“Our age is retrospective.It builds the sepulchres of the fathers.It writes biographies,histories,and criticism.The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face;We, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the Universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition,and a religion by revelation to us,and not the history of theirs? Embosomed…? The sun shines today also.There is …fields.There are new lands,new men,new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worships,” Ralph Waldo Emerson

Follow(ing) up : Discussion between a science graduate student and a profane of philosophy     

Travis:  Maybe we are too quick to “understand” the things we observe, without truly knowing the underlying dynamics.

 me:  that is a plausibility indeed

that is exactly what i fear in post modern science

that wants to say absolutely and as quick as possible

a plausible theory of unknown phenomena

what is it like to name a phenomenon dark energy?

i m just criticising the appelation

it is a kind of intellectual way to impose a single view of an interpretation of a phenomenon

to a whole scientific community

we must be cautious when naming phenomena unknown yet

that dark energy name goes along with their primary fathers like

hawkings, einstein maybe and so on

so, all scientists tend to be sticking to a phenomenon making it like mystic

or mysterious

this is why modern science tends to be a science fiction like ; dark energy ? lol

 Travis:  I see your point here. You’re absolutely right.

The truth is: we know very little, but we assume quite a lot.

Some of our assumptions are good — like Newtonian or even Einsteinian notions of gravity — but who knows; they could be completely wrong too.

 me:  they are likely to be strong enough to help us understand phenomena

and they do have strong basis in terms of hypothesis and mathematical relationships

 Travis:  Sure! They are strong enough for that, but we know that something is incorrect — because our theories of Quantum Physics and Einstein’s theories of relativity do not work well together.

 me:  the point is that we are to approach a series of celestial bodies’theory in a reasonable way so to speak ;

we need a kind of epistemology for that post modernistic theory of relativity

or swing theory-

a reflexion on science or post modern science

that may show possibly the reasonable limits of our perspective in scientific terms

because now science tends to be a science fiction

 Travis:  Yes. My guess is that the “answer” to this will be far more subtle and elegant than we currently expect.

 me:  with regard to modern theory of quantum physics,

see, take a case :

the incomplete theorem ;

i know u hear of it right?

by the way, what u think of it?

 Travis:  Actually, no. I’m not familiar with it.

 me:  u see, that incomplete theorem, off my understanding of things, seems a prodigy of our capability to see beyond things and yet be still in a reasonable limit of reasoning

 me:  in the logics standpoint,remark that the so many aftermath that may be brought about by this theorem. the basic assumption of this theorem seems to, at some point, challenge some of the established rules of logics

that we attribute to Aristotle and modern logics experts like russell and Boole

 Travis:  OK, I think I’m following you.

 me:  it is not that aristole logics or modern ones are wrong  so to speak

the point is that they are based ,too, on assumptions of a single world view of things

 Travis:  Sure. Understandable.

 me:  donnot forget that aristotle was an indirect, i guess, disciple of Socrates

and even though he is not so much related to his master Socrates with regard to many philosophical and logical stand points

he still shared a series of viewpoints that were commonplace in the greek times

now logics and sciences tend to evolve fortunately

so coming up to what i am saying

the logics is (are) not wrong at some point

 Travis:  Sure.

 me:  but the point appears that the underlying assumptions that they used to put forward their rules of logics create incoherences with respect to some ways we see things

do u remember that saying of Kant which states that

an incorrect statement (proposition) is wrong (wrong by judgement),but a correct statement may not be true

that is an illustration of what i may refer to

 Travis:  Yes, I’m familiar with the statement.

Yes, I see what you mean.

 me:  thats exactly what our modern thinking should reflect upon

and the incomplete theorem logical basis seems to me challenging for what we learnt or received through the greek thinkers

 Travis:  Yes, exactly.

 me:  because admitting the various assumptions underlying the theorem simply means putting into question some of those established rules set out by previous thinkers

 Travis:  At issue, too, is that scientists are also humans. As such, they are capable of self-deceit.

It’s easy to see the pattern in the data that you “expect” to see.

That pattern, however, while valid, may not actually explain anything.

 me:  and not only the postulats, principles,logical assumptions and evidences contained within that theorem  are daring to premodern era logics, yet they are being supported by the paradox that we see in other fields of theoretical thinkings and logics in our post secular world

that should remind us of the necessity to find a way to make an epistemology of post modern science

that is why i am saying we have to set up a kind of rules of logic matters that deal with the newly presumptions of post secular world

if not, then it is most likely that we are likely to turn some of former evidences without appropriate manner into doubt

and make science and in the long philosophy as science of spirit

 Travis:  Again, you’re right. The problem is, of course, in the implementation.

 me:  a science of spirit and not of reason

 Travis:  There are so many ways to go about what you are discussing, but the fundamental issue is that humans are not readily detached from their “rational” self-interest.

By “rational”, I’m being sarcastic, of course.

If we analyzed the data of the universe with a detached, selfless vision, we could indeed understand much.

We might even come closer to understanding what drives the universe.

It’s the rational detachment, however, that is the problem.

I think, based on the initial question you posed, that scientists in Europe are more willing to detach themselves…

 me:  i am not talking about european scientists

 Travis:  …but maybe I’m misunderstanding the situation.

No, I know you aren’t.

 me:  this whole perception is mine

 Travis:  I’m just extending the metaphor.

 me:  it is not  a so called  product or byproduct of europrean heritage of thinking

it is ,per say and so to speak, my view of seeing and interpreting post secular world

 the way i think and the way i think our post modern thinking should gear to i guess

 Travis:  Yes, I completely understand.

 me:  so, at one level

there is an issue over the authority of interpretation in science

that is why i raised the issue of calling an unkown phenomenon “a dark energy”

that is kind of mystifying a perception of understanding

appelation is very important in science

by calling it a dark energy we assume that the factor behind the phenomenon is purely of energy matters (though it may be so)

it leaves no room for other possible explanations

it could yet be another force that we cannot measure and know nothing about yet

it could be a force that previous theories of quantum physics and scientific theories neglect

 Travis:  completely true.

Yes, certainly.

 me:  it could be a factor of gravitational nature,

a constant

 Travis:  Like I said, I have a friend studying dark energy.

 me:  that we ignore

and require us of pondering over the mathematical relationships within’

it could be a misinterpretation of post relativity theory that may lead to that way

 Travis:  And the “study” seems to be more a survey of the symptoms, rather than a study of the underlying principal/force/energy/whatever that is causing the symptiom.

(symptom)

 me:  we should assume first

and not form a theory based on challenging observations and/or of data

provided by critical observations and satellites ;

if we take it that way,

that makes sciences a mere empiric set of assumptions  yet reasonable

you are true,(dear travis)

now science  tends to be as (the) way you  perceive it

and philosophy tends to become obsolete too

i am talking about a so-called western philosophy

because i donnot share the whole view of western philosophy

it is a kind of a way to impose a single view of the world

just does the authority of religion and science over people

i donnot share all the premisses of premodern as well as modern logics

as of that matter, take this example,

according to a so called premice logically speaking

of Socrates

as of ontological proof of existence of a Creator or eventually « God »(seen as the absolute Perfect Being)

it seems to state that all consequences have forcibly causes

and if there is a series of creativity or creation so to speak (donnot forget that socrates is said to be idealistic)

there must be a creator

 Travis:  Yes, I’m mildly familiar with this example.

 me:  so, he set up a series of ontological proof

what we call logically a”chain of arguments”

it states all the possible causes that may trigger to existence that is in logics “the premisses”

for example

 Travis:  Yes, Prepositional logic. I’m with you.

 me:  u say “Man is Good”

that supposes that the term “Man” exists

there is no doubt about it

and Good exists too, it is a fact

both are evidences to admit forcibly.

that is Kant refers to as

correct statement

there is a subject

a verb

and attribute

u see

 Travis:  Well, strictly speaking, it does not suppose that Man or Good exists, because the preposition can, of course, be false. I do, however, understand your point.

 me:  but by evidence we know that Man is not (always) good

yes, this is what i was about to say (travis)

and u said it quickly

ok

 Travis:  Like I said, I’m with you

(I had Dr. Hamilton for Discrete Mathematics… he’s the hardest prof. at UDC…)

 me:  aristole made a correct stament

in kantian terms

yet, there is a fallacious underying basis in his reasoning

This led his ontological proof up to the evidence or so called evidence that

me:  if we keep on reasoning that way, we can but admit there is an infinite serie of causes for a series of consequences;

therefore, we can but admit logically a starting point

 Travis:  Yes, but not an infinite time to have accomplished them in…

Right.

In other words “What was the first cause?”

 me:  u see the reasoning of Aristotle?

yes ?or not ?

since it supposes that, according to his interpretation and view of things

 Travis:  At this point, the word ‘infinity’ becomes a big problem

 me:  there is no  finite possible causes for a series of consequences or effects, he started suggesting a series of premisses

 Travis:  This is also where most philosophers (western or otherwise) get into the habit of saying “well, it must have been God.”

 me:  that are logical statements that we all should abide by (i.e naturally to be admitted as a starting point for logical demonstration or proof  purpose supposedly)

and this is interesting because

the incomplete theorem basis that is to say

the premisses and the logics behind it

is a another way of interpretation of logics and a daring challenge to our understanding of logics

 me:  so, Aristotle feels like it must be a single cause for everything  just like it must be a premice of statement that contain three words

a subject

a verb

and an attribute to speak about a proposition or « logical statement. ».

u see how western philosophers thought?

i am not saying that his statement is incorrect

but there is most likely and at least two pitfalls here

first, it comes from his own world view of things

his own self view, i.e idealistic principle of interpreting the world as it is to him not as it should be

second, a likely erroneous assumption comes about the logics he used

 Travis:  Again, I see your point. Can I ask: are the books you’ve been writing related to this subject?

I’d be interested in reading them.

 me:  first, the process of admitting a series of so called  reliable assumptions to be considered as truthful premisses before going further

that is in itself a reasoning mistake because it limits the fields of possible ways of approaching the logics

and the possible ways of interpreting the premisses that he supposes

second, what he assumes as premisses seen as reliable statements may not be true

as Immanuel Kant illustrated it

a correct statement may not be true

so to speak,

the western philosophical heritage as such so far up to Kant and even after him has lived (or has been living) with such ideas

it is why u see Einstein, Oppenheimer, Tesla could not find

any theoretical basis for interpreting

their newly concepts

they have to recourse to eastern philosophy

to find there a way of interpreting some

 Travis:  Please, if you have some time, try to read: “Is God a Mathematician” by Mario Livio. I think you will enjoy it.

 me:  phenomena underlied in their theory

or what is peculiar to this eastern world is

that there is no,apparently, single view of seeing things

they tend to admit that all consequences or effects may well have many causes  too

 me:  we have no means in western philosophy at some extent to grasp the phenomena of some post secular scientific facts that to have recourse to eastern, islamic or oriental or even african mythologies or beliefs

in order to conceivibly interpret things

that is why one should be careful about the real meaning of concepts and ideas that modern science seems to take as granted

 Travis:  Too true.

 Travis:  Again, you will like “Is God a Mathematician” by Mario Livio.

 me:  the complexity of interpreting modern quantum physics may not come from the truthfulness of reasoning, but the fact that is the premisses are true or not . if statement is correct, that, does it mean that statement is true? that raises question; and eastern philosophy has no single cause for interpreting things

that is why there is no « apparent » consensus so far in matter of science especially

the war between proponents and opponents of swing theory

and dark energy

 Travis:  Yes, or even Evolution, for that matter.

 me:  yes

so, we have to admit the limits of ancient greek logics

 Travis:  Speaking of that, I’m going to watch the Frontline episode tonight.

 me:  we have also to admit the limits of our own capability

to comprehend things as we hope to

that is because our nature intrinsicly cannot grasp all things

of nature without corrupting them

 Travis:  Yes. Once again, we can see the natural progression. The ancient Greek ideas founding “modern logic” work well, to a point. Just like Newtonian gravity works well, to a point.

 me:  because of our tendency of perceptions

 Travis:  Some day a change in the fundamentals of logic will come about, much in the same way that Einstein changed physics.

Stepping stones.

 me:  and finally we need to reshape of our understanding of logics

 Travis:  Humans are good at refining.

Yes!

 me:  and truth and at some extent science, God

 Travis:  Again, Yes!

 me:  that is crucial to post secular world

 Travis:  Absolute.y

(absolutely)

 me:  So, now, we can say we are post modern philosophers

and scientists

 Travis:  Yes, you’re right.

(I believe…)

The « Refining » of Western Philosophy and Science : Conversations between a young graduate science student and a profane of philosophy.

 Long time ago, philosophical thinking used to take shape through dialectic conversations between a Master and a pupil so to  speak.Up to the Middle Ages in certain philosophical writings authored by islamic thinkers, we can still find traces of such a practice viewed as a way or an approach to enlighten the illiterate people on the wisedom and knowledges of the philosophies of those days(i.e pedagogy purpose,methodology).Even though such a practice seems to be  no more in tune with the actual philosophical writings, some thinkers tend to still favor that approach.This approach of philosophical dialogue is more often replete with deeply-thought ideas and concepts as well as ideologies ;It underlies, sometimes, the basics (background) needed for establishing revolutionary ideas and philosophical concepts that may change the world view or our own perception of things or of seeing things.The discourse may be formal ( informal) or formally-written, but one needs to read carefully beyond the lines and/or sometimes between the lines.Below is an enlightening philosophical debate or discussion between two young people full of curiosity and science and knowledge.Whereas one speaks of « refining » the thinking, the other thinks of « reshaping the notion of philosophy,logics,science and religion in the sight of the Universal ».While one sees himself as a future scientist or polytechnician, the other sees himself as simply a profane of philosophy or the « philosopher of the Universal ».Their discussion underlines many contemporary issues with respect to post-modern philosophy,logics,and sciences.It is yet a familiar, day to day,conversation apparently,but, no doubt,  the material that they are talking about reveals a sense of « knowledgibility » that pioneers post_modern thinking. Because we are almost at the time when western philosophy hegemony is dying,when the western logics ,herited from the ancient civilisation notably the Greeks, is being challenged by post_secular hypothesis and thinking, and when the supremacy of authority whether be it religious,political,economical,or scientific,is contested, now comes the « ambitious » era where a new approach, a new vision, a new life, a new attempt, a new paradigm is about to give birth.                                                                                                             

« Occident, tu es condamné à mourir. Nous sommes

les vainqueurs de l’Europe.. Laisse l’Orient, ta

terreur, répondre à nos espoirs enfin !.. »,Citation publiée dans la Revolution Surréaliste 1925 attribuée à Aragon

                                                                                                             me : how are u? whats on Gee?

Travis:  Hey – how’s it going?

Yes, always busy!

                                                                              me:  doing great, Dog

                                                                                        what about u?

Travis:  Too much work, not enough time, or money.

 me:  lol

 me:  oh well

                                                                                                           i do need money too,not enough

Travis:  Always the case. What about you?

                                                        me:  especially for publishing two books God willing i wrote

Travis:  Excellent! Sounds like a lot of work, but a lot of fun too!

                                                                     me:  a lot of work yes the first book was written last year a roman the latter that is under scrutiny by commitee of lecturers will be soon known as approved or not within’ few days normally.Both are very important

 Travis:  Sounds like it! Good luck!

 me:  thanks man well, have u seen the movie trials of oppenheimer? on  pbs

Travis:  No, not yet. We don’t have television — only watch online at pbs.org.

Sometimes it takes a while before they become available.

 me:  dude u should look at it frontline

Travis:  I love frontline.

 me:  it is an award winning documentary

Travis:  Their specials are the best!

 me:  yep

Travis:  I’ll look it up.

Hulu.com has a lot of PBS stuff too.

(can you get it in France?)

 me:  it is not on hulu;it is on the pbs site or just type

travis:  No problem, I’ll check PBS directly.

                                                              me:  another one that is fantastic is the intelligent design on trial ;this is a must see on pbs

 Travis:  Checking now…

                                                                                                   me:  i know u may be busy but i         wanna have ur view about a theoretical debate

                                                                                                         with respect to quantum physics

Travis:  Go ahead.

 me:  u know one thing i notice here in paris

Travis:  Sure, I’m not the best with it, but I’ll try…

 me:  at some university level

                                                                                                             is that some scientist students

                                  tend to deny any   plausibility of the reliability of that theory of “everything”

                                                                                                                  u recall the name again?

                                                                         that theory appealing to unify all forces of nature 

Travis:  Yes. The Unified Field Theory?

                                                    me:  exactly* which itself belongs to a wide range of newly                   theory that scientists have been talking about recently

 Travis:  Sure.

                                                      me:  well, it sounds like here in France people,many students, are reluctant to adhere to any approach of this idea

                                                                     they said that this theory has no scientific background

                                                                         It is pure theoretical and even non sense

Travis:  Well, it’s true that there is very little basis for the current theories.

But does that mean that there is no unified “theory of everything”?

I doubt it.

We only understand 0.001% of the entire universe.

                           me:  well, if people challenge the basic hypothesis of a given theory ;

                 it is likely that they will not be able to agree upon the    aftermath logics that it implies

Travis:  Very true.

The problem is that people seem to get hung-up on one idea — like String Theory.

 me:  so, that theory appears to many as mere fanstamagoric scheme

Travis:  String Theory is elegant, but it does little to unify everything.

                          me:  yes that string theory this is the theory i talked about

 Travis:  At best, it has some mathematical relationships with certain natural phenomena, but it breaks down in places too.

 me:  places like? what are the limits suggested?any idea?

 Travis:  The very-very large and the very-very small.

Have you read: “the elegant universe”

?

 me:  could this theory be able to unify the 4 forces of nature? as for you?

of that aim is likely impossible?

 Travis:  No. I think the aim is possible, but String Theory is not the answer.

We need to fundamentally understand certain things (gravity, for instance) at a much deeper level than we do now before we can hope to understand the “unification” of these forces.

                                                    me:  could one single theory explain all relationships between the infinite large and the small ; it is dubious to believe in

Travis:  Think of it like Newton’s laws of gravitation.

 me:  but we do grasp many things about gravity since Newton

                                                                                                                              and Einstein, i guess

 Travis:  Sure, but it was Newton’s laws that got us to the moon. No fancy math needed.

The point is: the laws of Newton are imprecise, but they work good enough for certain things.

Who’s to say we won’t keep moving in this direction.

                                                                                                me:  so, what  about the dark energy?

Travis:  We keep refining what we know, and pretty soon we have better theories.

Dark energy is another interesting topic.

I have a friend that studies nothing but dark energy.

I think it’s just another variable we need to contend with. The evidence for its existence is there, but we need to come up with a way to measure it directly…

                                                                 me:  what may be the evidences? that one suggested by the theory of relativity of einstein? and discrepancy shown in the motion of celestial bodies  nearby a dying star? is it what u are talking about?

Travis:  Yes, in a way. More indirect evidence is on the disturbances in galactic motion found in distant galaxies.

They run the numbers and find that there must be more than the visible mass.

So, we know that there is something there, but we cannot seem to measure it. Hence: dark energy.

                                                  me:  there is  a fallacious statement in what you say u know ;

                                                               u should have said we asssume there is something

                                                                that causes the bodies to behave like that

                                              but saying  there is evidence something is there we cannot measure

                                                                                                             so it is dark energy

Travis:  You’re right — I was being mostly sarcastic.

                                                                                                me:  it is not ( really) logic? lol

                                                                                                                                                     alright

Travis:  Nevertheless, the likelihood that there is something there is high.

 me:  what if it happened that there is no dark energy?

                                             what if this is something we cannot measure ? maybe a kind of force

                                                                                             that we did not take into account so far?

                                                                                                 do u think that a possible dark energy

                                                                                                                       that we cannot measure

Travis:  Could be. The name ‘dark energy’ is still appropriate, though, in that context.

 me:  could attract so quickly galactical bodies

                                                                                                                                     at such a speed?

Travis:  We haven’t even gotten into “local disturbances” to “universal” constants.

                                                                    me:  i think only force can attract set of bodies but                  what kind of force?

                                                                                                                      that is a good question?

                                            Maybe, we should stop looking at this « dark energy » as an energy?

 Travis:  Maybe it’s just gravity — but maybe there are differences in the gravitational constant in different regions of the universe.

                                                    me:  or trying to find another possible interpretation

including the possible existence of a force of nature that we barely know of

Travis:  It could very well be that you are correct. (to be continued)

” Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails and where anyone else is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither person nor property will be safe”. Frederick Douglass.

Favourite Quote

The Washington Post (January 5th 1978) reported that the university of Richmond Professor, Dr Robert Alley, lost the chairmanship of the Department of Religion there because he holds the view that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. After considerable research into newly found ancient documents, Dr Alley concluded:
“The (Bible) passages where Jesus talks about the son of God are later additions…what the church said about him. Such a claim of deity for himself would not have been consistent with his entire lifestyle as we can reconstruct. For the first three decades after Jesus’ death Christianity continued as a sect within Judaism. The first three decades of its existence of the church were within the synagogue. That would have been beyond belief if they (the followers) had boldly proclaimed the deity of Jesus”
If Jesus was neither “Son of God” nor God Himself, then he must have been a simple human being. Therefore, he must have died naturally as one new and ambitious and scholarly interpretation of the equivocal verses regarding the natural death of Christ suggested by the Koran must be the only plausible explanation to provide for the answer of the riddle. On one hand the general view about whether or not Jesus died naturally will be discussed; on the other hand, the rebuttal viewpoint of famous scholars will be presented as well. All of these discussions and arguments are quoted from following websites ( www.muslim.org/islam/death; www.irfi.org; www.geocities.com/athens; www.aaiil.com) . The conclusion of this short analysis is left to the judgment of the reader. If we have no right to sway the judgment of people, it must be précised that the conclusion drawn by the ( Sunni) scholar Mahmud Shalchut is really wise. As far as our own view is concerned, it is most likely reasonable to acknowledge that Jesus indeed did die from a natural death, and the promise of God to honor his spiritual, religious and moral status among the believers has always been fulfilled even with the advent of the final Prophet and messenger from the seeds of Abraham -as previously prophesized in the original Gospel of Jesus- was occurred: Muhammed- The Seal of Prophet hood and of all prophets.(Koran has always shown how mighty, virtuous, and righteous the Prophet Jesus was by confirming thereby some prophesy of Jesus himself regarding the upcoming of the final Messengership and Prophet hood of Ahmed (May God bless both of them). As a matter of fact, we have a last messenger and a last revelation of God that the whole humanity is invited to follow, but not blindly. That is because God says in the holy Koran that there is no compulsion in matters of religion whatsoever.

