In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
DEDICATED TO
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
AND TO
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms
*

  JESUS BIRTH
IN THE BIBLE & IN THE QUR’ANhttps://www.amazon.com/SHARIAH-SUPREME-SYSTEM-CHRIST-CHRISTIANS/dp/1777798116/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2KEKYV46R2MIQ &keywords=shari%27ah+supreme+system&qid=1640458250&sprefix =shari%27ah+supreme+system%2Caps%2C67&sr=8-1

CONTENTS:
1. Jesus birth in the Bible
2. Jesus birth in the Qur’an
3. Jesus like Adam
4. God breathing of His Spirit
5. Jesus and Mary as signs of Allah
6. Jesus living to an old age
7. What became of Jesus post-“cross”?
8. Jesus “crucifixion”
9. Jesus death
10.Jesus “ascension”
11.Jesus return a Church myth
12. Dajjal
13. Who is a Muslim?
**************************************************

1. JESUS BIRTH IN THE BIBLE:
Unless he was unawares of the manner of his birth –which would be strange for God/Son of God– there is no instance where Jesus claims to be of miraculous birth as proof of his mission. Neither did his mother made such a claim –not even to save him from “crucifixion.”

Isaiah 7:14 says, “a virgin shall CONCEIVE (conception is sperm and ovum), and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. The correct translation of the Hebrew word halmah in the verse is “young woman” not “virgin”.
Paul taught Jesus had a human father
   (a) “Therefore (David) being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the FRUIT OF HIS LOINS, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne”–(Acts 2:30);
   (b) “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ…which was made of the SEED OF DAVID ACCORDING TO THE FLESH”–(Romans 1:3);
   (c) “Remember that Jesus Christ of the SEED OF DAVID”–(2 Timothy 2:8). And “seed” is sperm, and “according to the flesh” is sexual intercourse.
   (John Dominic Crossan in his book The Essential Jesus–Original Sayings and Earliest Images, Published by Harper San Francisco, p.34, shows a baptizing scene with John the Baptist with Jesus as a young child). (Jesus birth in the Qur’an dealt with in chapter 2).

That Jesus was NOT of virgin birth is also gleaned from the fact that the Messiah had to come from the House of Judah/David–(Matthew 1:1-6; Luke 1:27; 3:31-33; Revelation 22:16).
   If Jesus was born through virgin birth he could not have been of the house of David because his mother, Mary, was of the lineage of Levi (Elizabeth and Mary were cousins)–(Exodus 4:14; Luke 1:5, 34-36).
   Thus, If Jesus is the Messiah he could not be of virgin birth, and if Jesus was of virgin birth he could not be the Messiah.
   For Jesus to be of the House of David, Mary had to marry into the House of David; and give birth to Jesus for Jesus to be Messiah. Mary’s “husband” Joseph was of the House of David–(Matthew 1:16, 20; Luke 1:27).

If God had will Mary to conceive without male intervention, it was not necessary for her to marry Joseph (or any other) to protect her good name against any scandal. Mary was a righteous person and if she had told her people that God had willed her to have a child through immaculate conception there was no reason her people should doubt her.
The Israelites were no strangers to miracles. Not only did they accept the births of Isaac and John the Baptist to be of Divine intervention –even Hannah seemed to have had “virgin births”: “And the Lord visited Hannah, so that she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters”(1 Samuel 2:21)– but the landscape of the Israelites’ religious history is colored with “signs” from heaven: from Balaam’s ass speaking to Balaam–(Numbers 22:28, 30); to Moses transforming a stick into a serpent–(Ex. 7:10); to Elijah ascending to heaven by a whirlwind –(2 Kings 2:11).
As Jesus says: “Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe”–(John 4:48). The Jews, seemingly, believed more in miracles than in Jesus. Thus, it was not necessary for Mary to marry Joseph to preserve her character.

Jesus himself stated in unambiguous terms: “I am the root and the offspring of David”–(Revelation 22:16). When the angels brought the news of Jesus’ birth to Mary, the angel told her that God will give Jesus the throne of “his father David”–(Luke 1:32).
To emphasize:
If Jesus is the Messiah he could not be of virgin birth.
If Jesus was of virgin birth he could not be the Messiah.
             (According to Christians Jesus-had s-x with his mother).
****************************************************

                  2.  JESUS BIRTH IN THE QUR’AN
Probably the most contentious issues among Muslims are the birth, ascension and return of Jesus. Even to the point that Muslims are labeling other Muslims as kafirs –unbelievers.
   Whether Jesus had a father or not, whether he is dead or is alive in heaven and would return are not articles of faith –and no reason for division. Allah will make clear to us wherein we differ–(Qur’an 16:92; 39: 46; 42:10. As Allāh will show us the truth of the matter in which we differ, why are Muslims battling one another?)
This presentation is not to question the power of Allāh to create Jesus without a father, to raise him literally into the heavens and to return him to earth. This presentation is to investigate the correctness of the interpretations of materials on virgin birth, literal ascension and return of Jesus.

