam Razi says: "We have proved in this book with conclusive arguments at several places that God, the Most High, cannot be confined to a space." However, the thought of Jesus being alive was so dominant in their minds that they had to interpret the word ilayya (towards) differently. Sometimes it was interpreted as ila mahalli karamati (towards the place of My reverence), which in other words only means exaltation in rank or granting of nearness. Sometimes it was interpreted this way - that God would carry him to a place where no command will be in operation except that of God as if God's command does not operate on earth, which in itself is an absurd thought. If such were not the case, how could God have saved the Holy Prophet from the hands of his enemies? How could God have saved Abraham? And how could Moses and other prophets have been saved on this earth from the cruel hands of powerful monarchs? Was it only for Jesus that God's command could not operate on earth? Were the Jews so strong that they would not even let God's law function here (although they themselves were a disgraced and subjugated nation at that time)? But surprisingly enough (although their belief may be different concerning Jesus), some of the commentators give a correct interpretation of the words under discussion. For instance, Imam Razi says that "I will raise thee towards Me" means: "I will raise thy action towards me." And then he goes on to illustrate what it is like, as has been mentioned in the verse: To Him do ascend the goodly words.76 Still, with greater clarity he writes in explanation of the verse: And make those who follow thee above those who disbelieve: 77 "Placing those who follow Jesus above those who disbelieve" means making them superior in argument and proof, and know that this verse proves that God's saying, "I will raise thee towards Me' means God's raising him in rank and station and not raising him to a particular place or to a direction, as the dominance (fauqiyyah) here means the dominance in rank and station also." The whole matter is very simple to understand. Qurb means nearness, but nearness to God means spiritual and not physical nearness. Similarly, rafa' towards God is not physical but only spiritual. Reason for the use
of the word rafa`: It was said in reply: They killed him not for certain. Nay, Allah exalted him in His presence. 79 Another point which should be mentioned here is that in 3:54 rafi'u-ka is placed | ||