There are a number of hadiths which speak of the return of Jesus Christ to this world when he will resume his mission of preaching the message of the Oneness of Allah. That will definitely be the Divine message in its final form, i.e. Islam, as preached by Prophet Muhammad (peace be on them both). Those Hadiths and the Quranic statements which speak of the raising of the Prophet Jesus provide a full justification for the view of the majority of scholars that Jesus Christ did not die but was raised by Allah and that he will make a second appearance at a time which will be appointed by Allah Himself and known to Him alone. However, there are references to Jesus Christ in the Quran which use a term that is most frequently used to indicate death although not necessarily so. Linguistically speaking, the word means the completion of a term. When it refers to life, it means the completion of one’s life and its termination by death. It is used in this sense in other verses of the Quran. Dr. Kamal Umar quotes these verses in his book and translates them as referring to the death of Jesus. Thus, he gives the translation of Verse 55 of Surah 3 as follows: “When Allah said: Isa! (this is the Arabic name of Jesus) certainly I would cause you to die and would raise you to Myself and will protect you from those people who rejected you.” In this respect, Dr. Umar is not alone. A number of scholars, some of them prominent indeed, have expressed this view and argued that this expression which occurs in three different verses in the Quran, means actually that Jesus Christ died a natural death. They point out that Allah has protected him from his enemies, by foiling their attempts to kill or crucify him. There is no argument among Muslim scholars that Jesus Christ was neither killed nor crucified. But, as you see, some scholars argue that he died a natural death.
When these scholars refer to the “Ascension” of Jesus, or, to use the Quranic expression, his being raised to Allah, they interpret this as having an abstract sense. According to them, it means that his position with Allah has been enhanced and he has been given a very high status. This is indeed the case, because Jesus Christ is one of the five messengers of Allah who have shown the greatest resolve in their service of Allah’s cause. The other four are: Noah, Abraham, Moses and Muhammad (peace be on them all).
When these scholars speak about the Hadiths which tell of the second coming of Jesus Christ and what he will be doing, such as breaking the cross, killing the pig and preaching the message of the Oneness of Allah, they cast strong doubts about their authenticity. Their argument is not without validity. Where does this leave us? The answer is that there are two views: The first, which is held by a majority of scholars, is that Jesus Christ did not die but was raised by Allah and that he will make a second coming at a time determined by Allah, when he will be preaching the message of Islam. The other view is that Jesus Christ died a natural death after Allah had saved him from his enemies. Both groups of scholars agree that Jesus Christ was neither killed nor crucified. Needless to say, those who subscribe to the second view do not speak of a second coming of Jesus Christ.
What we need to know is that the raising of Jesus Christ alive to Heaven is not an article of Islamic faith. This means that if a person denies it he is not an unbeliever. A person is not considered to be an unbeliever for preferring a reasonable and valid interpretation of a Quranic verse. Had the Quranic verse been of the sort that cannot admit more than one interpretation, then denying its meaning could easily land the person who makes such a denial in the class of non-believers. This means that a person may adopt the view he prefers, but when he does so, he should arrive at the conclusion he prefers after carefully studying the matter and considering the evidence each group of scholars supply in support of their view. Dr. Umar has made a choice to which he is certainly entitled. I chose the other view and I am equally entitled to it.

Rebuttal and Refutation of physical ascension and affirmation of natural death

In the last section of the Fifth Sura of the Quran (Sura Al-Ma’idah), on questioning from Allah, whether he taught Trinity to his people, Hazrat JesusAS’ denial is mentioned in clear words. It is further stated by him that he is not even aware of their associating him with God. Then continuing his exoneration from the blame, he says:
“I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me– `Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’ and I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them, and Thou art Witness over all things.” (5:118)
The corruption of the Christians has been categorically stated in the Holy Quran:
“Indeed they are disbelievers who say, `Surely Allah is none but the Messiah, son of Mary’.” (5:73) “They are surely disbelievers who say’, `Allah is the third of three; `there is no God but the One God.” (5:74)
As God in the name of Hazrat JesusAS declares that Christians became corrupt after the death of Hazrat JesusAS, how can we think that Hazrat JesusAS is not dead but alive in heaven?
Imam Bukhari in his book, Sahih Bukhari–the most authentic book after the Book of God, has quoted the saying of Hazrat Ibn Abbasra under the commentary of Verse 5:118: “Qaala Ibno Abbasin Mutawaffeeka Mumeetoka”, i.e., Hazrat Ibn Abbasra said, the meaning of Tawafee is death.
Again, we also read in the Holy Quran:
“O Jesus! indeed I will cause thee to die and exalt thee to Myself, and will clear thee of (the charges of) those who disbelieve, and will place those who follow thee above those who deny thee, until the Day of Resurrection.” (3:56)
Hadhrat JesusAS was exalted (or raised) to God after his death like all other righteous servants of God. The words `exalt thee’ or `raise thee’ come after the words `cause to die’. We have no right to change the order of the Holy Quran.
Another verse of the Holy Quran runs thus:
“And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, (all) Messengers have passed away before him. If then he die or be slain, will you turn your back on your heels?” (3:145)
In this verse of the Holy Quran the passing away of all the Messengers who came before the ProphetSAW has been pronounced. As a matter of fact this verse (3:145) has been revealed specifically to declare the death of Hadhrat JesusAS, as the passing away of other Messengers had already been mentioned in 5:76 wherein Allah says:
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a Messenger; surely Messengers like unto him had indeed passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman. They both used to eat food.”
It is an admitted fact that the ceasing of Mary’s eating was due to her death, hence, on the same analogy, the ceasing of Hadhrat Jesus’AS eating too was due to his death, as both have been mentioned equally.
Regarding the above quoted verse (3:145), it should be noted that when the ProphetSAW died, the companions went into a shock with grief. Hadhrat Umarra, of all persons, was so afflicted by grief that he unsheathed his sword and declared that whosoever said the ProphetSAW was dead would lose his head. He began to say that the ProphetSAW had disappeared temporarily from their midst, even as Hadhrat MosesAS had disappeared on a call from God. Hadhrat MosesAS returned to his people after forty days, so would the Holy ProphetSAW. None of the companions dared to resist and deny what he said. Imam Bukhari reports:
“Abdullah Bin Abbas narrated that Abu Bakr came out while Umar was conversing with the people. He said to Umar to sit but he refused to comply with. So, the people turned towards him (Abu Bakr) and left Umar. Then Abu Bakr said: Whoever amongst you worshipped Muhammad, let him know that Muhammad is dead, and whoever amongst you worshipped Allah, let him know that Allah is Living, there is no death for Him. Allah has said, `And Muhammad is only a Messenger. Verily, all Messengers have passed away before him…’ The narrator says, by God, the people did not know that God had sent down this verse until Abu Bakr has recited it. So, the people in their entirety learnt it from him; then, whosoever amongst the people heard it recited it. Then Saeed Bin Musayyeb has told me, that Umar swearing by God said, did not know of this verse till he heard it from Abu Bakr, and consequently his legs could not support him, he staggered and fell down in an outburst of grief.” (Bukhari Kitabun Nabiyye Ila Kisra Wa Qaisara, Musnad Imam Abu Hanifa, p. 188, Hamamul Islamiyya, p. 54, Bukhari, Vol. 2, Manaqib Abu Bakr)
Now, if the companions present on this occasion thought that Hadhrat JesusAS had been alive in Heaven for 600 years, they would have stood up and pointed out to Hadhrat Abu Bakrra, that it was wrong to say that all the earlier prophets had died. If Hadhrat JesusAS could remain alive, why not the Holy ProphetSAW? All the companions who heard this verse (3:145) and heard Hadhrat Abu Bakrra’s argument based upon the verse, not only remained silent but accepted the fact the Prophet (SAW) had passed away and no other Messenger was alive. This proves beyond doubt that the companions agreed with Hadhrat Abu Bakr’sAS interpretation of the verse that all prophets before the ProphetSAW had died.
Another verse of the Holy Quran which proves the death of Hadhrat JesusAS is:
“We granted not abiding life to any human being before thee. If then thou shouldst die, shall they have abiding life?” (21:35)
God loves the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be on him) more than He loves anyone else. He was the purpose for all creation as in a Hadith, Allah is quoted to have said: “Had I not created thee I would have created neither heaven nor earth.”
Hence, if any man deserved to remain alive and ascend to heaven, it was our ProphetSAW. If he has died in the usual way, other prophets have died in the same way. Knowing this, how can we think the ProphetSAW should die in the normal way and be buried here in this earth, and Hadhrat JesusAS should go to Heaven and remain alive for these two thousand years? The Prophet (saw) had to go through all kinds of pain and suffering, torture and threats of death by the hands of his enemies, and yet was not lifted up in the Heaven for his protection, but when the life of Jesus was threathen by his enemies, Allah just picked him up phyically and took him to heavens and has kept him alive over 2000 years!
Hadhrat JesusAS is also among those to whom they call beside Allah (5:73), hence, he is dead.
THE TRADITIONS
1. The ProphetSAW said:
“If Moses and Jesus had been alive, they would have had to believe in me and follow me.” (Zurqani, Vol. VI, p. 54, Tibrani Kabeer, Alyawaqeet Wal Jawahir, Vol. II, p. 23)
2. During his last illness, the ProphetSAW said to his daughter Hadhrat Fatimara:
“Once in every year, Gabriel recited the Quran to me. This year he recited twice. He also told me that every succeeding prophet has lived to half the age of his predecessor. He told me that Jesus, son of Mary, lived to 120 years. Therefore, I think, I may live to about 60 years.” (Mawahib-ud-Duniya by Qastalani, Vol. I, p. 42, Kanzul Ummal Vol. 6, p. 160)
________________________________________
REFUTATION OF ARGUMENTS GIVEN IN SUPPORT OF JESUS’ PHYSICAL ASCENSION TO HEAVEN
ARGUMENT: Allah says in the Holy Quran: “…But they killed him (Jesus) not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubt, with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow, for a surely they killed him not; Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.” (4:158-159)
REFUTATION: This verse does not testifies to the phyical ascention of Jesus to God! It would be absurd to think that one who is neither murdered, nor dies on the Cross has to necessarily ascend bodily to heaven. The words Maa Salabooho deny his having died on the cross , but do not deny the fact of Hadhrat Jesus’AS being nailed to the cross. In crucifixion one was nailed to a framework made in the form of a cross and then, being kept without food and drink, was made to die of pain, hunger, fatigue, bleeding and exposure.
ARGUMENT: The words Wa Laakin Shubbiha Lahum in verse 4:158 means that the likeness of Hadhrat JesusAS was cast upon another person–(Judas or somebody else) who was then crucified in place of Hazrat Jesusas.
REFUTATION: The curious part of it is that there is not only one story that speaks of the casting of the likeness of Hadhrat JesusAS, there are several stories. But intelligent commentators like Abu Hayyaan have discarded all such stories. The word Shubbiha means, he was made to appear like, or was made to resemble. Now the question arises, who is the person who was made to appear “like one crucified”. Clearly it was Hadhrat JesusAS whom the Jews tried to crucify or slay. Nobody else can be meant here, for there is absolutely no reference to any other person in the context. The context cannot be twisted as to make room for somebody else of whom no mention at all is made in the verse. To what then was Hadhrat JesusAS made like? The context provides a clear answer to that question. The Jews did not kill him by crucifixion, but he was made to appear to them like “one crucified”, and thus it was that they wrongly took him for dead. It was thus Hadhrat JesusAS who was made to resemble “one crucified”. This interpretation is not only in perfect harmony with the context but is also clearly borne out by all relevant facts of history.
The second meaning of the _expression Shubbiha Lahum is, that “the matter became confused to them.” This interpretation is also clearly borne out by history, for, although the Jews asserted that they had put Hadhrat JesusAS to death by suspending him on the cross, they were not sure of it and the circumstances being obscure, the matter had certainly become confused to them. The fact that the Jews themselves were not sure whether Hadhrat JesusAS had actually died on the Cross is supported by the Bible and by all authentic historical facts.
ARGUMENT: The words in verse 4:159 Bal Rafa’ahollaho Ilaihi –”Nay Allah raised him up unto Himself” clearly shows that Allah lifted Hadhrat Jesus’AS body to heaven.
REFUTATION: As a matter of fact the referred Arabic words simply mean that Allah exalted him (Hadhrat JesusAS) to Himself. Here the exaltation is the exaltation of the soul of which the Jews were trying to deprive him by putting to death through crucifixion, but Allah frustrated them in their evil designs.
In the Holy Quran, the Traditions of the Holy ProphetSAW, the Commentaries and in the Arabic idioms, whenever the word Rafa’a is used by Allah for a human being, it always connotes exaltation of ranks and spiritual nearness, because no fixed abode can be, or has ever been, assigned to God. Allah the Exalted in not fixed in any one point in space!
The Holy Quran declares: “And He is Allah, both in the heavens and in the earth.” (6:4) “So withersoever you turn, there will be the face of Allah.” (2:116) “And We are nearer to him than even his jugular vein.” (50:17) Hence, Rafa’a Ilallah does not necessitate one’s physical ascension to heaven, rather this Rafa’a–exaltation is achieved on this very earth.
As a matter of fact that word Rafa’a has never been used in the entire Holy Quran nor in the Traditions of the Holy ProphetSAW as a connotation of physical ascension to heaven as is clear from the following references:
1. Wa Lau Shi’naa La Rafa’anaaho Bihaa Wa Laakinnahoo Akhlada Ilal Ardhi–”And if We had pleased, We would have exalted him thereby; but he inclined to the earth.” (7:177) Here the commentators are unanimous in their interpretation of the exaltation of the ranks of the referred person. It is never meant to indicate the intention of physically raising up the referred person to heaven.
2. Wa Rafa’anaaho Makaanan Aliyyaa–”And We exalted him (Hadhrat IdrisAS) to lofty station.” (19:58) Likewise see: 24:37; 80:14-15; 56:35; 58:12.
3. Idha Tawaza Al-Abdo Rafa’ahollaho Ilas Samaa Is-Saabiati–”When a person shows humility, Allah lifts him up to the seventh heaven.” (Kanzul Ummaal Vol. 2, page 53) This Hadith clearly shows that even if the word Samaa (sky) had been used here instead of Allah, the verse could not have meant anything else but spiritual honor and exaltation. It is hard to believe that every act of humility literally lifts a person up to heaven in both body and spirit? Why then draw such inference in the case of JesusAS? Why should he be sent up to heaven alive? Was not this earth sufficient for him as the Quran declared: Alam Najalil Arza Kifaatan Ahya’an Wa Amwaatan–”Have We not made the earth sufficient for the living and the dead?” (77:26-27)
4. All the Muslims are aware of the fact that there occurs the word Warfa’anee (and exalt me) in the prayer which the ProphetSAW used to pray between two Sajdas (prostrations). (Kitab Ibn Maja) All the Muslims supplicate this prayer between two Sajdas in their Salat, but does any one ever think that he is supplicating for his physical ascension to heaven? Or, is there any doubt regarding the Holy ProphetSAW’s Rafa’a (exaltation of ranks) despite his sojourn on this very earth?
ARGUMENT: Allah says in the Holy Quran: “And there is none of the people of the Book must believe in him before his death and on the Day of Judgement he will be a witness against them.” (4:160) As Jews and Christians have not all believed in Hadhrat JesusAS, therefore, he must be alive with his physical body in heaven, and after descending from heaven in the last days he shall turn them into believers.
REFUTATION: Although the words of verse 4:160 do not show that Hadhrat JesusAS is now sitting in the sky in his physical body, yet the fantastic conclusion is drawn. But it is forgotten that if Hadhrat JesusAS be supposed to be alive, even then all Jews and Christians cannot believe in Hadhrat JesusAS; because many generations of them are dead. How can they then believe? So it is clear that if they have all to believe in Hadhrat JesusAS, it must be supposed that along with him the Jews and Christians are also alive, which is obviously absurd.
The Holy Quran very clearly states about the Jews:
1. “Nay, but Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe no but little.” (4:156)
2. “So, We have caused enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection.” (5:15)
3. “When Allah said, O Jesus, I will cause thee to die…and will place those who follow thee above those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection.” (3:56)
These verses clearly show that all Jews shall not believe in Hadhrat JesusAS. The correct translation of the verse 4:160 without twisting words so as to yield far-fetched meanings is: “And there is none among the People of the Book but will believe in it (the crucifixion of Jesus) before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) shall be a witness among them.” What the Quranic verse lays down is that every Jew and Christian must according to their creeds, continue to believe in the death of Hadhrat JesusAS on the Cross. The Jew because he wants to show that according to Deuteronomy 21:23 the curse of God fell upon Hadhrat JesusAS, and the Christian because he wants to affirm the doctrine of Atonement as mentioned in Galatians 3:13. So both these peoples go on sticking to their false belief in Jesus’AS death on the Cross for their own reasons.

Natural Death of Jesus(pbuh)
Muslims all over the world uphold the Christian faith that Jesus(pbuh) is alive. The whole foundation of the Christian faith is rested on this concept and most Muslims overtly support their viewpoint. Somehow the Christian concept has infiltrated in Muslim faith long ago and now it seems it is part and parcel of Islamic concept.
Muslims take the help of two sites from the Holy Quran to obtain support for their viewpoint. The verses are 3:54 from Surah Al-e Imran and 4:157-158 from Surah An-Nisa’. We will give you correct translation of the verses, word for word, so that you can get the point. It is a sad that many Muslims blame the correct translation to be false and cite incorrect translations as authentic. We will show you several examples of correct and incorrect translations so that any sensible person can find out the true picture.

Analysis of the verse 3:54 from Surah Ale Imran
In the verse 3:54 Allah says:

3:54 Behold! Allah Said: “O Isa! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me and I shall clear you of those who reject Faith, and I am going to make those who follow you above those who reject Faith – until the day of Awakening. Then towards Me is your return, so that I shall decide among you as to in which you used to differ.
They key words here are : Ya Isa, inni mutawaffika wa rafi’uka ilaiya
Meaning: “O Isa! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me…..”

Interpretation of the word ‘wafat’:
The key word here is “wafat” . The most correct meaning of “wafat” is death, or take away soul. If soul is taken away from a person, it is nothing but death. The problem arises with regards to this verse, when Muslims refuse to interpret the meaning of “wafat” as death. Irony is that all scholars who translated the Holy Quran do agree “wafat” means death. Each and every scholar translated the word “wafat” as death in at least 20 different instances in their translations. However, in this particular verse, they interpreted the meaning as ‘take away’ and insinuate physical ascension. These translators did not hesitate to twist the actual meaning of the word of Allah to support Christian faith and to some extent weak Hadith narrated by Wahab bin Munnabba, Kab Akbar and one isolated Hadith by Abu Hurairaa.
While the Quran is the word of Allah, Hadith is word of a person. Hadith is not the words of Allah. A person can err, Allah can not err. That is why we often refer to some Hadith as Sahih Hadith – i.e. True Hadith. Because some Hadith may not be true. We don’t say the same thing about the Quran that some of its verses are Sahih verse and some are doubtful! This fact itself indicates that a few Hadith are not absolutely correct. Hadith is the sayings of prophet Muhammad(pbuh), but the prophet himself did not write down the Hadith. Several generation after the death of the prophet, Hadith was compiled by scholars. In this process hundreds of Hadith were rejected as they appeared to be false. In the end when the scholars agreed that a particular Hadith is correct, it was compiled into a book.
In spite of this we consider some Hadith to be true and some as weak. Some Muslims even say that for one correct Hadith there are thousands of false Hadith. This boils down to the fact that there are few Hadith that are not true. Fact remains that Hadith is a collection of words of a person, by persons. Please don’t misunderstand, I am not saying reject all Hadith.
My contention is that the position of the Quran is superior to Hadith. Whenever a Hadith comes to contradict a Quranic verse, the Quran must prevail, not the Hadith. But to most Muslims, the argument is Hadith has to be correct no matter what, because so many scholars unanimously certified that those are Sahih or True!!! So to ratify a Hadith, let the Quran become wrong or let one verse of the Quran contradict another verse, who cares? Let Allah’s word be confusing and contradictory, a Muslim is happy because to him Hadith is absolute!!! What a shame!
In the verse 3:54, two conditions are stipulated about Jesus(pbuh):
first, Allah will cause his Death,
second, he will be raised.
The second condition can not take place till the first condition is met. In other words, before Jesus(pbuh) can be raised, first, he must die. Let us see various translations of the same verse.
Correct translation : “O Isa! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me…”
Yusuf Ali : “O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself…”
Pickthall : “O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto Me…”
Rashad Khalifa : “O Jesus! I am terminating your life, raising you to Me…..”
Mohammad Sarwar : He told Jesus, “I will save you from your enemies, raise you to Myself…”
M. H. Shakir : “O Isa! I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me”
Al-Hilali & M. Khan “O ‘Iesa (Jesus)! I will take you and raise you to Myself….”
Farooq-i-Azam Malik: “O Isa (Jesus)! I am going to recall you (from your mission) and raise you up to Myself….”
Ahmed Ali: “O Jesus! I will take you to Myself and exalt you…..”