Allāh says Jesus is the Messiah–(Qur’an 3:44). And as shown, if Jesus was of virgin birth he could not have been of the house of David because his mother, Mary, was not of the lineage of David but of the lineage of Levi/Imran–(Exodus 4:14; Luke 1:5, 34-36). Thus: If Jesus is the Messiah he could not be of virgin birth. And if Jesus was of virgin birth he could not be the Messiah.
   Though the Qur’an does not say that Jesus would be from the house of David, this teaching of the Bible is to be accepted. Muslims are required to believe in the Revelations given to prophets before the Qur’an–(Qur’an 3:83, and considering that this injunction was given some six hundred years after the birth of Jesus). Allah has revealed to us what not to believe, such as divinity of Jesus, inherited sin, vicarious atonement, “chosen people” to the exclusion of others, karma and reincarnation.

Mary and Elizabeth were cousins –Muhammad Ali has explained the terms “woman of Amran” (Qur’an 3:34) and “sister of Aaron” (Qur’an 19:27-28) in his translation of the Qur’an, which can be viewed/downloaded at www.muslim.org.

The other factor is the Annunciation–(Qur’an 3:44-46). The angels tell Mary Allāh will give her a son; Mary replied: “How can I have a son and man has not touched me.” To which “He said: “Even so; Allāh creates WHAT He pleases. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.”
   Significantly, is the “He” in “Even so; Allāh creates WHAT He pleases,” referring to Allāh or to the angel who did the speaking? And are the words “Even so; Allāh creates WHAT He pleases. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is,” are these the words of Allāh speaking directly to Mary now, or, knowing the power of Allāh, are they the words of the Angel(s)?
   Notably, Allāh is only recounting what transpired between Mary and the Angels when they gave His message to her.

In any event, had Mary not protested, the words “Even so; Allāh creates WHAT He pleases. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.” might not be present, and no assumption of virgin birth would be made. Allah is assuring Mary, as information only, that even if man has not touched her, that He is powerful to have her bear a son without a husband. And not that He was going to give her a son without a husband.
However:
The statement, “Even so; Allāh creates WHAT He pleases” is to be understood against the Angels saying that Allāh will give Mary a son; it is not to be understood against Mary’s objection “How can I have a son and man has not touched me.”
   The verse says Allah creates “WHAT”–son or daughter– it did not say Allah creates “HOW”– with or without a man/husband.

Allāh’s decree is that it was His plan to send Jesus, not that Jesus would be fatherless. “Be, and it is” does not mean that the thing Allah decrees will manifest instantaneously or without a process; it only means that when Allah decrees a thing no one or nothing can thwart/prevent it from coming into being.
   If Allāh created Jesus without a father, this would be in contradiction that Jesus is/was the Messiah for, as noted above, the Messiah came from the house of David/Judah whereas Mary was of the house of Levi/Aaron.

It may be asked, why would Allah send angels to Mary if Jesus was to be born with a father? Angels must have been sent to inform Mary that she would be given a son, which was what her mother, Hannah/Anna, was expecting for herself–(Qur’an 3:34-35). Also, it may be because of this son being the Messiah. (It could not be to forewarn Mary, because as “virgin” Mary would be be astonished as to how she could be with child without having intimate relations; because then, as shown, Jesus could not be of the House of David, and Messiah).

In this announcement to Mary, Allah informs Mary that her son would be named “the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary”–(Qur’an 3:44).  Allah named Jesus “son of Mary.”
   The question that arises is why did Allāh named Jesus “son of Mary” if he was not of virgin birth?
While the proper answer would be only Allāh knows; and anything else is speculation. Perhaps Jesus was named “son of Mary because righteous people are referred to by their righteous lineage, as in the case of Mary’s mother, Anna/Hanna, being referred to as “woman of Imran”–(Qur’an 3:34), and Jesus being referred to as “son of Mary” is only an address of honor through his righteous mother;  or, as Jews had taken the prophet Ezra as son of God–(Qur’an 9:30)–Allāh naming Jesus “son of Mary” was to put a check on Jews taking Jesus as “son of God.”