Critique: (****Most Correct, *** Fairly Correct. **Incorrect, *Grossly incorrect)

Yusuf Ali: “take thee” is not the appropriate meaning of “wafat”. ‘Take thee’ may mean death in a literal sense, but looks like Yusuf Ali avoided the debate whether it was death or physical rising. Thus he left the issue with plenty of conjecture. Elsewhere, wherever the word “wafat” was used in the Holy Quran, Yusuf Ali translated the word as “take soul” “die” or “death”. But in this case he is in utter confusion. Rating ***
Pickthall: “Lo!” is an extra word interpolated in the Quran. “I am gathering” is way off the closest meaning of “wafat”. Allah uses a future verb here, use of “I am” is grossly incorrect. Similarly, “causing” is a present verb and is wrong. By using “ascend” Pickthall is insinuating a physical rising rather than exalt in honor. Rating **
Rashad Khalifa: Use of present verb “I am” is wrong. Similarly, “terminating” and “rising” are present verbs and are wrong, however, use of terminating as meaning of death is more accurate than ‘collect’ or ‘recall’. Rating ***
Mohammad Sarwar: He left out the word “O Jesus” in the translation. Here Allah addressed Jesus(pbuh) by name. To translate the word as Allah told Jesus is inappropriate. “Save you from the enemies” is extra word interpolated in the Quran! Sarwar totally omitted the word “warafiuka” in his translation, instead interpolated his own thoughts in the translation. Rating * or worse.
M.H. Shakir: “terminate the period of your stay (on earth)” is verbose. This could very well mean death, but when he added ‘on earth’ in parenthesis, his intention is obvious. He is not referring to death. Rather, Shakir is clearly referring to Jesus’(pbuh) tenure on the earth is over and now he is spending the rest of his life in the outside of the earth. Rating **
Al-Hilali & M. Khan: Translation is identical to that of Yusuf Ali. “take you” is not the appropriate meaning of “wafat”. ‘Take you’ may mean death in a literary sense, but looks like Hilali & Khan avoided the debate whether it was death or physical rising. Thus he left the issue with plenty of conjecture. Elsewhere, wherever the word “wafat” was used in the Holy Quran, they translated the word as “die” or “death”. Rating ***
Farooq Malik: Strong denial to use ‘death’ as the meaning – instead there is obvious suggestion that Jesus’s mission is temporarily stopped, to be resumed in future! Far too many unwarranted words to justify his conditioned faith learned during childhood or in heresy. Use of ‘recall from your mission’ is nothing but clear suggestion that death did not occur. Rating *
Ahmed Ali: Utter confusion and awkward denial to use the word ‘death’. Ali admits that Jesus will be exalted in status, but confused about what happened prior to exaltation. First Jesus will be taken to Allah and then exalted. Ali failed miserably in translating the sentence as presented by Allah. Rating *
From this analysis we can see how these scholars have changed the words of Allah according to their own will and to support what they learned during their childhood and now they are conditioned to think that way. Some have mistaken the correct use of verbs(Pickthall, Khalifa). Some have omitted key words and interpolated fabricated words (Pickthall, Sarwar, Malik) and passed it over as Allah’s word! To derive a remote synonym for a word is one thing (Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Al-Hilali & M. Khan. Malik) but to fabricate additional words and omit key words are gross act of negligence and corruption.
The most correct meaning of the word “wafat” is death. Wherever in the Holy Quran the word “wafat” is used, all these translators derived the meaning as death, except in this verse 3:54, where they don’t see “wafat” as death!!!! What is the problem here? Why are they contradicting the meaning of ‘wafat’? What stops them from translating the words of Allah in its true context? They are seeing imaginary words only to support heresy they learned during their childhood.
Here are some of the verses in the Holy Quran where Allah used the word “wafat”. The verses are 2:234, 2:240, 3:193, 4:15, 4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 7:126, 8:50, 10:46, 10:104, 12:101, 13:40, 16:28, 16:32, 16:70, 39:42, 40:67, 40:77, 47:27 etc. In each of the instances, all these scholars translated the word “wafat” as death, or a word very close to death but none of them used a word to mean take away in alive condition. Let us examine some of the verses and see how these translators derived the meaning of “wafat” in these instances.
Verse 3:193
Yusuf Ali: “…and take to Thyself our souls in the company of the righteous”
Pickthall: “…and make us die the death of the righteous.”
Khalifa: “…..let us die as righteous believers”
Sarwar: “…let us die with the righteous ones.”
Shakir: “….and make us die with the righteous.”
Hilali & Khan: “……and make us die in the state of righteousness….”
Farooq Malik: “…And make us die with the righteous.”
Ahmed Ali: “…And grant us (the glory of) death with the just.”
Verse 4:15
Yusuf Ali: “…until death to claim them….”
Pickthall: “…until death take them….”
Khalifa: “…until they die,…”
Sarwar: “…until they die…”
Shakir: “….until death takes them away…”
Hilali & Khan: “…until death comes to them…”
Farooq Malik: “…until they die…”
Ahmed Ali: “…until death …”
Verse 7:126
Yusuf Ali: “…and take our soul unto thee as Muslims!”
Pickthall: “…and make us die as men who have surrendered.”
Khalifa: “…And let us die as submitters.”
Sarwar: “…let us die Muslims (submitted to God).”
Shakir: “…and cause us to die in submission.”
Hilali & Khan: “…And cause us to die as Muslims.”
Farooq Malik: “…And cause us to die as Muslims.”
Ahmed Ali: “….that we may die submitting (to You).”
Verse 10:46
Yusuf Ali: “…or We take thy soul…”
Pickthall: “…cause thee to die,…”
Khalifa: “…or terminate your life….”
Sarwar: “…or you die…”
Shakir: “….or cause you to die….”
Hilali & Khan: “…. – or We cause you to die,- ….
Farooq Malik: “…Or cause you to die….”
Ahmed Ali: “…or take you to Ourself,…”
Verse 12:101
Yusuf Ali: “…take Thou my soul (at death) as one submitting…”
Pickthall: “… Make me to die muslim (unto Thee), …”
Khalifa: “…Let me die as submitter…”
Sarwar: “…cause me to die as a Muslim…”
Shakir: “…make me die a Muslim….”
Hilali & Khan: “…cause me to die as a Muslim…”
Farooq Malik: “… make me die as a Muslim …”
Ahmed Ali: “…let me die submitting to You.”
You many go ahead and verify the translations of all other verses. If you do so, you will start discovering an emerging corruption (pardon me) by all the scholars. They misguided you by not translating a word correctly. Given all these facts, may we conclude that Jesus(pbuh) must die first before he can be raised?
Some Muslims say that ‘wafat’ here means death of Jesus(pbuh) after his descent from the Heavens in the later years. Good thing is that these Muslims do agree that ‘wafat’ means death! Please note, the verse here clearly denotes his relationship with his own people and not with any other people of the later days. The people of the later days would admittedly be followers of Muhammad(pbuh) and not of Jesus(pbuh). [Also see: Did Allah Say Jesus(pbuh) will Come Down?]

Interpretation of the word “rafa” – to raise/to exalt:
In the same verse 3:54 use of two words “wafat” and “rafa” may have led you to a double jeopardy. On top of that you are under constant influence of Christian doctrine. As a result you simply believe that Jesus(pbuh) did not die and instead was raised alive in heaven. In doing so, you are actually believing the Christian faith and failing to see the true teaching of the Quran. Not only that, now you are making one verse of the Quran contradict another.
The meaning of the word is ‘to raise’, ‘to exalt’. In order to validate the Christian faith, first, you refuse to see ‘wafat’ as death, and then interpret ‘rafa’ as physical ascension. When these two incorrect interpretations are combined, you find that Jesus(pbuh) was raised to the heaven.
Let us examine the use of the word ‘rafa’ in the Quran. The word ‘rafa’ occurred many times in the Quran conveying a meaning of spiritual honor and exaltation. Please note carefully what Allah says in the verse. He is saying that Jesus(pbuh) will be raised towards Him and not towards Heaven. So the question of Jesus(pbuh) being alive in the Heaven can not arise, because he was not raised in the Heaven. In the literal context even if we think that he was raised bodily near Allah, question comes, where is Allah? Is He ensconced somewhere in the sky, in Heaven or in a throne like a king? Didn’t Allah say that He is omnipresent – in other words, He is present everywhere? Would you say that Allah is confined in a physical body towards which He raised Jesus(pbuh)? Please answer, how can Jesus(pbuh) be raised to sky or Heaven when Allah said he will be raised towards Him. And that Allah is present everywhere (2:115); Allah is nearer to man than his heart (8:24); Allah is nearer to man than his jugular vein (50:16).
If that be true, then Jesus(pbuh) could not have been raised physically and bodily in to the sky. If really he was needed to be raised bodily towards Allah, then he could very well stay in Jerusalem, yet be near Allah – because Allah is present everywhere and in Jerusalem too.
This drives home the true meaning of the word ‘rafa’ – exalt in honor and/or exalt in spiritual dignity. This verse tells us that while the Jews were planning to kill him, (he will not be killed, rather) Allah will cause him to die a natural death and sanctify him against the charges of the enemies. Once again, please notice the sentence: Ya Isa, inni mutawaffika WA rafi’uka ilaiya… that is ‘rafa’ will take place only after the ‘wafat’. ‘Rafa’ after death can not mean physical ascension, but only exaltation in rank. This is more implied when the words ‘I shall clear you of those who reject Faith’ are present with it. This shows that while Jews plotted heinous crime against him, and brought him utter disgrace and condemned him as a cheat and planned to put him to a shameful death on the cross etc. Allah will instead save him and exalt him in honor and dignity.
Since the use of the word ‘rafa’ raised Jesus(pbuh) alive, the use of the same word in case of other prophets must do the same thing! Ask yourself, if you know of any other prophet who was raised alive in the Heaven? None? What about Prophet Idris(pbuh)? Regarding Idris(pbuh) Allah says in Surah Maryam 19:57 as: And We raised him to an elevated state. (WA rafa’naa hu…). The use of ‘rafa’ here should prompt you to declare that Allah raised Idris(pbuh) in alive condition in the Heaven or at least to a place hanging high above. If we apply the same logic, in case of Jesus(pbuh), use of the word ‘rafa’ kept him alive for 2000 years; therefore the same use of the word ‘rafa’ in case of Idris(pbuh) must keep him alive for 2000 years or so. The problem now is about these two alive people in the Heaven – Jesus(pbuh) and Idris(pbuh). The Muslims already made stories and speculations that Jesus(pbuh) will descend from the Heaven in the later days, but what about Idris(pbuh)? Has Idris(pbuh) come down already or when is he going to descend or is he going to stay there perpetually?
The word ‘rafa’ was used in different places in the Quran to mean spiritual honor and exaltation. Let us see some of the examples:
Great Prophets like Muhammad(pbuh) are exalted.
43:32 …And We have raised some of them above others in rank. (…WA rafa’ na…)
94:4 And We have exalted for you your mention (…WA rafa’ NA…)
Prophet Ibrahim(pbuh) has been exalted by Allah.
6:84 ….We exalt in degrees whom We please (…narfa’u darazaa…)
Prophet Idris(pbuh) has been exalted by Allah.
19:57 And We raised him to an elevated state. (WA rafa’naa hu…)
Righteous servants of Allah are raised in degrees.
6:166 …and He raises some of you above the others in degrees…. (…WA rafa’ aa
ba’dakum…)
7:176 And had We wished We would invariably exalted him; …. (…rafa’naa hu….)
56:3 It will abase it will exalt (…rafi’aah…)
All good deeds are raised towards Allah.
35:10 …all pure speech and all good deed, –He exalts it…. (…yarfa’uhu. …)
House of pious Muslims are raised high by Allah.
24:36 in (certain) houses which Allah has permitted to be raised up… (…an turfa’a WA yuzkara…)

From this discussion we see that no where the use of ‘rafa’ meant physical ascension. However, in 3:54 verse, you would interpret physical ascension just to validate the Christian faith. Whereas, if we honestly translate the word ‘wafat’ as death, then ‘rafa’ after death cannot mean physical ascension, rather exaltation in honor.
The tendency of Muslims is to destroy the teaching of the Quran only to validate the Christian dogma. Believe it or not, many Muslims approach the Quran like hypocrites – believe part of it and reject part of it. Muslims don’t want to believe in the total Quran. When this is pointed out to you, your defensive answers are:
• all Muslims believe Jesus(pbuh) was raised alive, so I also believe it (I don’t care what the Quran says);
• if I believe Jesus(pbuh) was not raised alive, then I become Qadiani, and I don’t want to be a Qadiani;
• my forefathers believed Jesus(pbuh) was raised alive, were they wrong? I would rather follow my forefathers (instead of following the teaching of Quran).
I faced similar dilemma when I was approaching the truth. Eventually I was able to reconcile the verses of the Quran and not make one verse contradict another. I was able to come out of the influence of Christian faith in Islam and find out the true meanings. At this time I don’t care what Qadianis say. My identity is Muslim, my religion is Islam and I believe what Allah and Rasul say.
My aim is not to blame you for believing in certain way. My aim is to show you that you have been kept in darkness, away from the truth. Unlike others, I am not jumping into conclusions by force, rather I am trying to show you the true picture, and leaving the decision to yourself. With this let us revisit two verses from Surah Ale Imran, 3:53-54.
3:53 And they made plots and Allah made His plans. And Allah is the most Excellent of the plan-makers.
3:54 Behold! Allah said: ‘O Isa! I shall cause you to die and I shall exalt you towards me and I shall clear you of those who reject Faith, and I am going to make those who follow you above those who reject Faith – until the day of Awakening. Then towards me is your return so that I shall decide among you as to that in which you used to differ.
In case of each prophets, Allah made plans against plots made by oppressors. This is the practice of Allah to protect His messengers at the time of aggression of enemies. Allah protected Musa, Ibrahim, Yusuf, Lut, Muhammad (pbu them) to name a few. In case of Jesus(pbuh) snatching him away from the enemies and lifting him alive in the Heaven can not be called a subtle and better plan of Allah when neither was it in the power of Jews nor in the power of anybody to counter it. In fact a better and subtle plan can be designed against another plan when it is contrived in a parallel manner.

Analysis of the verses 4:157-158 from Surah An-Nisa’
Verse 4:157-158 from Surah An-Nisa’ are the other two verses often analyzed to prove that Jesus(pbuh) did not die. Let us examine to see if the contention is valid one or a corrupt analysis.
In the verse 4:157-158, Allah says:

4:157 And (because of) their saying: “Surely we have killed the Masih, – ‘Isa, son of Mar-yam” the Rasul of Allah, and they could not murder him, nor could they kill him by crucifixion, but he was made to resemble to them. And verily those who differ regarding him are certainly in a doubt about him. They have no knowledge about it but are merely following a guess; and they could not kill him for certain;
4:158 On the contrary, Allah exalted him towards Himself. And Allah is Exalted in Power, most Wise.
…WA ma qataluhu yaqinan (157). Bal rafa’ahu-llahu ilaihi …..(158)

The Jews always claimed that they killed the Masih, the son of Maryam. Allah is telling Muhammad(pbuh) that although they claimed that they killed the Masih, in reality they could not murder him nor could they kill him by crucifixion. Then again, in the very same verse, Allah is telling that they could not kill him for certain.
Two types of death are being discussed here (a) a general murder (b) killing by crucifixion. The Jews wanted to cause either of the two types of death to Jesus(pbuh). Allah assures us that they failed to cause either type of death to him. The traditional Muslim faith is that since Jesus(pbuh) was not murdered or killed by crucifixion, only possibility is that he is alive somewhere!!! Muslims totally ignore the fact that Jesus(pbuh) could have died a natural death later on! If Jesus(pbuh) died a natural death, it is still valid that the Jews could not (a) murder him or (b) kill him by crucifixion.

Crucify vs. Kill by Crucifixion:

Your strongest argument is that this verse clearly tells “…. They could not murder him nor could they crucify him….”. I have checked the translation of the word “swalabu” by Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Hilali & Khan, Rodwell, Sarwar, Khalifa and Shakir. They all translated the word as “crucify” and not “kill by crucifixion.” I would not say they are wrong. To understand the word ‘crucify’ you will have to apply your analytical mind.
The very intent of putting a person on the cross was to kill him as an evil or a wretched person. On few occasion if a person did not die on the cross, the Jews used to break his legs and hands and leave him to die. Jews would make sure that if a person was doomed for cross that person must die. Jews would not put a person on the cross and later let him walk away. So the meaning of crucifixion has an inherent sense of causing death thereby. Webster dictionary defines the word “crucify” as “to put to death by nailing or binding the hands and feet in a cross.” In case of Jesus(pbuh) if the scholars translate the word as “crucify” they are not wrong. But if we interpret the meaning that he was never ever hanged on the cross, then we are missing the entire message. If we further say that Jehova or someone else was hanged in his place, then we are really messing up everything and failing to see the true message of the Quran.
Please look carefully at the verse. The question of “killing” is the issue. In response to the claim by the Jews that they killed Jesus(pbuh), Allah’s reply is that (1) he was not killed or murdered in the normal fashion (2) he was not killed by crucifixion. This negates the possibility of Jews killing Jesus(pbuh) in any manner whatsoever, supported by the very last sentence of the same verse: “they could not kill him for certain.”
Invention of a story:
Although every attempt was done to prove that Jesus(pbuh) evaded death and was raised alive, because of verse 3:54, the Muslims could not prove conclusively that Jesus(pbuh) was raised alive. So they took the refuge of verses 4:157-158 to justify the belief. In order to substantiate the belief, now they invented a rambling story that has no support from the Quran. However, let us analyze the story.
According to the story, on the eve of actual crucifixion, a different person’s features became exactly like Jesus(pbuh). The Jews mistook the other person (Jehova?) as actual Jesus(pbuh) and hanged the wrong person on the cross. We don’t want to go into the debate of how absurd it is for person’s features to get changed. Let us give the benefit of doubt by saying that the other person’s features did not change but to the Jews it appeared so. They mistook the other person to be actual Jesus(pbuh).
Regardless of whether this story is true or false, regardless of whether Jesus(pbuh) was hanged on cross or not, fact remains that he could not have been raised before his DEATH, as testified by verse 3:54. If he was raised alive, then the verses 4:157-158 and 3:54 are in contradiction. The Muslim scholars will never want you find out that their preaching are contradictory and that they cannot conclusively reconcile these and several other verses.
Let me show you an extreme case of corruption. This translation is of verse 4:157, done by Hilali & Khan and published by the Saudi Government. They have placed Arabic text by the side of the English translation. Any naïve reader would think that the translation is representing the actual Arabic wordings. A naïve reader may further think that the combination of Hilali &Khan and Saudi Government must have produced correct teaching. On the contrary, it is incorrect and corrupt. You will be surprised to see the extent of manipulation. Let us examine:

4:157 Hilali & Khan :”And because of their saying (in boast) “We killed Messiah Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” -but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)….
Please note carefully, Hilali & Khan translated the Arabic WA lakin subbiha lahum as “but the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man”. In the actual Arabic where are the words “of Isa” and “another man”? How dare Hilali & Khan put interpolated words inside the translation and surreptitiously suggest that these were “revealed text”? Did Allah reveal these words secretly to them, because apparently He forgot to reveal to Muhammad(pbuh) (nauzubillah!!!!). Or do they mean that they know better than Allah? Please note, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Rodwell, and many others did not go this extreme.
Only adamant and utterly corrupt people, including Hilali & Khan may keep arguing that the translation is OK. Do I have to dig out the their eyes to show that “of Isa” and “another man” is not in there in the actual Arabic. They say this theory is based on some Hadith or Islamic consensus or something! Well, then put those interpolated and false words inside parenthesis, will you? Put all the babble and fraudulent stories as commentary in the footnote and not as translation. Don’t fool the Muslims with this notion that all the junk and fabricated words are “revealed text”. Suffice it say at this time that Hilali & Khan’s this translation is corrupt, false and adulterated. This is just one example of how they are cheating Muslims, and naïve Muslims are digesting the falsehood.

If we leave aside the stories and concentrate on understanding the verse we will see a different perspective. In the verse 4:157 please notice carefully, WA lakin subbiha lahum means “He was made to resemble to them” or “it was made to resemble to them” or “a likeness of that was made for them” or “a similitude was made for them” — not “someone was made to resemble him”. In the sentences, “it” or “that” refers to the incident and not a person. So Jehova resembling Jesus(pbuh) can not arise. It was Jesus(pbuh) who was made to “resemble” to them. Resemble to the very issue in question here: likeness or similitude of death. The issue is not Jesus(pbuh) resembling a different person or a different person resembling Jesus(pbuh). Jesus(pbuh) was set up on the cross and he was made (by Allah) to resemble to them (as if he really died) by sending him to a comatose or fainted state.
The Jews took a fainted or comatose Jesus(pbuh) as dead. “Verily those who differ regarding him are certainly in a doubt about him.” The word “differ” here refers to the those people who, at that time and later on refuse the clarification given by Allah that “…. They could not murder him nor could they crucify him….”. It is also possible that they would differ with their original contention that “Surely we have killed the Masih – ‘Isa son of Maryam”. Question remains, why should there be confusion if they really, positively and absolutely killed Jesus(pbuh) by crucifixion? Remains of his body should have been somewhere in Jerusalem to prove their contention. However, based on the clarification given by Allah, based on the fact that he lived till he had gray hairs (3:45, 5:40 – discussed next), based on various happenings after the incidence of crucifixion and in absence of any proof of his tomb in Jerusalem, they were in doubt whether these people really killed Jesus(pbuh) or not. This confusion among “those” people came up because after the incidence of crucifixion, they may have heard about Jesus(pbuh) talking, walking and mixing with his disciples (openly or secretly).
If they really killed Jehova taking him to be Jesus(pbuh), then his mortal remains or tomb should have been somewhere in Jerusalem. This tomb should have come to be recognized as the tomb of Jesus(pbuh). In reality there is no tomb in Jerusalem that was ever identified or can be identified (correctly or otherwise) as the tomb of Jesus(pbuh).
In Summary: The confusion arises because Allah said “…they did not crucify him..” What is important to understand is the word means ‘to kill by crucifixion’. The reason Jews put a person on the cross is to kill him according to their custom. They would not put a person on the cross and later let him go away. So, the word “crucify” has an inherent meaning of killing by crucifixion. Killing by crucifixion was their intent, and with this intent they did put him on the cross, however, they failed to kill him.
Please read an interesting site about substitution theory: Was Jesus Substituted on the Cross?

Many Muslims say verse 4:159 indicates Jesus(pbuh) will come back. If you think so, please read an interpretation of the verse 4:159: Interpretation of Verse 4:159.

What Happened to Jesus(pbuh) After
The Incidence of Crucifixion?
Evidences from the Bible and other authentic history tells us that Jesus(pbuh) was tried on the cross when he was 32 years old. For the sake of debate, if Allah did not raise him alive and if he did not die on the cross, what happened to him thereafter? Are there any evidence from the Quran? Trust me, there are evidences.
In Surah Ale Imran, Allah says:
3:45 And he will speak to the people in the cradle and then of gray-haired age and (he will be) one of the righteous
5:110 … you speak to the people in the cradle and in old age…..
23:50 … We sheltered them in a plateau having meadows and springs.

Various commentators of the Quran do agree about the use of words ‘gray-haired age’ and ‘old age’. However, they contend that old age refers to the time when he will descend from the sky. As we can see from this discussion, Jesus(pbuh) was not raised alive in the Heaven and he is dead. This gray hair age must have happened while he was still living during his time, some 2000 years ago. Then Allah also tells us that Jesus(pbuh) was later on sheltered in a place full of meadows and springs. These verses supports other verses and we can further ascertain that Jesus(pbuh) survived the incidence of crucifixion and lived up to old age.

Is Jesus(pbuh) Alive?
All traditional Muslims join the Christians and declare that Jesus(pbuh) is alive in Heaven. Muslims say that Allah raised Jesus alive and placed him beside Himself. If that is true, then today, his age is nearly 2,000 years!!! How is it possible for a man to live that long ? A Muslim will say, why not, if Allah wishes, He can do anything. No doubt about it, yes, Allah is the Almighty, and He has the capability to do anything. But the question is will Allah do this? Will Allah break the rule of nature? Will Allah break the same rule that He has set forth? Let us investigate this issue here:
67:3 Who has created the seven heavens in harmony. You can not see in the creation of the Rahman any inconsistency. Then turn again the gaze. Do you see any crack?
67:4 And then turn again the search once more, the eyesight will return to you defeated, while it is fatigued.
There are several other verses where Allah says there is no change in the course of Allah, that there is uniformity in the law of nature.

17:77 … And you will not find any change in Our course.
30:30 … there is no altering in the creation of Allah
33:62 … and you will not find any alteration in the course of Allah.
35:43 … But you will never find any change in the course of Allah and you will never find any shifting in the course of Allah.
48:23 the law of Allah which has been in operation from before, and you will never find any change in the course of Allah.
Which law of Allah has been in operation since before? Is it just the law of earth moving around the sun and movement of the planets and nothing more? What would you say about the law of birth, senescence and death? Don’t you agree that even birth and death are laws of Allah? That flower bloom, wind blows, day and night happen, sunrise and sunset—everything is in accordance to the law of Allah. Then Allah testifies you will never find any change in the course of Allah. Had there been a change, don’t you think Allah would have specifically told us so?

If Jesus(pbuh) is alive in the Heaven, his age today is more than 2000 years!! How can he live that long defying rules and laws set forth by Allah? Are we not making words of Allah contradict when we say in case of Jesus(pbuh) Allah changed his law and made him live that long? This brings us to the next question: can a person live that long? Let us see what Allah has to say about it.

16:70 And Allah creates you, then He causes you to die; and among you someone is caused to return to the worst of the age, resulting in his not knowing anything after knowledge. Allah is truly all Knowing, most Capable.
22:5 … And of you is one who is caused to die, and among you is one who is turned back to the worst part of life until he does not know anything after having
known…
36:68 And whomsoever We lengthen life, We reverse him in constitution
These verses tell us that whoever lives too long, Allah returns them as crippled and not knowing anything after knowledge. This is more like a cycle of life. Birth –> Infancy –> Childhood –> Adulthood –> Old age. At very old age, a person reverts to a state much like infancy, depending on assistance for almost every daily routine: eating, bath, walking, toilet etc. As if Allah reverts the person in constitution (36:68) and makes him another infant. Like an infant, at this time he does not remember things and has no knowledge of events around him.
In this context, if Jesus(pbuh) is allowed to live that long, by now he is so crippled and in the worst part of life that there is no use of him to come back and do anything for Islam. In fact he cannot do anything worthwhile at that age.
Thus you can see, when a Muslim denies the death of Jesus(pbuh) he is putting so many verses of the Quran to contradict each other. Most Muslims don’t realize that they are putting one verse to contradict another. When it is pointed out to them, they get so alarmed that now they try desperately to justify themselves. They successfully justify themselves, however, in the process first they invent several ridiculous stories, then they mutilate the translation to gain support for these stories and then they approach the Quran like hypocrites – believe part of it and reject part of it. They interpolate new words in translation as if these were Allah’s words and refrain from correctly translating a particular word. The Quran cannot support the stories they invent. Rather these rambling stories contradict the Quran again and again. It is sad that Muslims don’t want to believe in the total Quran.

Proof of Death of Jesus(pbuh)
There are several convincing proofs in the Quran regarding death of all living being and particularly all Rasuls. Most Muslim don’t like to pay attention to this for various reasons, mainly due to fear of being caught in double jeopardy regarding Jesus(pbuh) death. If one does not believe in these verses and teachings, then he is in a way rejecting part of the scripture and believing in those parts that suits him. Like a hypocrite.
Let us begin with the verse from Surah Ma’idah where Allah says as under:
5:75 The Messiah, son of Maryam, was none but a Rasul, surely the Rasuls have passed away before him. And his mother was a truthful woman and they both used to take food…
Among other things, this verse tells two things:
(1) Jesus(pbuh) was only a Rasul,
(2) Rasuls before him have passed away.
Based on this, we can interpret that since all Rasuls before Jesus(pbuh) passed away, he too will pass away. Both you and I agree to this, but the question is when he will pass away? I say he passed away after spending his normal life, you say that he is alive and eventually he will pass away when he will come back on the earth, revive Islam and so on. It is important to understand the meaning of the words ‘passed away’. If you think ‘passed away’ do not mean ‘death’, then there must be other prophets who are alive. You must specifically tell us which other prophet(s) before Jesus(pbuh) did not die and living at that time. Since we know that all prophets before Jesus(pbuh) are dead, the use of words ‘passed away’ clearly means death.

If the above verse is not all convincing to you, let us explore another verse from Surah Ale Imran. In the battle of Uhud, prophet Muhammad(pbuh), leading the Muslim army, fell down injured. A rumor spread that Prophet has been killed. The Muslims were in despair and brokenhearted. At that moment, in order to instill confidence and boost morale of the Muslim army, a revelation came saying:
3:143 Muhammad is no more than a Rasul, surely the Rasuls before him have already passed away. If then he dies or be killed, will you turn upon your heels?…
Among other things, this verse tells two things:
(1) Muhammad(pbuh) was only a Rasul,
(2) Rasuls before him have passed away.
In the verse 5:75, we know that all Rasuls before Jesus(pbuh) died, but right now based on this verse alone we are not sure about him. Then in verse 3:143, we further come to know that all Rasuls before Muhammad(pbuh) passed away. We already concluded ‘passed away’ in the verse 5:75 meant ‘death’. In this verse, the meaning of ‘passed away’ is very clearly given by Allah as (a) he dies, (b) be killed. So by ‘passing away’ Allah meant death and killing and nothing else. Thus we can conclude that the use of the same word in verse 3:143 can not mean anything different other than death. If Jesus(pbuh) was an exception and did not pass away, Allah surely would have mentioned it. It is not a small exception by any means.
These two verses are so convincing and unambiguous that there should not be any doubt about his death! But alas! Muslim people have tremendous hesitation in accepting the words of Allah! The verse conclusively proves that Jesus(pbuh) who arrived more than 600 years earlier to Muhammad(pbuh) has definitely passed away.
Remember, if you don’t believe the teaching of the verses, you are not believing the total Quran. When the verse 3:143 was revealed, if the Muslims had any knowledge that Jesus(pbuh) was still alive, they would have raised a question.
Much later, when Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) actually died, it was hard for Muslims to accept the sad news. Thinking that it was conspiracy of the rumormongers, Hazrat Umar (r) drew his sword and declared that whosoever would say that Muhammad(pbuh) was dead, he will behead him. At this critical situation, Hazrat Abu Bakar arrived, seeing the critical situation, he went into the hut of the Prophet and ascertained the truth. Then he came out and recited the same verse from Surah Ale Imran 3:143 and further declared that whosoever wants to worship Muhammad, let him know that he is dead, and whosoever wants to worship Allah, let him know that Allah is all abiding.
This incidence conclusively proves that all the companions of the Prophet and Caliphs knew that all Rasuls before Muhammad(pbuh) had died. If the companions believed that Jesus(pbuh) was still alive, then at least someone would have raised a point here.
If this is not enough, let us explore more verses. From verse 5:75 above, we already know that “the Messiah, son of Maryam was none but a Rasul…”. Let us see what Allah tells about Rasuls in general.
In Surah Al-Anbiya’ verse 21:7-8, Allah declares:
21:7 We did not send before you (O Muhammad(pbuh)) any but man to whom We sent revelations; therefore you ask the followers of the Reminder if you do not know
21:8 And We did not give them bodies not taking food and neither are they abiding
Among other things, the important findings from these verses are:
(1) All Rasuls were human beings
(2) Their mortal bodies sustained on food
(3) They are all dead
The Quran categorically tells that all prophets were human being, they were not superhuman or god. Because they were human beings, whatever is natural to a human being has to apply to them as well. All human being eat food for sustenance, so also all Rasuls were dependent on food for sustenance of their physical bodies.
25:20 And We did not send before you any the Rasuls, but they surely ate food and walked through the street.
Whatever applies to human being has to apply to Rasuls also. Emphasis on such mundane thing like eating food and walking on street suggest that there is nothing extraordinary in their lives. They are just like any other human being. This is true about their life and death. Once again, I must reiterate that if you don’t believe in the death of Jesus(pbuh) you are putting all these verses to contradict each other. Not only that, you are believing only part of the Quran that suits you and rejecting other part that does not fit your notions and Christian dogma.

Yet Another Proof
There is one verse in the Quran where Jesus(pbuh) summarizes his relationship with his people.
The verse is from Surah Ma’idah 5:116-117.
5:116 And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Isa, son of Maryam was it you who said to the people (– the Christians, especially the Roman Catholic) “Take me and my mother for two deities besides Allah?” He will say: “Glory to be to You! It is not fit for me to say what is not right for me (to utter). If I had said that, You would then have known it indeed. You know what is in my mind, while I do not know what is in Your mind. Surely you are the great Knower of hidden matter
5:117 “I did not say to them anything except about what You had ordered me, namely, “serve Allah, my Rabb and your Rabb” and I was witness over them so long as I was with them, but when you caused me to die (wafat), You were Watcher over them. And You are a Witness over all things
This is another definite evidence of death of Jesus(pbuh). On the Day of Judgment Allah will question Jesus(pbuh) whether he taught his people to take him as a god. Jesus(pbuh) will reply that he did not teach so, and he bears witness that during his lifetime his people did not take him and his mother as gods besides Allah, but he does not know what they did after his death.
We all know that Christians do regard Jesus as Son of God and Mary as a goddess. If Jesus(pbuh) is alive, this should not have happened. How to reconcile this verse? According to the verse, the Christians were supposed to take Jesus and his mother as deities only after his death (wafat)!! And his death is yet to happen!!!! The answer is if this has to happen, then according to the verse Jesus(pbuh) must have died. It is only after his death people accepted him and his mother as god and goddess.
The key word here is ‘wafat’ – death. Falamma tawaffai tani – that is, ‘but when you caused me to die.’ Those who don’t want to believe in the message, translate it saying that ‘when you took me away’ thereby suggesting that when he was raised alive. Thus when Jesus(pbuh) was not with them physically, they started accepting him and his mother as god and goddess.
This is yet another instance where the meaning of ‘wafat’ is not taken in its true context. We already discussed above that the scholars and translators of the Quran interpreted the meaning of the word ‘wafat’ as death but in one or two instances they twist the meaning and suggest physical ascension. [See: Interpretation of the word 'wafat'.]

Did Allah Say Jesus(pbuh) Will Come Down?
Based on two different verses you believe Jesus(pbuh) was raised bodily in Heaven. If that is so, he has to come down one day. At least you believe he will come down one day. Please show me just one verse where Allah said He will send him back. The verse should be at least as clear and precise as the those where Allah said Jesus(pbuh) will be raised. If you find one, please e-mail me back. If you think verse 4:159 is THE verse about his Second Coming, please read the following site by the same author: Interpretation of Verse 4:159 .
There is absolutely no verse in the entire Quran where directly or indirectly Allah said anything about Jesus(pbuh) coming back later days. Since Allah did not say anything about Jesus(pbuh) coming back, where and how did you come up with the story?
Your contention is that Allah specifically said Jesus(pbuh) was raised alive in the Heaven! My argument is in that case Allah must specifically tell us when and where Jesus(pbuh) will come down. Allah can not just leave the matter unanswered. It is a serious matter. Allah can not leave such an important and serious matter to be answered outside of the Quran by a Hadith or Christian commentary or an Islamic Fatwa.
Brothers of Islam, please note here that in the Quran Allah has spent plenty of time and space to narrate about Jesus(pbuh), his birth, his mother Maryam, his childhood, his bringing up, his death and so on. In case of few other prophets Allah has given so much details. And then do you think Allah just forgot to mention about his coming back, especially keeping him alive for more than 2000 years?

Are you Contradicting?
Briefly speaking, let us find out who is contradicting. If you say Jesus(pbuh) did not die, then you must admit the Quran is full of contradiction. Whereas Allah clearly told us there is no discrepancy between different verses:
4:82 Do they not then ponder over Quran? And had it been from anyone except Allah, they would surely have found therein a great deal of discrepancy.
86:13-14 Verily this (- the Qur-an) is a conclusive discourse, and it is not a thing of joke.
Facts from the Quran If you believe Jesus(pbuh) is alive, then
All Rasuls before Muhammad(pbuh) passed away (3:143) This is a serious contradiction
Meaning of the word ‘wafat’ is death in more than 20 different verses in the Quran Use of the word ‘wafat’ in 3:54 and 5:117 are serious exceptions and contradictory.
Christians would regard Jesus(pbuh) and his mother as God ONLY after his death (wafat) (5:116) The verse is contradictory since the Christians have been considering Jesus(pbuh) and his mother as god for a long time.
Laws of Allah has been in operation from before (48:23) He has defied the law and put the verse in contradiction
You will not find any alteration in the course of Allah (33:62) This is a serious alteration in the course of Allah. A man is alive for over 2000 years. The verse is contradictory.
Several verses say there is no inconsistency in the law of nature and law of Allah (67:3-4; 17:77; 30:30; 33:62; 35:43; 48:23) All these verses are in serious contradiction – for no man can live that long!!
Allah will first cause Jesus’(pbuh) death and then raise him (3:54) How did he get raised before his death? This is a serious contradiction.
Whomsoever Allah grants long life – He reverts them to worst age and the person forgets all the knowledge (16:70) By now Jesus(pbuh) has no knowledge of anything at all. How can he come back and do any good for Islam?
All Rasuls before Muhammad(pbuh) are no more abiding – or alive (21:8) This verse is in serious contradiction.
Mortal bodies of all Rasuls sustained on food (21:8). Somebody must tell who is providing food for Jesus(pbuh)
Whomsoever Allah grants long life, He reverts them in constitution (36:68) Jesus(pbuh) must have been reverted in constitution – he is fragile, crippled – dependent on others like an infant.
There is no inconsistency in the creation of Allah. The more we search for inconsistency, the more the eye will come back fatigued, but we won’t find any inconsistency (67:3-4) This itself is the biggest inconsistency in the creation of Allah. A man is living for 2000 years!! The eyes are not fatigued yet, but we seem to have found utter incoherence in Allah’s words!!!

7. Views of modern Muslim scholars (3)
IV. Ulama of the Indo-Pakistan Sub-Continent (continued)
12. Allama Niyaz Fatehpuri writes:
“Thirty-eight years ago I wrote in detail in Nigar that it is clearly proved from the Divine word that he (Jesus) died his natural death.”
(Monthly Nigar, Lucknow, India, June 1961)
13. The chief editor of Al-Jami‘at, Delhi, Maulana Muhammad Usman Farqleet, gives his view as follows:
“Had belief in the second coming of Jesus been a fundamental article of faith and a means of salvation according to Islam, the Holy Quran would certainly have mentioned this doctrine explicitly since it claims to contain all matters of guidance: inna ‘alai-na la-l-huda, ‘it is Our responsibility to show that path of guidance’ [92:12]. However, the Holy Quran nowhere speaks of the second coming of Jesus. Hence it is right to conclude that the second coming of any prophet, and that too after the Khatam al-mursalin, is absolutely against the Quran … By saying Khatam an-nabiyyin the Quran has, with “alif, lam”, closed the door to every type of prophethood. Furthermore, there is Jesus’ statement that ‘Ahmad shall come after me’; he himself cannot come after Ahmad.”
(Shabistan Urdu Digest, New Delhi, November 1974, p. 18)
14. Muhammad Hasan ibn Muhammad Abbas, mujtahid and ustad at the Madrasa Nizamiyya, Lucknow, India, wrote:
“The findings of authentic, established books and the Quranic commentaries of the great scholars prove the wafat of Jesus, i.e., that he died. Thus, two verses in particular provide evidence for his death: firstly, inni mutawaffi-ka wa rafi‘u-ka ilayya; and secondly, falamma tawaffaita-ni kunta anta-r-raqiba ‘alai-him. These verses are quite sufficient to prove Jesus’ death. If these do not suffice, I can write still more and give ahadith in support.”
(as quoted in Tashhiz al-Azhan, April 1921, p. 39)
15. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in the first edition of his English translation and commentary of the Holy Quran, rendered verse 3:55 as: “I will take thy soul and raise thee to Myself.” In the footnote at this point in the first edition, he wrote:
“Read this along with 4:157 where it is said that the Jews neither crucified nor killed Jesus, but that another was killed in his likeness. The guilt of the Jews remained. But Jesus completed his life and was when he died taken up to God.”
16. Maulana Ameen Ahsan Islahi, former deputy head of the Jama‘at-i Islami, writes:
“The meaning is that Muhammad (peace be upon him) too is a messenger of God, just as there had been many other messengers of God in the world. He too may have to face the same kind of trials and tribulations that they encountered. Just as all messengers (tamam rasulun) had had to pass through the stage of death, he too would die one day. His being a messenger of God does not mean that he would not die or cannot be killed.”
(Tadabbar Quran, vol. i, p. 287, under verse 3:144, published in Lahore, 1967)
17. Sayyid Abul ‘Ala Maudoodi has written the following upon this topic:
i. “The most appropriate course of action according to the Quran is to refrain from giving further details of raf‘ jismani (bodily ascension) and of maut (death) … In fact, one should consider Jesus’ ascent to be an extraordinary manifestation of Divine power, and leave its exact nature explained briefly as God Himself has left it brief.”
(Maulana Maudoodi par itrazat ka ‘ilmi ja’iza, by Maulvi Muhammad Yusuf, Part I, p. 169)
ii. “I think that this issue is among the mutashabihat (unclear verses), for we cannot comprehend the exact nature of Jesus’ ascent, his staying alive somewhere, and his subsequent descent at some future date. What we have been taught about the mutashabihat is that we should not investigate them further, but merely believe in however much has been told to us. To undertake investigation of the mutashabihat, and to be indifferent to the muhkamat (explicit verses), is clear sign of perversity.”
(Letter dated 1 January 1951, ref: 760/71, Ichhra, Lahore)
iii. In answer to a letter, Sayyid Abul ‘Ala Maudoodi had his reply written by Mr. Naeem Siddiqi as follows:
“As to what I have understood from the Holy Quran regarding the death of Jesus … I have already explained it, and you can read it. As to Jesus’ second coming, I cannot put it higher than a possibility because the Quran gives no explanation of it, and the basis of firm faith cannot be laid upon Hadith. It could be that God may send Jesus to earth again, and if He so wishes there cannot be any bar against it. In any case, this point is not part of Islamic doctrine.”
(Rukh kardar by Chaudhary Habib-Ullah, p. 243)
iv. “The Quran does not explicitly state that God raised up Jesus, body and soul, from earth to heaven. Nor does it clearly say that he died a natural death on earth, and that only his soul was raised up. Thus, on the basis of the Quran, neither of these views can be definitely negated or confirmed.”
(Tahfim al-Quran by Maulana Maudoodi, p. 240)
18. Ghulam Ahmad Pervaiz writes in his Quranic commentary:
i. Under the verse “They planned, and God also planned”, he writes:
“Thus, that nation became divided into two parties, one supporting the truth and the other opposing it. The opponents started using secret means and plans in order to lay their hands on Jesus. Countering this, God produced hidden ways and means of saving him, and it is evident that the means devised by God are superior in every respect. Their final plan was to have Jesus arrested and crucified, so that he would, according to them, die in disgrace and humiliation. But God said to Jesus: Be not perturbed, this conspiracy of theirs can never succeed; you will die a natural death, and I will grant you high ranks; I will take you far beyond the reach of these enemies, and clear you from the accusations coined against you; your followers appear to be weak at this time, but in the end I will make those who follow you to be ever above those who deny you.”
(Mafhum al-Quran, Sura 3, vv. 53-54, p.132)
ii. “Verse 156: The list of their crimes does not end here, but carries on further. The denial of truth and persistence in haughtiness and arrogance made them reach such a stage that they levelled a grievous slander against a virtuous woman like Mary. And regarding a glorious prophet like Jesus, to this day they proudly claim to have killed him, making him die in disgrace. However, the fact is that they neither killed him nor made him die, according to them a death of disgrace, by putting him on the cross. What actually happened was different from what they thought had happened, and the reality became obscure to them. On the other side, the people who differ from the Jews on this matter, i.e., Christians, do not know the truth either. Their explanations too are based on conjecture and guess work. Thus neither the Jews nor the Christians know the truth of the event, neither of them having any sure knowledge. The truth is what has been stated above, i.e., Jesus was not killed, nor did he die an accursed death upon the cross as asserted by the Jews, but rather, God elevated him in status.”
(ibid., Sura 4, verses 156 to 158, p. 229)
iii. “Verse 117: I (Jesus) said to them only what You (God) commanded me, i.e., worship God, your Lord and my Lord. Whilst I was among them I watched over them (so that they may not go wrong), but when You caused me to die I ceased to be the watcher, and after that You were their guardian, not only theirs but You are the guardian of everything in creation.”
(ibid ., Sura 5, verse 117).
iv. “From the above explanations the fact has come to the fore as to how the Holy Quran has refuted this false belief of the Jews and the Christians that Jesus was crucified. As to the Christian belief that was raised up to heaven alive, this does not find support in the Quran either. On the other hand, it contains evidence which makes it clear that, like other prophets, he completed his span of life and died.”
(Shu‘la Mastur, p. 72)
v. “The fact is that the concept of Jesus being raised up to heaven alive is a later invention of the Christian religion. The Jews gave currency to the idea — and it seemed to be so on the face of it — that they had killed Jesus upon the cross. The disciples knew that this was not true, but for reasons of expediency they could not contradict it.”
(ibid., p. 83)
19. Maulana Sayyid Abdud-Da’im Jalali writes:
“It is recorded in an authentic hadith that the Holy Prophet Muhammad stated: ‘Had Moses or Jesus been alive, they would have had to follow me’.”
(Tafsir Bayan as-Subhan, on Part 3, p. 349)
20. Abu Zafar Nazish Rizvi wrote a poem entitled Dastan-e Haram, a verse of which says of the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s demise:
“After Moses and Jesus, from the world
Did the honoured Messenger depart to eternity.”
(Newspaper Azad, 12 October 1951)
21. Lt.-Colonel Khwaja Abdur Rashid writes:
“As the Ulama of Islam, among whom were many converts from the Ahl al-Kitab, had raised Jesus to heaven, the difficulty then arose for the Quranic commentators as to how he should be brought back in order to die his natural death. Hence, to prove this ‘return to earth’, he was presented as a sign of the Judgment Day. Iqbal grasped the reality, and so it was that he said:
‘Look for the descent of God upon the minaret of your own heart, And give up waiting even for the Mahdi or Jesus’.”
(Weekly Chatan, 1st December 1958, p. 7)
22. Maulvi Muhammad Ali of Jalandhar writes:
“One day I was sitting in a mosque in Multan, where a Mirza’i [Ahmadi] was having an argument with a Maulvi Sahib. The Mirza’i kept on repeating that Jesus had died, and the Maulvi Sahib would shake his head in denial. Fifteen or twenty minutes elapsed in this argument. I came and sat with them, and said to the Mirza’i: Please excuse the Maulvi Sahib, and talk to me instead. He at once said: Jesus has died. I raised my hands and said: Let us pray that God grants him paradise.”
(Newspaper Azad, Lahore, 25 January 1952, p. 1)
23. Professor Ilyas Barnee, the author of the famous anti-Ahmadiyya book Qadiani Mazhab,states in his book Islam:
“As to the second point, how Christ was raised up to God, it is further explained as below: ‘Behold! God said, O Jesus! I will take thy soul (make thee die) and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of falsehoods of those who blaspheme that they crucified thee is cleared by the Quran)’ — section 6 of sura III Al-e Imran. ‘And I (Christ) was a witness over them (Christians) whilst I dwelt amongst them, (but) when Thou took my soul (made me die) Thou wast the watcher over them and Thou art a witness to all things’ — Section 16 of Sura V Ma’ida. ‘So peace is on me (said Christ) the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life again (at resurrection)’ — Section 2 of Sura XIX Maryam.”
(Vide Our Movement, by Mr. Naseem Saifi, p. 71)
24. Khwaja Ibadullah Akhtar, B.A., of Amritsar expresses his view as follows:
i. “We do not wish to say any more on this issue than that Jesus was certainly nailed to the cross. However, he did not die on the cross, nor could have any man died on the cross in such a short period. But he fell into such a state of unconsciousness as to make people suspect that he had died. In that state of unconsciousness he was taken down from the cross, and being thought to be dead, placed in a tomb a sketch of which we have given in this book. When he became conscious, he left the tomb by himself.”
(Damishq, p. 54, published by the Steam Press, Amritsar, India, 1911)
ii. “The Christian religion is so bound up with the person of Jesus that if the Christians were to believe that Jesus has died this religion would also be dead Thus this religion is based upon the person of Jesus.” (ibid., p. 50)
25. The editor of the monthly Balagh al-Quran, Lahore, writes:
“Just as un-Quranic ideas have made the birth of Jesus a riddle, so it is also said about his death that he has been living in the fourth heaven for two thousand years, that he shall return, marry, have children, and then die. The argument for his being taken up to heaven is based upon the words Bal rafa‘a-hu Allahu ilai-hi, the meaning of which we have explained on page 29, that God caused him to migrate (hijra) to Himself, in accordance with His law for all the prophets. For if raf‘ be taken to mean lifted up to heaven, then it would have to be believed that the prophet Idris too is alive and living in a high place, as God has said of him: wa rafa‘na-hu makan-an ‘aliyyan (19:57) — ‘We raised him to a high place’. Obviously, just as the word rafa‘na-hu is used about Idris, the meaning of rafa‘a-hu Allahu ilai-hi according to the context is to raise in status by migration (hijra), not raise up to the sky.
Now let us consider whether Jesus is alive or dead. For this, the following two verses of the Quran should be examined: ‘Muhammad is only a messenger of God; many messengers before him had passed away’ (3:144); ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is only a messenger of God; many messengers before him had passed away’ (5:75). Both verses contain the expression: ‘Messengers before him had passed away’ (qad khalat min qabli-hi-r-rusul). According to this, if a messenger before Jesus were alive then it could be believed that a messenger before the Holy Prophet Muhammad, i.e. Jesus, was also alive. But if, according to this expression, no messenger before Jesus himself can be believed to be alive, then it should be remembered that Jesus too, as a messenger before the Holy Prophet Muhammad, according to ‘messengers before him had passed away’ is included amongst these prophets and has died. And as, by the clear testimony of the Quran and in accordance with the laws of nature, Jesus has died, neither is the view correct that he went up to the fourth heaven nor can the idea of his return arise.
The following verse is also adduced to prove that Jesus is alive: Qul fa-man yamliku min Allahi shai’-an in arada an yuhlika al-masiha ibna Maryama wa umma-hu wa man fil ardi jami‘-an (5:17). Its usual translation runs: ‘Say (O Prophet): Who is it that can interfere in God’s purpose if He wishes to destroy the Messiah, his mother, and all the creatures on earth’. If, on the basis of this usual translation, Jesus is believed to be still alive his mother would also have to be believed to be alive because after masih (Messiah.) occur the words umma-hu (his mother). However, as Mary is accepted as having died in accordance with the Divine law ‘every soul must taste death’, Jesus too must be considered dead according to this law. Moreover, since according to the Quranic verdict ‘Muhammad is only a messenger, messengers before him had passed away’, Jesus passed away before Holy Prophet Muhammad, i.e., he died like the other prophets, the verse under discussion must be translated according to the rule that in Arabic the past may be referred using the imperfect [i.e. present or future] tense. Remembering also that the wa (and) in umma-hu wa man fil ard (his mother and all the creatures on earth) indicates companionship, the correct significance of this verse, corresponding to the laws of nature, is this: ‘Say (O Prophet): Who is it that can interfere with God’s purpose if He wishes to destroy, along with the Messiah and his mother, all the creatures on earth’.
“In this Quranic verse it is correct to take the imperfect tense as referring to the past, just as in the following verse about the history of Joseph the imperfect tense must be taken to refer to the past: ‘And thus did We give to Joseph power in the land — he had mastery (yatabawwa’u) in it wherever he liked (yasha’u)’. In this verse the two verbs yatabawwa’u and yasha’u are in the imperfect, but they cannot be translated except in the past tense. To say about the deceased Joseph that ‘he has mastery in it wherever he likes’ is absolutely wrong.
Jesus’ death in his own words — On the Day of Judgment God will ask Jesus: ‘Did you tell people to take you and your mother as gods besides Allah’? He shall reply: ‘Certainly not! So long as I was among them I watched over them, and did not let them make any such idolatrous utterance. However, when You caused me to die, You were the watcher over them’. Here the words ‘when You caused me to die’ convey that it was after he died that his people made him and his mother gods. This topic is explained in Sura Ma’ida, verses 116 and 117. The words of the verse are: falamma tawaffaitani kunta anta al-raqiba ‘alai-him — ‘when You caused me to die, You were the Watcher over them’. Since it is proved from the Holy Quran that Jesus and Mary were taken to be gods after the death of Jesus, it follows from this that he has died.”
(Monthly Balagh al-Quran, December 1963, p. 32, published by the Idara Balagh al-Quran, Samanabad, Lahore)

Exaltation of Jesus by Prof. Mahmud Shaltut:
________________________________________
“A letter was received by the Professors of the Great Al-Azhar University of Cairo from Abdul Karim Khan working under the command of the Allies in the Middle East containing an inquiry:
Is Jesus dead or alive according to the Qur’an and the Holy Traditions of the Holy Prophet? What do you think of a Muslim who does not believe that he is still alive and what about one who disbelieves in him in case he comes to the world for the second time?
This question was referred to the Senior Professor Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, a member of the Senate of the learned Professors who replied as follows:
Now, the Qur’an mentions Prophet Jesus in reference to his fate at the hands of his people in three chapters:
1. In the chapter The Family of Imran where it is stated : “But when Jesus perceived unbelief on their part, he said : ‘Who will be my helpers in Allah’s way? The disciples said : “We are helpers (in the way) of Allah: We believe in Allah and bear witness that we are submitting ones: Our Lord, we believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the Apostle, so write us down with those who bear witness.’ And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners. When Allah said : O Jesus! I will cause you to die and exalt you in My presence and clear you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed” (3:51-54).
2. In the chapter The Women Allah says : “And their saying: Surely We have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of Allah: and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but (the matter) was made dubious to them and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it: they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they know it not for sure. Nay: Allah exalted him in His presence and Allah is mighty wise” (4:157-158).
3. And in the chapter The Food says Allah: “And when Allah will say: O Jesus, son of Mary! did you say to men, take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah? He will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say): If I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind; surely Thou art the great knower of the unseen things. I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord; and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die. Thou Overt the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things” (5:116-118).
These are the verses of the Holy Qur’an wherein all that Jesus experienced at the hands of his people is related.
In the last verse (verse from the chapter The Food) there is a mention of an incident of the hereafter when Allah will ask Jesus concerning he and his mother being worshipped in the world. And Jesus in reply would say that he did not say aught to them except what God commanded him, viz., Worship Allah Who is your God and my God; and he kept a watch over them, during the period of his stay among them and that he did not know what they did after “Allah caused him to die.”
The word “tawaffa” is used in so many places of the Holy Qur’an in the sense of death that it has become its foremost meaning. This word is used in a different sense only when there is a clear indication as to this other meaning : “Say, The angel of death who is given charge of you shall cause you to die” (32:11); “Surely (as for) those whom the angles caused to die while they are unjust to their souls” (4:97); “And had you seen when the angels will cause to die those who disbelieve.” (8:50); “Our messengers cause him to die,” (6:61); “And of you is he who is caused to die,” (22:5); “until death takes them away” (4:15); “Make me die a Muslim and join me with the good” (12:101).
The word “tawaffaitani” in this particular verse primarily means natural death which is known to everybody. The Arabic-speaking people understand this and only this meaning of the word with reference to the context. Therefore, had there been nothing else to indicate the end of Jesus in this verse even it would have been improper and wrong to say that Prophet Jesus was alive, and not dead.
There is no room for the view that the word “Wafat” here means the death of Jesus after his descent from the heavens — a view held by some who think that Jesus is still alive in the heavens and would come down from there in the latter days. For, this verse clearly denotes the relation of Jesus with his own people and not with any other people of the latter days. The people of the latter age would admittedly be the followers of Muhammad and not of Jesus.
However, in the chapter The Women the words: “Nay: Allah exalted him in His presence” have been interpreted by some, nay most of the commentators, as “raising him up to the heavens.” They observe that the likeness of Jesus was cast on somebody else and Jesus himself was lifted up to the heavens. He is alive there and will descend therefrom in the latter ages. Thereafter he would kill the swine and break the cross. And they base their theory:
Firstly, on those reports in which the descent of Jesus is mentioned after the (appearance of) Anti-Christ. But these reports are at variance with and contradictory to one another in their words and meaning. The difference is so great that there is no room for any reconciliation among them. The scholars of Hadith have plainly stated this fact. Moreover, they are reported by Wahab bin Munnabba and Kaab Akbar, who were converts from the people of the Book. And their status is well-known to the critics of traditions.
Secondly, on a report by Abu Huraira that mentions the descent of Jesus. If this report is proved to be true, even then it is only an isolated report. And there is a consensus of opinion of the scholars of Hadith that such isolated reports can neither be made the basis of a doctrinal belief, nor can they be trusted with regard to the things unseen.
Thirdly, on the report about Mi’raj (i.e., the Ascension of the Holy Prophet to the heavens) which narrates that when the Holy Prophet went up and began to have the gates of the heavens opened one after another and entered them as they were opened, he saw Jesus and his cousin John on the second heaven. For us, it is enough to prove the weakness of this evidence, that many interpreters of the traditions have taken this contact of the Holy Prophet with other prophets to be a spiritual phenomenon and not a physical one. (vide Fath ul-Bari, Zad-ul-Ma’ad, etc.)
Strangely enough they interpret the word rafa’ occurring in this verse in the light of the report concerning the Mi’raj, and deduce therefrom that Jesus was also bodily raised up. And there are others who regard the meeting of the Holy Prophet with Jesus to be a physical one on the basis of this verse, (i.e., Nay! Allah exalted him in His presence). Thus when these people interpret the hadith they quote this verse to support their imaginary meaning of the hadith; and while interpreting the verse they cite this hadith to support their imaginary explanation of the verse.
When we turn to the revealed words of God “I will cause you to die and exalt you in my presence,” in the chapter The Family of Imran and the words “Nay Allah exalted him in his presence,” in the chapter The Women, we find that the latter verse fulfils the promise that was made in the former one. This promise was about the death and exaltation of Jesus Christ, and his purification from the false charges of the disbelievers. Thus even if the latter verse had mentioned just his rafa’ towards God and had no reference to his death and purification from the false charges even then it should have been our duty to take note of those matters that are referred to in the former verse; so that both verses might be reconciled.
The actual meaning of the verse therefore is that Allah caused Jesus to die and exalted him and sanctified him from the charges of his enemies. Allama Alwasi has interpreted this verse (inni mutawaffi-ka) in many ways. The clearest of these interpretations is that “I will complete the lease of your life and will cause you to die and will not let those people dominate over you who try to kill you.” For, completing the period of his life and causing him to die a natural death indicates that Jesus was saved from being slain and from the mischief of his enemies. Obviously rafa’ after death cannot mean any physical ascension, but only exaltation in rank, especially when the words “I will clear you of those who disbelieve,” are present along with it. This shows that it is a question of spiritual honour and exaltation. The word rafa’ has occurred many a time in the Holy Qur’an conveying this sense: e.g., “In houses which Allah has permitted to be honoured (turfa’a) (24:36); “We exalt in degree (narfa’u) whom We please” (6:84 ; 12:76); “And exalted (rafa’na ) for you your eminence.” (94:4); “And We raised him (rafa’nahu) to an elevated state” (19:57); “Allah will exalt those of you who believe.” (58:11), etc. Thus the expressions “I will exalt you in My presence” and “Nay! Allah exalted him in His presence” would yield a sense similar to the one when we say “So and so met the companion on High,” or “God is with us,” or “With the Powerful King.” All these expressions signify only shelter, protection and coming under His Holy care. So one fails to understand how the word heaven is deduced from the word towards Him (ilaih). By God! it is an outrage on the plain exposition of the Holy Qur’an. And such an offence is committed simply on account of belief in such stories and narratives which are devoid of accuracy not to speak of their established unauthenticity.
Moreover, Jesus was merely an apostle and apostles before him had passed away. When the people of Jesus became hostile to him, he like other prophets, turned towards God and He saved him by His power and wisdom, and frustrated the plans of his enemies. The same point has been elaborated in the following verse: “When Jesus perceived unbelief on their part, he said: Who will be my helpers in Allah’s way …” i.e., in this verse God says that His plans were more subtle and effective than the plans of the disbelievers. As against the measures of protection and security from God, the attempts of these people against the life of Jesus were frustrated. In the verse: “When Allah said : O Jesus! I will cause you to die and exalt you in My presence and clear you of those who disbelieve.” Allah gives the glad tidings that He will save Jesus from the machinations of his enemies and that ultimately their plottings will end in futility and that He will complete the period of his life till he dies a natural death neither being slain nor yet crucified and then He will exalt him in His presence.
These verses which relate to the fate of Jesus at the hands of his people will invariably yield this meaning to their reader provided he knows the practice of Allah to which He resorts for the protection of His prophets at the time of the aggression of enemies and provided his mind is free from all those fictitious reports that can in no case be placed as an authority over the Holy Qur’an. Now, I cannot understand how the snatching of Jesus from the hands of his enemies and lifting him up to the heavens can be called a subtle plan and a better one when neither it was in their power nor in the power of anybody else to counter it. In fact, there can be one “plan” (makr) as against another plan when it is contrived in a parallel manner not deviating from the natural course of Allah in such matters. We have a parallel instance in what is said by the Qur’an with respect of the Holy Prophet: “And when those who disbelieved and devised plans against you that they might confine you or slay you or drive you away: and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan: and Allah is the best of planners.” (8:30).
To sum up:
1. There is nothing in the Holy Qur’an, nor in the sacred traditions of the Prophet, which authorises the correctness of the belief to the contentment of the heart that Jesus was taken up to the heaven with his body and is alive there even now, and would descend therefrom in the latter days.
2. The Quranic verses about Jesus show that God had promised to cause him to die a natural death, then to exalt him and save him from the mischief of the disbelievers and this promise had certainly been fulfilled. His enemies, could neither kill him nor crucify him, but God completed the span of his life and then caused him to die.
3. Any person who denies his bodily ascent and his continuance in physical existence in the heavens and his descent in the latter ages, does net deny a fact that can be established by clear conclusive arguments. Thus he is not outside the faith of Islam and it is absolutely wrong to consider him an apostate. He is perfectly a Muslim. If he dies, he dies the death of a believer and like believers his funeral prayer must be said and he must be buried in the Muslim cemetery. His faith is decidedly faultless in the eyes of God. And God knows the conditions of his servants.
And as to the other part of the question that, supposing Jesus returns to the world, then how should a disbeliever in him be regarded, after the above statement of ours this question does not arise at all. And God is the best Knower.
– MAHMUD SHALTUT”
________________________________________

THE TRUE MESSAGE
OF
JESUS CHRIST
BY
DR. BILAL PHILIPS

JESUS, THE PERSON

[..] The Biblical scriptures, both New and Old Testaments, are unreliable sources and cannot, therefore, be used as an authentic means of knowing the truth about the man called Jesus Christ or about his mission and message. However, a close examination of these scriptures in the light of Qur’aanic verses will reveal some of the truths about Jesus that have survived in the Bible.
A Messenger
Throughout the Qur‘aan, Jesus is identified fundamentally as a Messenger of God. In Chapter as-Saff (61):6, God quotes Jesus as follows:
“And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of Israel, I am the messenger of Allaah sent to you, confirming the Torah [which came] before me.”
There are many verses in the New Testament supporting the messengership / prophethood of Jesus. The following are only a few: In Matthew 21:11, the people of his time are recorded as referring to Jesus as a prophet: “And the crowds said, ‘This is the prophet Jesus of Nazareth of Galilee.’ ” In Mark, 6:4, it is stated that Jesus referred to himself as a prophet: “And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.’ ” In the following verses, Jesus is referred to as having been sent as a messenger is sent. In Matthew 10:40, Jesus was purported to have said: “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” In John 17:3, Jesus is also quoted as saying: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” [1]
A Man
The Qur’aanic revelation not only affirms Jesus’ prophethood, but it also clearly denies Jesus’ divinity. In Chapter al-Maa’idah, (5): 75, God points out that Jesus ate food, which is a human act, obviously not befitting to God.
“The Messiah, Son of Mary, was no more than a messenger and many messengers passed away before him. His mother was exceedingly truthful, and they both ate food. See how I have made the signs clear for them, yet see how they are deluded.”
There are numerous accounts in the New Testament which also deny Jesus’ divinity.
For example, in Matthew 19:17, Jesus responded to one who addressed him as “O good master”, saying: “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” If he rejected being called “good”, [2] and stated that only God is truly good, he clearly implies that he is not God.
In John 14:28, Jesus was saying: “The Father is greater than I.” By stating that the “Father” is greater than himself, Jesus distinguishes himself from God. Also in John 20:17, Jesus told Mary Magdalene to tell his followers: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.” Jesus’ reference to God as “my Father and your Father” further emphasizes the distinction between himself and God. Furthermore, by referring to God as “his God”, he left no room for anyone to intelligently claim that he was God.
Even in some of the writings of Paul, which the Church has taken to be sacred, Jesus is referred to as a “man”, distinct and different from God. In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
There are also verses in the Qur‘aan which confirm Prophet Muhammad’s humanity, in order to prevent his followers from elevating him to a divine or semi-divine status, as was done to Prophet Jesus. For example, in Chapter al-Kahf (18):110, Allaah instructs the Prophet Muhammad (e) to inform all who hear his message:
} قُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَاْ بَشَرٌ مِثْلُكُمْ يُوحَى إِلَىَّ أَنَّمَا إلَـهُكُمْ إِلهٌ وَاحِدٌ {

“Say: ‘Indeed, I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your God is only one God.’ ”

In Chapter al-A‘raaf (7):187, Allaah also directed Prophet Muhammad (e) to acknowledge that the time of the Judgement is known only to God.
“They ask you about the Final Hour: ‘When will its apointed time be?’ Say: ‘Knowledge of it is with my Lord. None can reveal its time besides Him.’ ”
In the Gospel according to Mark 13:31-32, Jesus is also reported to have denied having knowledge of when the final hour of this world would be, saying: “Heaven and the earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away, but of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in the heaven nor the Son but the Father.” One of the attributes of God is omniscience, knowledge of all things. Therefore, his denial of knowledge of the Day of Judgement is also a denial of divinity, for one who does not know the time of the final hour cannot possibly be God. [3]

An Immaculate Conception
The Qur‘aan confirms the Biblical story of Jesus’ virgin birth. However, in the Qur‘aanic account of Jesus’ birth, Mary was an unmarried maiden whose life was dedicated to the worship of God by her mother. While she was worshipping in a place of religious seclusion, angels came and informed her of her impending pregnancy.
} إِذْ قَالَتِ الْملآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيْحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيا وَ اْلآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبينَ{

“When the angels said: ‘O Mary, indeed Allaah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary. He will be honored in this world and the next and will be of those close to Allaah.’ ” Qur’aan, (3):45

} قَالَتْ رَبِّ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لِي وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ يَمْسَسْنِي بَشَرٌ قَالَ كَذَلِكِ اللهُ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَآءُ إِذَا قَضَى أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ {
“She said: ‘O my Lord, how can I have a son when no man has touched me?’ He said: ‘Even so—Allaah creates what He wishes. When He decrees something, He only has to say to it: “Be!” and it is.’ ” Qur’aan, (3):47
However, the Qur’aan clarifies that Jesus’ virgin birth did not change the state of his humanity. His creation was like the creation of Aadam, who had neither father nor mother.

} إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَى عِنْدَ اللهِ كَمَثَلِ آدَمَ خَلَقَهُ مِنْ تُرَابٍ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُ كُنْ فَيَكُونُ {
“Surely, the example of Jesus, in Allaah’s sight, is like that of Aadam. He created him from dust and said: ‘Be!’ and he was.” Qur’aan, (3):59

The Miracles
The Qur‘aanic account of Jesus’ ministry confirms most [4] of his miracles mentioned in the Bible and identifies some not mentioned in the Bible. For example, the Qur‘aan informs that Jesus was a messenger of God from his birth, and his first miracle was speaking as a child in the cradle. After Mary had given birth to Jesus, people accused her of fornication. Instead of responding to their accusations, she pointed to her newly born child:

} فَأَشَارَتْ إِلَيْهِ قَالُوا كَيْفَ نُكَلِّمُ مِنْ كَانَ فِي الْمَهْدِ صَبِيًّا قَالَ إِنِّي عَبْدُ اللهِ آتَانِيَ الْكِتَابَ وَجَعَلَنِي نَبِيًّا {
“[When] she pointed to him, they asked, ‘How can we talk to a child in the cradle?’ He [Jesus] said: ‘Indeed, I am a servant of Allaah. He gave me the scripture and made me a prophet.’ ”
Qur’aan, (19):29-30
Among his other miracles of bringing the dead back to life, healing lepers, and making the blind see, the Qur‘aan records another miracle not mentioned in the Bible. Prophet Jesus fashioned birds out of clay, blew on them and they flew away, living birds. But the point which is emphasized throughout the Qur‘aan is that whenever Jesus performed a miracle, he informed the people that it was by God’s permission. He made it clear to his followers that he was not doing the miracles by himself, in the same way that the earlier Prophets made it clear to those around them.
Unfortunately, those who claim divinity for Jesus, usually hold up his miracles as evidence. However, other prophets were recorded to have done the same or similar miracles in the Old Testament.

Jesus fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fishes. Elisha fed 100 people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn (II Kings 4:44)
Jesus healed lepers. Elisha cured Naaman the leper (II Kings 5:14).
Jesus caused the blind to see. Elisha caused the blind to see (II Kings 6:17&20).
Jesus raised the dead. Elijah did the same (I Kings 17:22). So did Elisha (II Kings 4:34). Even Elisha’s bones could restore the dead (II Kings 13:21).
Jesus walked on water. Moses and his people crossed the dead sea (Exodus 14:22).

There are also texts in the New Testament which confirm that Jesus did not act on his own. Jesus is quoted in John 5:30, as saying: “I can of mine own self do nothing…” and in Luke 11:20, as saying, “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the Kingdom of God is come upon you.” In Acts 2:22, Paul writes: “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know…”
“EVIDENCE” FOR JESUS’ DIVINITY
There are a number of verses which have been interpreted by the Catholic and Protestant Churches as evidence for the Divinity of Jesus Christ. However, on close examination of these verses, it becomes evident that, either their wordings are ambiguous, leaving them open to a number of different interpretations, or they are additions not found in the early manuscripts of the Bible. The following are some of the most commonly quoted arguments.
1. The Alpha and Omega
In the Book of Revelation 1, verse 8, it is implied that Jesus said the following about himself: “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” These are the attributes of God. Consequently, Jesus, according to early Christians, is here claiming divinity. However, the above-mentioned wording is according to the King James Version. In the Revised Standard Version, biblical scholars corrected the translation and wrote: “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” A correction was also made in the New American Bible produced by Catholics. The translation of that verse has been amended to put it in its correct context as follows: “The Lord God says: ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega, the one who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.’ ” With these corrections, it becomes evident that this was a statement of God and not a statement of Prophet Jesus.
2. The Pre-existence of Christ
Another verse commonly used to support the divinity of Jesus is John 8:58: “Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.’ ” This verse is taken to imply that Jesus existed prior to his appearance on earth. The conclusion drawn from it is that Jesus must be God, since his existence predates his birth on earth. However, the concept of the pre-existence of the prophets, and of man in general, exists in both the Old Testament, as well as in the Qur‘aan. Jeremiah described himself in The Book of Jeremiah 1:4-5 as follows: “ 5Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.’ ”
Prophet Solomon is reported in Proverbs 8:23-27, to have said, “23Ages ago I was set up at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 24When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water, 25Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth; 26before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world 27When he established the heavens, I was there.”
According to Job 38:4 and 21, God addresses Prophet Job as follows: “4Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding… 21You Know, for you were born then, and the number of your days is great!”
In the Qur‘aan, Chapter al-A‘raaf, (7):172, God informed that man existed in the spiritual form before the creation of the physical world.

} وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَنْ تَقُولُواْ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ {
“When your Lord gathered all of Aadam’s descendants [before creation] and made them bear witness for themselves, saying: ‘Am I not your Lord?’ They all replied: Yes indeed, we bear witness. [That was] so you could not say on the Day of Judgement: ‘We were unaware of this.’ ”

Consequently, Prophet Jesus’ statement, “Before Abraham was, I am,” cannot be used as evidence of his divinity. Within the context of John 8:54-58, Jesus is purported to have spoken about God’s knowledge of His prophets, which predates the creation of this world.
3. The Son of God
Another of the evidences used for Jesus’ divinity is the application of the title “Son of God” to Jesus. However, there are numerous places in the Old Testament where this title has been given to others.
God called Israel (Prophet Jacob) His “son” when He instructed Prophet Moses to go to Pharaoh in Exodus 4:22-23, “22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the Lord, “Israel is my first-born son, 23and I say to you, ‘Let my son go that he may serve me.’ ” [5]
In 2nd Samuel 8:13-14, God calls Prophet Solomon His son, “13 He [Solomon] shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. 14I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”
God promised to make Prophet David His son in Psalms 89:26-27: “26 He shall cry unto me, ‘Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation,’ 27Also I will make him my first-born, higher than the kings of the earth.” [6]
Angels are referred to as “sons of God” in The Book of Job 1:6, “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” [7]
In the New Testament, there are many references to “sons of God” other than Jesus. For example, when the author of the Gospel according to Luke listed Jesus’ ancestors back to Adam, he wrote: “The son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.” [8]
Some claim that what is unique in the case of Jesus, is that he is the only begotten [9] Son of God, while the others are merely “sons of God”. However, God is recorded as saying to Prophet David, in Psalms 2:7, “I will tell the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you.’ ”
It should also be noted that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus actually call himself “Son of God”. [10] Instead, he is recorded to have repeatedly called himself “Son of man” (e.g. Luke 9:22) innumerable times. And in Luke 4:41, he actually rejected being called “Son of God”: “And demons also came out of many, crying, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.”
Since the Hebrews believed that God is One, and had neither wife nor children in any literal sense, it is obvious that the expression “son of God” merely meant to them “Servant of God”; one who, because of his faithful service, was close and dear to God, as a son is to a father. Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, “son of God” signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods. [11] When the Church cast aside its Hebrew foundations, it adopted the pagan concept of “son of God”, which was entirely different from the Hebrew usage. [12]
Consequently, the use of the term “son of God” should only be understood from the Semitic symbolic sense of a “servant of God”, and not in the pagan sense of a literal offspring of God. In the four Gospels, Jesus is recorded as saying: “Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God.” [13]
Likewise, Jesus’ use of the term abba, “dear father”, should be understood similarly. There is a dispute among New Testament scholars as to precisely what abba meant in Jesus’ time and also as to how widely it was in use by other Jewish sects of that era.
James Barr has recently argued forcefully that it did not have the specially intimate sense that has so often been attributed to it, but that it simply meant “father”. [14] To think of God as “our heavenly Father” was by no means new, for in the Lord’s prayer he is reported to have taught his disciples to address God in this same familiar way.

4. One with God
Those who claim that Jesus was God, hold that he was not a separate god, but one and the same God incarnate. They draw support for this belief from verse 30 of the Gospel according to John, chapter 10, in which Jesus is reported to have said, “I and the Father are one.” Out of context, this verse does imply Jesus’ divinity. However, when the Jews accused him of claiming divinity, based on that statement, “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, Ye are gods?” [15]- [16] He clarified for them, with a scriptural example well known to them, that he was using the metaphorical language of the prophets which should not be interpreted as ascribing divinity to himself or to other human beings.
Further evidence is drawn from verses ten and eleven of the Gospel according to John, chapter 14, where people asked Jesus to show them the Father, and he was supposed to have said: “Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves.”
These phrases would imply Jesus’ divinity, if the remainder of the same Gospel is ignored. However, nine verses later, in John 14:20, Jesus is also recorded as saying to his disciples, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.” Thus, if Jesus’ statement “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” means that he is God, then so were his disciples. This symbolic statement means oneness of purpose and not oneness of essence. The symbolic interpretation is further emphasized in John 17:20-21, wherein Jesus said, “20 I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou has sent me.” [17]

5. “He Accepted Worship”
It is argued that since Jesus is reported to have accepted the worship of some of his followers, he must have been God. However, a closer examination of the texts indicates both a case of dubious translation, as well as misinterpretation. The term “worship” can be found in the King James Version and The Revised Standard Version accounts of the three wise men who came from the east. They were reported in Matthew 2:2, to have said, “Where is the baby born to be the king of the Jews? We saw his star when it came up in the east, and we have come to worship him.” [18] However, in The New American Bible (Catholic Press, 1970), the text reads: “Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We observed his star at its rising and have come to pay him homage.”
In The Revised Standard Version, John 9:37-38,: “37 Jesus said to him, ‘You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you.’ 38He said, ‘Lord, I believe’; and he worshipped him.” [19] However, in The American Bible, the scholarly translators added a footnote which read:
9:38 This verse, omitted in important MSS [manuscripts], may be an addition for a baptismal liturgy.
This verse is not found in important ancient manuscripts containing this Gospel. It is probably a later addition made by Church scribes for use in baptismal services.
Furthermore, as a renowned authority on the Bible and its original language, George M. Lamsa, explained, “The Aramaic word sagad, worship, also means to bend or to kneel down. Easterners in greeting each other generally bowed the head or bent down. [20] …‘He worshipped him’ does not imply that he worshipped Jesus as one worshipped God. Such an act would have been regarded as sacrilegious and a breach of the First Commandment in the eyes of the Jews, and the man might have been stoned. But he knelt before him in token of homage and gratitude.” [21]
The final scripture, the Qur’aan, clarifies the issue of worshipping or not worshipping Jesus, by quoting a conversation which will take place between Jesus and God on the Day of Judgement. Allaah states in Chapter al-Maa’idah, (5):116-7:

} وَإِذْ قَالَ اللهُ يَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ ءَأَنْتَ قُلْتَ لِلنَّاسِ اتَّخِذُونِي وَأُمِّيَ إِلَهَيْنِ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ … مَا قُلْتُ لَهُمْ إِلاَّ مَآ أَمَرْتَنِي بِهِ أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللهَ ربّي وَرَبَّكُمْ … {
“When Allaah will say: ‘O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell people: “Worship me and my mother as two gods instead of Allaah?” ’…[Jesus will say]: ‘I only told them what You commanded me to say: “Worship Allaah, my Lord and your Lord …” ”

6. “In the beginning was the Word”
Perhaps the most commonly quoted ‘evidence’ for Jesus’ divinity is John 1:1&14, “1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….14And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth…” However, these statements were not made by Jesus Christ, nor were they attributed to him by the author of the Gospel according to John. Consequently, these verses do not constitute evidence for Jesus’ divinity, especially considering the doubts held by Christian scholars about the Fourth Gospel. The Bible scholars who authored The Five Gospels said: “The two pictures painted by John and the synoptic gospels (i.e., the Gospels of Matthew, Mark & Luke) cannot both be historically accurate. [22]…The words attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel are the creation of the evangelist for the most part, and reflect the developed language of John’s Christian community.” [23]
The Greek term used by the anonymous author of the Fourth Gospel for “word” is logos. [24] In doing so, the author identifies Jesus with the pagan logos of Greek philosophy, who was the divine reason implicit in the cosmos, ordering it and giving it form and meaning. [25]
The idea of the logos in Greek thought may be traced back at least to the 6th-century-BC philosopher, Heracleitus, who proposed that there was a logos in the cosmic process analogous to the reasoning power in man. Later, the Stoics [90] defined the logos as an active, rational and spiritual principle that permeated all reality. [27] The Greek-speaking Jewish philosopher, Judaeus Philo of Alexandria (15 BC – 45 CE), taught that the logos was the intermediary between God and the cosmos, being both the agent between God and the cosmos, being both the agent of creation and the agent through which the human mind can comprehend God. [28] The writings of Philo were preserved and cherished by the Church, and provided the inspiration for a sophisticated Christian philosophical theology. He departed from Platonic thought regarding the logos (Word) and called it “the first-begotten Son of God”. [29]
The identification of Jesus with the logos, was further developed in the early Church as a result of attempts made by early Christian theologians and apologists to express the Christian faith in terms that would be intelligible to the Hellenistic world. Moreover, it was to impress their hearers with the view that Christianity was superior to, or heir to, all that was best in pagan philosophy. Thus, in their apologies and polemical works, the early Christian Fathers stated that Christ was the preexistent logos. [30]
The Greek word for ‘God’ used in the phrase “and the Word was with God,” is the definite form hotheos, meaning ‘The God’. However, in the second phrase “and the Word was God”, the Greek word used for ‘God’ is the indefinite form tontheos, which means ‘a god’. [31] Consequently, John 1:1, should more accurately be translated, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god.” Therefore, if the Word was a ‘god’ in the literal sense, it would mean that there were two Gods and not one. However, in Biblical language, the term ‘god’ is used metaphorically to indicate power. For example, Paul referred to the devil as “god” in 2nd Corinthians 4:4, “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God.” Moses is also referred to as “god” in Exodus 7:1, “And the Lord said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh; and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” [32]

Ancient Thoughts
There was serious conflict between the Pauline and the Jerusalem interpretations of Jesus and his message. This conflict, after simmering for years, finally led to a complete break, by which the Pauline Christian Church was founded, comprising, in effect, a new religion, separated from Judaism. On the other hand, the Jerusalem Nazarenes did not sever their links with Judaism, but regarded themselves essentially as practicing Jews, loyal to the Torah, who also believed in Jesus, a human Messiah figure. [33]
When the Jewish insurrection was crushed by the Romans and their Temple destroyed in 70 CE, the Jewish Christians were scattered, and their power and influence as the Mother Church and center of the Jesus movement was ended. [34] The Pauline Christian movement, which up until 66 CE had been struggling to survive against the strong disapproval of Jerusalem, now began to make headway.
The Jerusalem Church, under the leadership of James, originally known as Nazarenes, later came to be known by the derogatory nickname Ebionites (Hebrew evyonium, “poor men”), which some Nazarenes adopted with pride as a reminder of Jesus’ saying, “Blessed are the poor.” After the ascendency of Graeco-Roman Church, the Nazarenes became despised as heretics, due to their rejection of the doctrines of Paul. [35]
According to the ancient Church historian, Irenaeus (c. 185 CE), the Ebionites believed in one God, the Creator, taught that Jesus was the Messiah, used only the Gospel According to Matthew, and rejected Paul as an apostate from the Jewish Law. [36]
Ebionites were known to still exist in the 4th century. Some had left Palestine and settled in Transjordan and Syria and were later known to be in Asia Minor, Egypt and Rome. [37]
Monarchianism, [38] a Gentile Christian movement which developed during the 2nd and 3rd centuries continued to represent the “extreme” monotheistic view of the Ebionites. It held that Christ was a man, miraculously conceived, but was only ‘Son of God’ due to being filled with divine wisdom and power. This view was taught at Rome about the end of the 2nd century by Theodotus, who was excommunicated by Pope Victor, and taught somewhat later by Artemon, who was excommunicated by Pope Zephyrinus. About 260 CE it was again taught by Paul of Samosata, [39] the bishop of Antioch in Syria, who openly preached that Jesus was a man through whom God spoke his Word (Logos), and he vigorously affirmed the absolute unity of God.
Between 263 and 268 at least three church councils were held at Antioch to debate Paul’s orthodoxy. The third condemned his doctrine and deposed him. However, Paul enjoyed the patronage of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, to whom Antioch was then subject, and it was not until 272 when the emperor Aurelian defeated Zenobia that the actual deposition was carried out. [40]
In the late third and early fourth centuries, Arius (b. c. 250, Libya – d. 336 CE), a presbyter of Alexandria, Egypt, also taught the finite nature of Christ and the absolute oneness of God, which attracted a large following, until he was declared a heretic by the council of Nicaea in May 325 CE. During the council, he refused to sign the formula of faith stating that Christ was of the same divine nature as God. However, influential support from colleagues in Asia Minor and from Constantia, the emperor Constantine’s daughter, succeeded in effecting Arius’ return from exile and his readmission into the church. [41] The movement which he was supposed to have begun, but which was in fact an extension of Jerusalem Nazarene/Jewish Christian belief, came to be known as Arianism and constituted the greatest internal threat to the Pauline Christian orthodoxy’s belief in Jesus’ divinity.
From 337 to 350 CE, the emperor in the West, Constans, was sympathetic to the orthodox Christians, and Constantius II, sympathetic to the Arians, was Emperor in the East. Arian influence was so great that at a church council held in Antioch (341 CE), an affirmation of faith was issued which omitted the clause that Jesus had the “same divine nature as God”. In 350 CE Constantius II became sole ruler of the empire, and under his leadership the Nicene party (orthodox Christians) was largely crushed. After Constantius the Second’s death in 361 CE, the orthodox Christian majority in the West consolidated its position. However, the defense of absolute monotheism and the suppression of orthodox Christian trinitarian beliefs continued in the East under the Arian emperor Valens (364-383 CE). It was not until Emperor Theodosius I (379-395 CE) took up the defense of orthodoxy that Arianism was finally crushed. The unitarian beliefs of Arius, however, continued among some of the Germanic tribes up until the end of the 7th century. [42]
Modern Thoughts
Today, there are many modern scholars in Christianity who hold that Jesus Christ was not God. In 1977, a group of seven biblical scholars, including leading Anglican theologians and other New Testament scholars, published a book called The Myth of God Incarnate, which caused a great uproar in the General Synod of the Church of England. In the preface, the editor, John Hick, wrote the following: “The writers of this book are convinced that another major theological development is called for in this last part of the twentieth century. The need arises from growing knowledge of Christian origins, and involves a recognition that Jesus was (as he is presented in Acts 2.21) ‘a man approved by God’ for a special role within the divine purpose, and that the later conception of him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity living a human life, is a mythological or poetic way of expressing his significance for us.” [43]
There is a broad agreement among New Testament scholars that the historical Jesus did not make the claim to deity that later Christian thought was to make for him; he did not understand himself to be God, or God the Son, incarnate [in the flesh]. [44] The late Archbishop Michael Ramsey, who was himself a New Testament scholar, wrote that “Jesus did not claim deity for himself.” [45] His contemporary, the New Testament scholar C.F.D. Moule, said that, “Any case for a ‘high’ Christology that depended on the authenticity of the alleged claims of Jesus about himself, especially in the Fourth Gospel, would indeed be precarious.” [46]
In a major study of the origins of the doctrine of the incarnation, James Dunn, who affirms orthodox Christology, concludes that “there was no real evidence in the earliest Jesus tradition of what could fairly be called a consciousness of divinity.” [47] Again, Brian Hebblethwaite, a staunch upholder of the traditional Nicene-Calcedonian Christology, acknowledges that “it is no longer possible to defend the divinity of Jesus by reference to the claims of Jesus.” [48] Hebblethwaite and Dunn, and other scholars like them who still believe in Jesus’ divinity, argue instead that Jesus did not know he was God incarnate. This only became known after his resurrection.
Most famous among the Church of England bishops, who doubt Jesus’ divinity, is the outspoken Reverend Professor David Jenkins, the Bishop of Durham in England, who openly states that Jesus was not God. [49]
The following article, which appeared in The Daily News some years ago, clearly indicates the degree to which there are doubts among the clergy regarding Jesus’ divinity.

Shock survey
Of Anglican bishops

LONDON: More than half of England’s Anglican bishops say Christians are not obliged to believe that Jesus Christ was God, according to a survey published today.
The poll of 31 of England’s 39 bishops shows that many of them think that Christ’s miracles, the virgin birth and the resurrection might not have happened exactly as described in the Bible.
Only 11 of the bishops insisted that Christians must regard Christ as both God and man, while 19 said it was sufficient to regard Jesus as “God’s supreme agent”. One declined to give a definite opinion.
The poll was carried out by London Weekend Television’s weekly religion show, Credo.

“DAILY NEWS” 25/6/84

CHAPTER THREE:
THE MESSAGE
The second issue, ‘The Message of Jesus’, is perhaps the most important point to consider. For, if Jesus was not God incarnate, but a prophet of God, the message which he brought from God is the essence of his mission.

Submission
The foundation of Jesus’ message was submission to the will of God, because that is the foundation of the religion which God prescribed for man since the beginning of time. God says in Chapter Aal ‘Imraan, the third chapter of the Qur‘aan, verse 19:

} إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللهِ اْلإِسْلاَمُ {
“Truly, the religion in the sight of Allaah is Islaam [submission].”

In Arabic, submission to God’s will is expressed by the word ‘Islaam’. In the Gospel according to Matthew 7:22, Jesus is quoted as saying: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven.” In this statement, Jesus places emphasis on “the will of the Father”, submission of the human will to the will of God. In John 5:30, it is narrated that Jesus also said: “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

The Law
The “will of God” is contained in the divinely revealed laws which the prophets taught their followers. Consequently, obedience to divine law is the foundation of worship. The Qur’aan affirms the need for obedience to the divinely revealed laws in chapter al-Maa’idah, verse 44.

} إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَاةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا … وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللهُ فَأُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُونَ {
“Indeed, I did reveal the Torah in which was guidance and light, by which the prophets, who submitted to God’s will, judged (the Jews) … and whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed is a disbeliever,”

Jesus was also reported in the Gospel according to Matthew 19:16-17, to have made obedience to the divine laws the key to paradise: “16 Now behold, one came and said to him,“Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” 17So he said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” [50] Also in Matthew 5:19, Jesus Christ was reported to have insisted on strict obedience to the commandments saying, “Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Divine law represents guidance for humankind in all walks of life. It defines right and wrong for them and offers human beings a complete system governing all of their affairs. The Creator alone knows best what is beneficial for His creation and what is not. Thus, the divine laws command and prohibit various acts and substances to protect the human spirit, the human body, and human society from harm. In order for human beings to fulfil their potential by living righteous lives, they need to worship God through obedience to His commandments. [51]
This was the religion conveyed in the message of Jesus; submission to the will of the one true God by obedience to His commandments. Jesus stressed to his followers that his mission did not cancel the laws received by Prophet Moses. As the prophets who came after Moses maintained the law, so did Jesus. Chapter al-Maa’idah, verse 46 of the Qur’aan indicates that Jesus confirmed the Laws of the Torah in his message.

} وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَى آثَارِهِمْ بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ اْلإِنْجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَةِ {
“And in their footsteps, I sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him, and I gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Torah that had come before it,”
In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus stated: “17 Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the [way of] the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18For, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” However, Paul, who claimed to be a disciple of Jesus, systematically cancelled the laws. In his letter to the Romans, chapter 7:6, he stated, “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.”
Unitarianism
Jesus came as a prophet calling people to worship God alone, as the prophets before him did. God says in chapter an-Nahl (16):36, of the Qur‘aan:

}وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَسُولاً أَنِ اعْبُدُواْ اللهَ وَاجْتَنِبُواْ الطَّاغُوتَ{
“Surely, I [52] have sent to every nation a messenger (saying): ‘Worship Allaah and avoid false gods.”

In Luke 3:8, the Devil asks Jesus to worship him, promising him the authority and glory of all of the kingdoms of this world, “And Jesus answered him, ‘It is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’ ” Thus, the essence of the message of Jesus was that only God deserves to be worshipped and that the worship of anyone or anything besides God or along with God is false. Jesus not only called people to this message but he also practically demonstrated it for them by bowing down in prayer and worshipping God himself. In Mark 14:32, it states: “And they went to a place which was called Gethsemane; and he [Jesus] said to his disciples, ‘Sit here, while I pray.’ ” And in Luke 5:16, “But he withdrew to the wilderness and prayed.”
Jesus called them to worship the one true God who is unique in His qualities. God does not have the attributes of His creation, nor does any creature share any of His attributes. In Matthew 19:16-17, when the man called Prophet Jesus ‘good’, saying, “Good teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” Prophet Jesus replied, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” He denied the attribution of ‘infinite goodness’ or ‘perfect goodness’ to himself, and affirmed that this attribute belongs to Allaah alone.
The vast majority of Christians today pray to Jesus, claiming that he is God. The Philosophers among them claim that they are not worshipping Jesus the man, but God who was manifest in Jesus the man. This is also the rationale of pagans who bow down in worship to idols. When a pagan philosopher is asked why he worships an idol which was made by human hands, he replies that he is not really worshipping the idol. Furthermore, he may claim that the idol is only a focal point for the presence of God, and thereby claim to be worshipping God who is manifest in the idol, and not the physical idol itself. There is little or no difference between that explanation and the answer given by Christians for worshipping Jesus. The origin of this deviation lies in the false belief that God is present in His creation. Such a belief justifies the worship of God’s creation.
Jesus’ message, which urged mankind to worship one God alone, became distorted after his departure. Later followers, beginning with Paul, turned that pure and simple message into a complicated trinitarian philosophy which justified the worship of Jesus, and then the worship of Jesus’ mother, Mary, [53] the angels [54] and the saints. Catholics have a long list of saints to whom they turn in times of need. If something is lost, Saint Anthony of Thebes is prayed to in order to help find it. [55] St. Jude Thaddaeus is the patron saint of the impossible and is prayed to for intercession in incurable illnesses, unlikely marriages or the like. [56] The patron saint of travelers was Saint Christopher, to whom travelers used to pray for protection up until 1969, when he was officially struck off the list of saints by papal decree, after it was confirmed that he was fictitious. [57] Although he was officially crossed off the list of saints, there are many Catholics around the world today who are still praying to St. Christopher.
Worshipping ‘saints’ contradicts and corrupts the worship of One God; and it is in vain, because neither the living nor the dead can answer the prayers of mankind. The worship of God should not be shared with His creation in any way, shape or form. In this regard, Allaah said the following in Chapter al-A ‘raaf (7):194:

} إِنَّ الَّذِينَ تَدْعُونَ مِنْ دُونِ اللهِ عِبَادٌ أَمْثَالُكُمْ {
“Surely, those whom you call on in prayer besides Allaah are slaves like yourselves.”

This was the message of Jesus Christ and all the prophets before him. It was also the message of the last prophet, Muhammad—may peace and blessings be upon all of them. Thus, if a Muslim or a person who calls himself a Muslim prays to a saint, he has stepped out of the bounds of Islaam. Islaam is not merely a belief, wherein one is only required to state that he or she believes that there is no God worthy of worship but Allaah and that Muhammad was the last of the messengers, in order to attain paradise. This declaration of faith allows one who declares it to enter the doors of Islaam, but there are many acts which may contradict this declaration and expel the doer from Islaam as quickly as he or she came in. The most serious of those acts is praying to other than God.
Muslim not “Mohammedan”
Since Jesus’ religion, and that of all of the earlier prophets, was the religion of submission to God, known in Arabic as Islaam, his true followers should be called submitters to God, known in Arabic as Muslims. In Islaam, prayer is considered an act of worship. Prophet Muhammad (e) was reported to have said, “Supplication is an act of worship.” [58] Consequently, Muslims do not accept being called Mohammedans, as followers of Christ are called Christians and followers of Buddha are called Buddhists. Christians worship Christ and Buddhists worship Buddha. The term Mohammedans implies that Muslims worship Muhammad, which is not the case at all. In the Qur‘aan, God chose the name Muslim for all who truly follow the prophets. The name Muslim in Arabic means “one who submits to the will of God.”

} هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مِنْ قَبْلُ وَفِي هَذَا {
“…It is He who named you Muslims both before and in this [scripture, the Qur’aan].” Qur’aan, (22):78

Consequently, the essence of Jesus’ message was that man should worship God alone. He should not be worshipped through his creation in any way. Consequently, His image cannot be painted, carved or drawn. He is beyond human comprehension.
Images
Jesus did not condone the pagan practice of making images of God. He upheld the prohibition mentioned in the Torah, Exodus 20 verse 4: “You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Consequently, the use of religious images, called icons, [59] was firmly opposed by the early generation of Christian scholars. However, in time, the Greek and Roman tradition of image-making and portraying God in human form eventually won out. The prohibition is to prevent the eventual deterioration of worship of God into the worship of His creation. Once a human being makes a picture in his or her mind of God, the person is, in fact, trying to make God like His creation, because the human mind can only picture the things which it has seen, and God can not be seen in this life.
Christians with a tradition of worshipping through images often question how God can be worshipped without visualizing Him. God should be worshipped based on the knowledge of His attributes which He revealed in authentic scripture. For example, Allaah describes Himself in the Qur’aan as being All-Merciful, so His worshippers should reflect on God’s many mercies and give thanks to God for them. They should also contemplate on the nature of His mercy to them and show mercy to other human beings. Likewise, Allaah refers to Himself as being Oft-Forgiving, so His worshippers should turn to Him in repentance and not give up hope when they commit sins. They should also appreciate God’s forgiveness by being forgiving to other human beings.

Prophesy
Part of Prophet Jesus’ message was to inform his followers of the prophet who would come after him. As John the Baptist heralded the coming of Jesus Christ, Jesus in turn heralded the coming of the last of the prophets of God, Muhammad. In the Qur’aan, Chapter as-Saff (61):6, God quotes Jesus’ prophesy about Muhammad (e).

} وَإِذْ قَالَ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ يَا بَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِنِي رَسُولُ اللهِ إِلَيْكُمْ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيَّ مِنَ التَّوْراةِ وَمُبَشِّرًا بِرَسُولٍ يَأْتِي مِنْ بَعْدِي اسْمُهُ أَحْمَدُ .. {
“(Remember) when Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘O Children of Israel, I am the Messenger of Allaah sent to you, confirming the Torah before me, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger coming after me, whose name will be Ahmad. [60]”

There are also some references in the Gospels which seem to refer to the coming of Prophet Muhammad—may God’s peace and blessings be on all the prophets. In the Gospel according to John 14:16, Jesus is quoted as saying, “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, [61] to be with you for ever.”
Christian laymen usually interpret the “Counselor” mentioned in John 14:16 as the Holy Spirit. [62] However, the phrase “another Counselor” implies that it will be someone else like Jesus and not the Holy Spirit, [63] especially considering John 16:7, in which Jesus is reported to have said, “Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.” The term “Counselor” could not be referring to the Holy Spirit here, because—according to the Gospels—the Holy Spirit was already present in the world prior to Jesus’ birth, [64] as well as during his ministry. [65] This verse implies that the “Counselor” had not already come.
Jesus’ declaration that the prophet-counselor “will be with you forever,” could be interpreted to mean that there would be no need for additional prophets to succeed this Counselor. He would be the last of the Prophets of God, whose message would be preserved until the end of the world. [66]
Jesus’ foretelling the coming of Muhammad— may God’s peace be upon both of them—confirmed the prophesies about Prophet Muhammad (e) in the Torah. In Deuteronomy 18:18 & 19, it is written that the Lord said to Moses, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren [67]; and I will put my words in his mouth [68], and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19And whoever will not give heed to my words which he shall speak in my name [69], I myself will require it of him.” In Isaiah 42, Isaiah prophesies about a chosen “Servant of the Lord” whose prophetic mission would be to all mankind, unlike the Hebrew prophets whose missions were limited to Israel. “1 Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations… 4He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law…11Let the desert and its cities lift up their voice, the villages that Kedar inhabits.” This particular servant of the Lord is the only one identified with Kedar, [70] the Arabs. [71]

“Better walking without knowing where,than sitting doing nothing,” Touareg Proverb

Different theories have been put forward to dealing with the mysterious origin of these legendary people. Some believe that they are most likely the descendants of ancient Berber (from the Greek word “Barbaros”, meaning “Barbarian”) named after “Numidians” by the Latin later on. As for them, these so-called legendary people of Northern Africa stemmed from the Berber family group, the same Berber who used to inhabit the banks and the surrounding areas of the Sahara desert. According to some theories, it is believed that these people’s ancestors were the so-called Paleo -Berber
who evolved and gave birth to the Proto-Berber of the protohistory. Others believe that they-these so-called legendary people- have such particular characteristics, whether linguistic or social-cultural, that it is unlikely they belong to the line of the Berber. No matter their origin, these so-called legendary people have ever amazed those who approached them -explorers, scientists, or simple adventurers. The people to whom we are referred are the Touareg , people whose lifestyle, lore, culture still appeal to our imagination, sounding as a pure wonder.
Who are they? Which society are they living in? What are their traditions? In short, what is in fact the nature of their civilization?

There is a great deal of controversy over the etymological meaning of the term “Touareg”; Indeed, experts at Linguistics still appear to hold contentious views about the original sense of the name “Touareg”. Whereas some adepts etymologically consider “Touareg” as simply a Berber name, other adepts at Linguistics, in fact, reckon that the name “Touareg” is most unlikely from the Berber. By doing so, they radically challenge the earlier or previous viewpoint. As for these Linguists, it is rather most likely “Twarig”, known as a broken plural of Targi-an Arabic word the former meaning of which was “Inhabitants of Targa”. Meaning “drainage channel” in Berber, “Targa” is also pointed out as the Libyan region usually known as Fezzan by the Touareg.
Notwithstanding, most Linguists tend to recognize “Touareg” as stemming from an Arabic source. It is not only commonly believed that the word “Touareg” comes from an Arabic origin, but it also seems admitted that the Arabic root for the word “Touareg” should, by translation, be referred to as “Tawariq” as well.
Even though the etymological origin of the term “Touareg” might be arguable according to the Linguistic viewpoint, it is incontrovertible that the word “Touareg” historically had a socio-geographical meaning. Thanks to historical records, we know that many explorers and visitors and historians, especially since Leo Africanus , used to apply the terminology “Touareg” to some Berber populations located in North Africa. Most of these inquisitive adventurers or seekers came up with an ethnic-based, or, at least, a socio-geographical approach to grasp the ethnicity of the Touareg. Since their perspective denotes such a socio-ethnic analysis, a great many Touaregs tend to be reticent to the ethnic, rather, the Berber affiliations. Instead, they would rather call themselves as “Kel Tamasheq” or “Kel Tamajaq” which literally means “Speakers of Tamasheq”.

Whether historians or ethnologists, numerous are the experts who view Touaregs as a Berber ethnic group (Berbers of Sahara). Being classified as Berber people, this suggests that they look much closer to Northwest African Berbers and West African ones in terms of culture and ethnicity. Whether be it socio-geographical or ethnic-based concepts, it still remains that most definitions- relative to Touaregs- are imbued with ethnic systems, that is, with ethnicity. It seems difficult to clearly define these people without falling into racial or ideological notions. What is more is that it is all the more difficult so as there are more and more people- within Touaregs themselves even within some social scientists- that go against this way of defining the Touareg people. Most ethnologists believe and argue that touaregs are defined by language and culture, not by (simply) ethinicity. This is likely why most Touaregs would prefer to give themselves the name “Speakers of Tamasheq” rather than being confined or assimilated unto the broad large and ethical classification of Berber group. Besides this aspect, different names, denominations, appellations have been attributed to Touaregs including the so-called “Blue Men” and “Free-men”.
The name “Blue-Men” of the Desert seems to have nothing to do with ethnicity or particular membership relation. Instead, the name is used to refer to the habits of the Touareg to wearing blue-like dress code. The most distinguishable feature remains the veil called “Taguelmost” by the Touareg. The veil itself shows an important social gap within community. Depending upon the social status, the color of veil generally differs. Common people get used to wearing blue veils, but only chiefs are allowed to put black, dark -like ones on. So, depending on the color of the veil dyed with indigo or the veil itself, inquisitive foreign visitors got accustomed to referring to them as either the “Blue-Men” or simply the “People of the veil”. In fact, the phrase “People of the veil” was known long time ago. Some ancient books of history, especially during Antiquity, referred to the Touareg as “People of the veil”. Furthermore, there are narrative passages which mention and help show how the Ancient Historian perceived the Touareg: “The nobles of these people wear, as I have said, a black veil on their heads, of which a part is used for covering the face all but for eyes. They never leave it: when they want to eat they have to uncover their months each time they take a bit, and quickly cover them up again” (qtd.the people of the veil, ch.6-Pastoralist Berbers: Nomad, Slaves, and Saints.)
While the name “Blue-men” is now widespread and commonplace, the calling “Free-men” or “Imazaghan” (also “Imashagan” or “Imaghan” in Touareg languages) does not look so well-known, yet found in study books. In fact, the name “Imazaghan” comes from the Touareg themselves, from their own perspective. It symbolizes this so-called ideal of freedoms, specifically freedom of actions, of expressions, of beliefs, and so on. Touaregs have ever claimed such freedoms; these attributes of independence really appear to them as natural or inherent. They always seem and even remain to be proud of.

Aside from these different aspects germane to the Touareg people, it dawned on researchers that the touareg culture is ancient and incredibly rich, though complex, concerning many aspects. The famous Danish anthropologist Johannes Nicolaise acknowledged that he believed to have found among Touaregs a rich old culture living in exemplary harmony with its natural environment fairly uninfluenced by modern European civilization. (qtd. in Touaregs: The Blue People
Touareg society faces traditional social stratification. There is indeed a gradual, social hierarchy within the society. The society itself is essentially composed of an upper class of nobles and a lower class of servants. Otherwise, it deals with nobility and vassals.
As a matter of fact, the societal system looks like a feudal one, consisting of a small number of nobles (Aristocrats), a considerable majority of vassals, and a lower class of black non-Touareg serfs who are in charge of agricultural tasks.
According to different social classes, we can distinguish the imusa (warrior-Aristocrats), imrad (vassal-Herdmen), and the inhaden (toolmaking Men).
When time went by, the society evolved. On one hand, another class of slaves called “Eklan” came out in favor of different wars. Many “eklan” were originally “slaves”, either captured during warfare or “bargained”, rather, bought at Asian slave markets. The “ekhlan” or “ikhlan”- brown-skinned people- are likely supposed to be from the descent of ancient slaves known as Bela. On the other hand, with the coming of Islam, a major change in the configuration of the society broke out. In contrast to earlier times, the religious social class called “Ineslemen” occurred and came into being integrated in the society. These Muslim are considered to be the “Holy People” or “Saints”, teaching and preaching Islamic tenets. They are much praised, and they are sometimes venerated. These devout Muslims are not only used to performing religious ceremonials such as communal prayers, but they are also seen as playing a role of “healers” when the populations face misfortune or severe diseases. To resume, the Islamic invasion helped the settling down of these religious Muslims or believers within the community, and Islam made them become an integral part of the Toureg social structure. Besides this, as a complement, it is really interesting to notice another important thing regarding the societal structure. Specialists almost unanimously came to agree upon the tribal nature of the society. One of the most renowned historian, anthropologist, and Linguist Danish Karl-G Prasse, in his famous book Touaregs: The Blue People stated “The Touaregs live in a tribal society.” What does it mean when one says Touaregs live in a tribal society? One might think Touaregs have a deep feeling of membership relations. It is a group of people for whom the affiliations of a given tribe is much-needed. The Touareg people are very often related to each other in terms of tribes. The tribal systems which took place and still remain among different social classes regulate the social hierarchy. However, let us see how Karl Prasse can expound and clarify this idea of tribal systems? Indeed, while referring to the tribal systems or tribal organizations in general, Karl Prass affirmed “In a tribal society, the individual feels that he (or she) is protected by his family and by his tribe and perhaps by a superior confederation of tribes.” Later on, he précised “That is precisely the situation of the Touaregs who all live in states where other ethnic groups are in power” (16).
Similarly, one could interpret the societal organization of the Touaregs in terms of a system of castes. In fact, this idea is quite the same as the idea previously mentioned about the social divisions which basically consists of nobility class, vassal class, and religious one. It is useful to recall and insist on this latter point as K.Prasse witnessed it. Indeed, while describing the systems of castes within the community, Karl Prasse added “It must be noted that Touareg society is based on a system of castes. In addition to noble tribes and vassal tribes, there are religious tribes, artisans, slaves, and peasants” (16).
Another important feature of Touareg society is its matrilineage. It looks like as if matrilineage were inherent to the Touareg society. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language states that matrilineage is a line of descent as traced through women on the maternal side of a family (1080). Many ethnologists are in favor of the matrineal aspect of the Touareg society, but they tend to challenge the matriarchal viewpoint on which some experts have tried to put emphasis. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, a matriarchate or matriarchy is a social system in which the mother is head of the family. It is also defined as a family, community, or society based on this system or governed by women (1080). Some researchers pointed out that Touareg society is not only matrineal, but it is also matriarchal. As a matter of fact, some controversies began occurring. Whether matrilineal or matriarchal, one point should be paid heed to. Depending on which aspects of the women’s role one puts an emphasis on, one will come up with a specific conclusion. Notwithstanding, some evidences show, by means of deep investigations ,that it is most likely reasonable to say that the society itself should be considered as matrilineal, but not necessarily matriarchal. On the contrary, this should not put or set aside the importance of women’s role in the Touareg society. On one hand, as mentioned earlier, most of the lineage process is set up through women or women’s inheritance. On the other hand, women have always played a key role within the community and the family. Firstly, they look after the education of children. Secondly, they take part in the social activities such as environmental protections, Market management (trade, commerce), farming, and herding. As a matter of fact, they do play a role in economic sectors. Thirdly, they also used and keep using to play a key role in maintaining the traditional values of the society. In most cases, they represent, they incarnate not only the tradition, but they strive for keeping it. This is why one could refer to them as “Guardians of the tradition”.
In addition to the nature of Touareg society, different expressions of culture are witnessed within the community. Touareg art is mainly expressed in terms of jewelry, leather, and metal saddle decorations. There are also traditional handicrafts –clay-baked pottery, metal sword (Takoba), gold and silver-made necklaces and earrings which remain wonder. Another form of expressions of art is through songs, poems, and dances. Music is now basically the most famous mode of expressions; it is traditional, and its main topics deal with dead (martyr) or alive Men, Women, Life, and Nature (Sahara, deserts). One Touareg band (music band) is the sensational group Tinariwen which uses electric guitars and traditional music tools at the same time.
Dance is a commonplace practice in the society. During special pageants or celebrations, one can admire Touaregs’ beautiful dance. As an example, the dance “Zarraf” is a dance performed by Touareg women during wedding. In addition, in one particular dance, each gender stays in a different line, facing the other group or partner. Once the music “goes by”, a rhythmic, cadenced movement of the body “goes” and “goes on” until the two partners or eventually the two genders get closer, and then the dance starts over again.
Language is another factor of cultural expressions. The language spoken by Touaregs is “Tamasheq”. This language is believed to stem from a southern Berber language. As a matter of fact, Tamasheq or Tamajaq are most probably derived from the Berber language spoken by ancient“Numidians” (name given to Berber by the Latin) in pre-roman period. Touaregs also have a system of writing which is considered to come from the original Berber script used by the same Numidians during pre-roman times. This is writing is named after “Tifinagh”.
One major component of a culture is religion. Before Islam was introduced into the society, Touaregs practiced what could be called as “Ante-Islamic paganism”. In other terms or words, one could liken them to pagan or polytheists. They had pre-Islamic animistic beliefs including the worshipping of several gods, of nature, of spirits. They also practiced divination. Moreover, superstitions and magic prevailed.
Islam was introduced into the Touareg lifestyle around the 16th century. It was a sunni form of Islam. Although Islam later became an intregral part of the spiritual and social life or existence of Touaregs, there would be a great deal of non-Islamic beliefs performed by Touaregs. Meanwhile, those beliefs are still in progress in some regions.
For instance, a great many Touaregs still remain superstitious (Perhaps due to a high rate of illiteracy); they often invoke dead Saints in their daily life or prayers as well. Besides, many keep on with divination. Most of them do not get rid of their habits of wearing talismans with Islamic writings. In short, they still practice a passive form of Islam which sometimes goes against the sacred principles of the Muslim Religion. As an illustration, it had been said that once you asked a Touareg why he wore a veil, he would tell you that wearing it helped ward off evils (evil spirits). Taking up to the point, one can notice that a good deal of residual beliefs of earlier times still continue to be incorporated into current socio-religious practices. Some traditional sacrifices to dead forefathers or ancestors are in progress. In her article titled “Alms, Elders, and Ancestors: The spirit of the Gift among Touareg”, Susen.J. Rasmussen, while referring to the practice of alms offerings among Touaregs of Niger affirmed that alms offerings are prominent in ideals and practices surrounding elders, ancestors, and mortuary rituals among the Touareg People of Niger Republic West Africa.

Besides the cultural aspect of the society, the Touareg, like other people, met with other cultures: Cultural encounters. Throughout history, Touaregs encountered other Berber cultures such as North African and Mediterranean ones. Through Ages, Touaregs also had close relationships with people living in the sahelian regions of Africa especially Sudanese regions of western Africa. Many social contacts were favored by economic, religious and political (tribal) reasons or motives. Likewise, owing to different armed conflicts (warfare) to which they faced and owing to the natural nomadism which prevailed, cultural encounters gained in importance.
Nowadays, it is thought that Touaregs managed to meet with their neighboring populations because of the progressive dryness of the Sahara desert essentially. Indeed,
It is believed that when the Sahara dried out about 10,000 years, its surrounding populations faced migrations. As for the Touareg people, it appears that they traveled down from the North Africa in a series of migrations, a progressive and continual migration. Thanks to this perpetual flux of migration, they left behind vivid testimonies of their earlier presence. For instance, when they migrated to the sahelian regions of Mali, they founded the city of Timbuktu in the eleventh century. Timbuktu –the mysterious city-has ever compelled the attention of adventurers, explorers, visitors, and scientists. It was believed that it contained priceless treasures, human, historical, natural, archeological, cultural treasures. Many writers began authoring books about this prestigious city of Timbuktu in the northern Mali. By 1300s, it had become one of Mali major commercial and cultural centers.
In favor of their cultural encounters, an important change relative to the Touareg’s lifestyle took place. Even if there is still controversy over this point, one can not ignore that Touaregs knew how to take advantage of social benefices resulted from their interactions with other Berber. One can easily remark that some foreign cultural habits were integrated into the Touaregs’ mode of life. For instance, certain traditional meals, clothing, or even beliefs believed inherent to Touaregs turned out to be from ancient Berber people previously established in the sahelian regions. Those cultural borrowings have been mentioned by well-known historians in their works. In his Book, Africa: Its peoples and their culture, history, George Peter Murdock draws our attention to this idea of cultural borrowings when he states“ In the case of the Touaregs and Udalan, the adaptation has involved so many genuine innovations, as well as borrowings from both the indigenous Negroes and the Bedouin Arabs”(115).
Today, most Touaregs become reconverted to agriculture. Most of them are becoming farmers even if there are still a few pastoralists among them. However, the general trend is that they are more and more concerned with farming rather than grazing or herding. Leading such a life implies a sedentary life. In fact, they are largely and increasingly settling down. In other words, their nomadic life is changing in sedentary one. Many of them left their earlier geographical areas; they left those rural areas for urban areas like large cities (Agadez, Timbuktu) much more populated and “urbanized”. Some attentive researchers remarked this progressive sedentary process. Some go further, and they simply aver that touaregs are now sedentary. While reading the following quotation from Going Global: Tuareg Jewelry in the International Market, you will notice some important expressions used so as to qualify the“contemporary” Touareg: “The Touaregs are a loose confederation of groups of pastoral nomads (Indeed, some do exist), settled agriculturists and today, city dwellers, who speak a Berber language known as Tamasheq or Tamacheck” (Thomas K.Seligman). What worries is that this ongoing migration towards urban cities (urbanizing going with modernizing and with sedentary living) might affect Touaregs’ ancient traditions and traditional and nomadic nature.
The social context in which Touareg society actually evolves, especially after the Independence of African countries around 1960s, is worthy of great interests. One of the major problem deals with cultural minority issues. Many suffer from a lack of interest towards them from the new independent states in which they live. They denounce the persistent marginalization that they have been undergoing for awhile. In fact, what is on table is the acknowledgement of their cultural rights, the acknowledgement of their will for founding this so-called “Touareg Nation”. What do we know about this alleged “Nation”? In short, it is likely that there used to be a “Nation” (probably melting pop races), a Touareg “Nation” having peopled the geographical areas stretching from Mediterranean banks to the Sahara deserts, a Nation enriched by its social and artistic and religious and scientific achievements. However, this remains pure hypothesis, if not, pure fantasy. Nevertheless, many Touareg activists still hope and aim at bringing into existence this so-called Touareg “Nation”. In order to claim their self- proclaimed or “legitimate” rights, their different rights, Touaregs’ will took different forms especially through armed conflicts. Their claim gained in importance when they started fighting the established governments following the Independence in 1960s. We bear in mind the tragic civil wars occurred in the regions of Mali in 1990s.
In the early 1990s, guerilla warfare broke out between Mali Government and the belligerent Touaregs who were militarily trained and equipped by the Libyan State further to the catastrophic droughts in 1972 and 1982-1985.
In accordance with their Laws, the concerned States, (Mali, but also Niger) chose to address the rebellion or the “militia” by means of weapons rather than dialogue(s). This resulted in the killing of thousands of civil populations and an exceptional migration of hundreds of thousands of people to Algeria, Mauritania, Niger, Burkina Faso, and Ivory Coast. The counter attack by the Mali and Niger governments was tough. One author, Gabriel Ben Dor, in his book Minorities and the State in the Arab World précised “The larger Touareg communities in Mali and Niger face severe repression from the regimes there (49).
Owing to these civil conflicts, the whole Touareg society became disorganized, so disorganized that intestine wars or conflicts between Touaregs themselves and between Touareg tribes came out. Some Touareg leaders or tribes’ chiefs did not hesitate to accuse the concerned governments to be behind this friction among Touaregs. One important consequence which resulted from this is the establishment of two armed fractions of Touaregs, each having its own leadership and directives.
Thanks to the interference of neighboring States, foreign and diplomatic initiatives, the warfare ended up with the signature of a civil and peaceful pact whose main purposes consisted of giving a larger autonomy to the Touareg, of furthering the socio-economic growth within the community, of promoting educational and health infrastructures.
Nowadays, Touaregs are facing to one of the most environmental crisis that they have never witnessed before. Desert looks ubiquitous. It cannot seemingly stop progressing. This constant progress of the Sahara Desert compels Touaregs to perpetual migrations. All of the surrounding areas become dryer and dryer. The animals such cattle, goats, sheep, and so on are suffering from this situation. There is hardly water nearby the living places. Moreover, a great deal of vegetations disappears. Meanwhile, the absence of pure waters and suitable and healthy environment give raise to current water-related diseases. All of these of factors, either natural, environmental, or human-made , leave no other choice to Touaregs- frequently accompanied by their flocks or cattle- than moving from arid areas to more prosperous and fertile ones. This brings about another drawback dealing with the conflict between farmers and pastoralists this time. The social tension between agriculturists and cattle-herders (especially nomadic populations such as Touaregs) is reaching its height. As a result, many people are reportedly deadly injured. Some States deplore hundreds of victims due to this particular conflict between farmers and pastoralists annually. Actually, the environmental crisis within the Sahel and the banks of the Sahara strengthens social crisis, worsens the relationship between communities, and menace thousands of living species. The Sahelian Social Systems describes the increasing gravity of the situation as follows:
Situations of competition and conflict among individuals and among groups are multiplying. Disorder is introduced into relations between societies and nature. Space is becoming more scarce and climatic conditions are worsening, accentuating and accelerating the transformations that are underway to the point that where the sustainable exploitation of ecosystems is now under threat (Bradley et al.214).

So far, we have seen how complex and rich remains the Touareg’s culture. We have also analyzed the major components of the Touareg’s civilization. Likewise, we have witnessed the dynamism of this particular Berber culture through its historical evolution. However, what is worrying is a progressive loss of certain Touareg traditional values especially during this era of globalization and urbanization. It is imperative to urge the concerned countries to try to preserve and value the priceless symbolism that the Touareg Cultures represent or incarnate. These “people of the veil”, these so-called “Blue-men” ,being settled down between different countries-Mali, Niger, Algeria, Burkina Faso and being estimated between 100,000 and 3.5 millions, do not cease fascinating our imagination and stirring up a good deal of interrogations about our own origin given their ancient history dating back to hundreds of thousands of years.

Works cited
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 2000.
Bradley Phil,, Dellville Langne Phillipe, Gregoire Emmanuel, Janin Pierre, Koechlin
Jean, and Raynaud Claude. Sahelian Social Systems.London: Routledge,1997.
Gabriel Ben-Dor. Minorities and the State in the Arab World. Boulder, CO:
Lynne Rienner, 1999.
George Peter Murdock. Africa: Its People and their Culture and History. N.Y:
Mc Graw, 1959.
Karl-G Prasse. Touaregs: The Blue-People. Copenhagen : Museum Tusculanuim
Press,1995.
Susen.J. Rasmussen. Reflections on Witchcraft, Danger, and Modernity among Touareg.
Africa, vol.74, 2004.
http://www.questia.com/SM.qst.
Thomas K. Seligman. Going Global: Tuareg Jewelry in the International Marketplace.
African Arts, vol.39, 2006

China, the new number one super-power (2013)

Welcome to the World of the Super-Power economies!

According to the newly study of Global Insight, China will become the first economy of the World in 2013 if the country manages to maintain its economic growth at such an increasing rate. What a prowess!

Since the beginning of its progressive change towards liberal economy, China has been making headline in newspapers. From its state of economic promiscuity and desolate impoverishment to its radical move towards Communism, China has never failed to grapple with future challenges that its own population has been faced to. The Chinese populations are well aware of the necessity for anticipating social, economic, and political crisis ahead. The Chinese Government has been well conscious of stimulating national productivity or even production to better the politico-socio-economic stability that it is required to set into motion the dynamism of a Nation, of a country, or of a sub-continent. If it is easy to oversee such politico-socio-economic dynamism in a small country, it is not the case of such a sub-continent as China. Geographically, China is really a vast country. The vastness or wideness of its territory helps provide a variety of sub-continental as well as sub-tropical climates. The diverse nature of Climates favors a diversity of crops -from rice, millet, to wheat fields. China immense territory and land have it equated with some of the largest countries in the world including Indian. Just as it has an immense extending areas, China has also a tremendous demographic population over one billion people whose ethnicity as well as cultural background are full of similarities and differences. Every insightful Economist will tell you how crucial it is to have such a considerable and dense population. We know that such a thing can promote and stimulate economic growth from within’. Demography or the study of population is one of the most important contributions to the understanding of the dynamism especially socio-economic dynamism which sustains the development of a country. Chinese who reside in the country or out of the country contribute to, at an extraordinary way, the rise of the economy. Thousands of millions of Chinese are living out of the country; they are striving to send huge quantity of money back to home. The nature of their unfailing patriotism and matchless sacrifice to their loved ones are legendary. How is it possible that such a country which was so underdeveloped and even classified among the poor countries in the world manages to reach such a progress within’ twenty five years alone after its march towards liberalization?

Japan was the first miracle country which became the second most powerful economy in the world after the United States of America and just within’ a short time of period. The Japanese defy all odds of probability as to the eventual and gradual evolution of an economy in a short period of time. None could almost foresee the powerful status that Japan could have held since its miracle rise as far as the political and economic and technological performances are concerned. Notwithstanding, the fact of such a rise is before everyone, before our own eyes. Yet, most people still seem to be unaware of the upcoming second miracle of its kind in the history of the World: The Chinese Miracle.
Twenty-five years ago, China was uneasily rising from the ashes of the disastrous ensuing consequences of World War 2 which tore the country into pieces. The progress was yet perceptible even if so much needed to be done. It was a shy, timid, but predictable progress ahead. Even if the country had been blamed for its inhuman practices, nobody could ignore that nothing from the outside World had been done to help and promote socio-economic progress in this country. Nobody dared to take steps to stimulating the human progress in this country after the horrific wars. Once again after failing to meeting with such challenges, China became victim of communist ideologies. Such ideologies lay the basis of the Cold War between the Communist Block and the liberal and democratic one. A drastic regime took place in China which indoctrinated Chinese to self-autonomy and self-consumption and self-reliance and self-reliability. China was then closed to outside world up to the end of Cold war and the apparent victory of capitalism and Democracy over communism worldwide. It was therefore after the Cold War that western countries tried to keep in touch with China as far as socio-economic activities are concerned. China was gradually entering into the World again. It managed to be an economic partner to many countries; It strove to maintain its leadership (agricultural products and textiles). It also engaged into foreign and diplomatic affairs more actively than in the past. It managed to rise as an influential political figure in front of the world.
With such a tremendous progress along with demographic and geographic potential, China reached an incredible status in the World, let alone forgetting the external revenues from its citizens living in America, Europe, or Africa. Many factors either economic, social, or political ones could convey a certain information about the quick increasing economy of China; however, one must keep in mind that China is also an industrializing economy.

For long time, China has favored human labor at the expense of introduction of machinery at a large scale. We know there used to be some machinery which were in use during the World Wars and the Cold War; yet, the productivity of such a machinery was very low. Chinese authorities could not rely on their efficiency at that time. Beside, the Communist Ideologies and the Chinese philosophies kept supporting the human labor concept rather than industrializing the production. After the ravage of wars, China has decided to get involved with industrialization. The process is likely to reduce the scale of labor force, but it can stimulate the economy in such an efficient way that no human force could be comparable with. The decision of introducing industrial complexes-at a larger scale- in the economy has been heard of. In order to boost the economy, it was required to establish economic reforms. One consequence of such a reform helped the establishment of foreign expertise in the country. With the help of industrial societies, a new generation of robots and machinery was introduced in the industrializing Chinese society. The support of foreign currencies into the Chinese economy managed to improve the eventual internal socio-economic crisis which was taking place at the same time as second class workers were being laid off at the expense of foreigners. Today, China has managed to modernize its industries with newly industrial mechanisms. Such a modernization has gone along with a sophisticated robotization of transactions and exchanges between firms within’ and out of the country. Of course, such a thing could only benefit from local economy which can now capitalize on the external exchanges between China and the rest of the World. The era of globalization has made it imperative to China to be competitive in the Market system. It requires of it to be in fashion with the World. If the process of globalization has required a modernization of the economy, it has also required China to launch a series of ambitious reforms among them are political and military, strategic and scientific ones. The increasing amount of weaponry fund, of investment in Africa recently, of space conquest denotes such an ambition.

Now, at the dawn of a new era, a new born Baby is opening its eyes; its eyes are watching over the world as never before; its eyes are secretly scrutinizing the wealth and potential of under developing countries. Such a newly Baby in the new economic configuration of the World is greedier than ever. It has already been a super-power; yet, that is not enough that is because such a super-powerful Baby or Entity, in order to be self-sustainable, has to manage to adapt itself and to take profit wherever it may be no matter the human costs whether it is a violation of human rights or political support to non-democratic regimes in place. The Baby who is newly risen up does not care about what others may think of it; it seeks its natural growth beyond biases. It seeks to transcend the hypocritical views of the western world. The only thing that we can do is to scold the Baby when it is disturbing and troublesome; yet, even if we scold the Baby, we still infuse Love into the Heart of it . China is the newly Baby, a socio-politico-economic Baby which deserves as much respect and honor as the rest of the world. However, if we want to change the behavior of a Baby, we have to educate those who help it grow, its entourages, and its natural greed for material food.

There is no better way to give an account of the state of hip hop nowadays. The residual presence of this prestigious art of living, of expressing one’s identity, of expressing one’s feelings through music and dance is undergoing a tremendous downfall.For those who do not know, Hip Hop has always been seen as the bedrock of black folks ways of expressing their identity and philosophy.Saying that Hip Hop is dead has a tremendous impact. The spiritual Fathers of Hip Hop like James Brown would not have believed if they had been told what their inheritors might have done with their priceless heritage to their descent-black folks. Whether or not Hip Hop is dead does not really matter, what matters is what remained out of hip hop nowadays. Just like Hip Hop is likely to meet its demise in this new era, it is likely that rap, reggae, roots, and so on will also undergo drastic changes in the upcoming years. There is really a general upsurge upon the vitality of artists who performed such kinds of music: The reform of the message. Indeed, a reform is being carried out by many artists so as to convey a suitable message to future generations. It is now proposed to direct the conscious of young people at self-responsibility and self-morality. Such a reform has already been implemented -in some ways-concerning the apparent consensus of banning “dirty expressions or words” from the vocabulary of the new generation of R’N”B, Rap, Hip Hop singers . Today, the black entertainment industries agree upon the prohibition of using the “F’ or “B” or any words which may debase people’s characters or identity. This is a victory of the world of music, a victory of the maturity of black leadership in the United States of America. The new generation of US citizens deserves better education especially black young men. Since young folks are the main consumers of such music, they are the first to seize up the message delivered by the artists, and they are the first to be influenced by the message which is conveyed unto them. If there is an effort to forbid the use of “f” words or others, it is advisory to forbid the use of the word “snitches” which is being widespread in big cities. Such a word as ‘snitch” restricts people from being a good American citizen, from getting involved in the well-being of the community, from collaborating with the law officers regarding homicide or killings. We should therefore forbid such words as well; we should even punish those who may make use of such a word publicly. Nowadays, a great many people think that it is grand time for Rap or Hip Hop singers to move forward. This dynamic move towards something bigger than before, considering the human rights, is really a breakthrough in the twenty-first century for the entire world of music made in US.
As the slogan goes “ A New Century, A New Style , A New Black-Manhood” , something is happening in the world of black entertainment. What is at stake is the revival of a new concept of black music, a new concept of black identity, and a new concept of black supremacy.
The so-called concepts of “Black is beautiful” or “Hip-Hop” seem to be dead. From their death, from their ashes, a new concept of Black hood is being dawned.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Fat Joe Triumph over 50 Cent: Congratulations

Posted by saiigain at Friday, April 24, 2009 0 comments

Essay: “THE MAN I KILLED” BY TIM O’BRIEN

This essay, titled “the man I killed”, describes the death of a young man in a battle field. We face to the typical scenario of the guilty and the victim (the narrator himself and the dead man). As stated earlier, the story takes place in a context of war. While realistically depicting this dead young soldier-his victim- the author keeps giving particular details about his probable backgrounds. By nature, we learn that the young man did not want to be a soldier. He did not look like a fighter. According to the author, this young man looked as a citizen, a plain citizen whose needs would have been to succeed in his mathematics major and to live in peace.Some day, being fighter and being killer would then have been a matter of circumstances. What motivated this young soul(to fight and to kill) as the author pointed it out would consist of performing his patriotic duties towards his own society, people, and neighborhood: “He would have been taught that to defend the land was a man’s highest duty and highest privilege. He had accepted this.”
In short, the author, while seemingly feeling guilty for what happened, has perfectly known how to give us not only a vivid description of the scene, but also a vivid testimony of his inner experience and the harsh reality of the armed conflicts.

Essay: OF MY FRIEND HECTOR AND MY ACHILLE’S HEEL

BY KAUFFMAN MICHAEL

“The story is about prejudice and stupidity. My own”, said the narrator. What this essay is about is a story which makes a reference to two earlier friends-the author himself and his Hispanic friend Hector. Specifically, the story depicts a case of prejudices, as well as the ensuing consequences, that the “story teller” got used to having against Hector, which story itself dates back to childhood when both used to play together and go together to school. Narrated chronologically, the story makes us know that everything seemed perfect between those two young friends –“We visited each other’s home, and I know that at the time I liked Hector and I think he liked me. I may even have eaten my first avocado at his house.”- until time came when they were doomed to separate. Harmony came to end when prejudiced ideas and misconceptions kept being borne in the mind of the narrator:” So why did I think he was a longshoreman? Was it just the cap? Could it be that his being Puerto Rican had something to do with it? May be that reinforced the Stereotype I concocted, but it was not the root of it.”
Where is the real source of this stereotype? It is embedded in what happened during childhood, what happened when they went to different classes, and what happened when they grew up as adult people. According to the author, the foundation (referring to the stereotype) was laid when he (author) was eleven, when he was in 7SP-1 and he (Hector) was not, when he was in the IGC and he (Hector again) was not.
Personal experience or common fact in our daily life, the issues that this essay speaks about seem typical. Those racial or cultural prejudices need to be paid heed if this nation wants a better life for his children.