 But why “son of Mary” and not “son” of his father, i.e. “son of  Joseph.”
Jesus was named “son of Mary” and not “son (of Joseph) seemingly because in Judaism children are joined by their mothers. Or, as noted above because people are referred to through their righteous lineage.
   It may be submitted that if Jesus was of virgin birth there would have been no need for Allāh to name him “son of Mary;” it would already be understood that since he was conceived without male association he could not have been given a father’s name.
   Also, Allāh not naming Jesus’ father or naming Jesus after his father is no indication that Jesus was without a father. The names of the Prophet Mohammad’s father and mother are not given in the Qur’an, are we to assume that he had no father or mother?

The remark of Mary’s people in  Qur’an 19:27-28, about Mary bringing a strange thing and that her father “was not a wicked man, nor was thy mother an unchaste woman”, though implying that Mary had a child out of wedlock, it is not a charge of sexual misconduct. Charge of sexual misconduct against Mary was made a hundred years later, in the “second century.”
If this was a charge of unchasteness, it is strange that Mary and/or the one with her did not relate to their people the visit by the angels announcing the birth of Jesus –miracles were not a novelty to the Jews– but instead the reply was given: “He said: I am indeed a servant of Allāh. He has given me the Book and made me a prophet”–(19:30): agreeably, not an appropriate response to a charge of adultery or unchasteness.
   That Mary’s people did not charge her with adultery is evidenced by the Gospels themselves which regarded Jesus to be of legitimate birth: “Is not this the carpenter’s son?”–(Matthew 13:55); “Is not this Joseph’s son?”–(Luke 4:22). This also shows that they considered Jesus’ birth to be of natural conception and not supernatural/miraculous.

Charge of adultery against Mary was made a century later. During Jesus’ lifetime there was no suspicion as to the manner of his birth. The Jews, as Khwaja Nazir Ahmad notes in his Jesus in Heaven on Earth, held that Mary had intimate relations with one Pandera, a Roman soldier. However, as noted, this charge against Mary was made, not during the time of Jesus’ birth, or lifetime, but a century later.  Jesus was given Divine status a hundred years after his birth. At which time the Pagans responded with the charge of illegitimate birth.
   Khwaja Nazir Ahmad notes:

“So long as the early Christians did not assert the virgin birth of Jesus, none of his contemporaries challenged his legitimacy. But the moment Jesus was raised to the pedestal of Godhead, the imaginations of the hagiographers had full scope to indulge in the most affecting or foolish fabrications accorded to their literary skill. In the second century they attributed supernatural birth to Jesus. The Pagans retorted with the charge of illegitimacy. The Christian legendary cult has to thank itself for this calumny against Jesus and Mary. Josephus had provided the Pagans with a parallel–(Josephus, Antiq; XVIII: 3-4) for he records that Mundus, a Roman knight, won Paulina, the chaste knight of a Roman noble, to his wishes by causing her to be invited by a priest of Isis into the temple of the goddess under a pretext that the god Anubis desired to embrace her. In the innocence of faith Paulina resigned herself and would perhaps have afterwards believed that she gave birth to the son of this god had not the intriguer, with bitter scorn, soon after disclosed to her the true state of affairs.
   The Pagans substituted Mary for Paulina and Joseph (for) Pandera, a soldier, for the Roman knight mentioned by Josephus.
   This calumny was taken up by the Jews of the second century, and found a place in the Talmud. Jesus was then styled as ben Pandera. (i.e. son of Pandera). It is this calumny of which Celsus accuses Jews and which is referred to by Origen–(Orig; C: Celsus, I:32) but of which the Jews of the time of Jesus were ignorant and innocent.”

This calumny of 4:156 against Mary is referring to the charge of the second century when Jesus was given Divine status and the Jews responded with the charge of “illegitimacy” against Mary.  Thus, Qur’an 4:156 refers to the charge of the second century. Whereas Mary’s people’s apprehension was during the time of Mary and Jesus, and not in the second century; and therefore could not be about adultery.
If Mary’s people had viewed her as being guilty of sexual misconduct, they would have stoned her, as the Jewish law required.

Allah said that He would clear Jesus of those who disbelieve–(Qur’an 3:54). What was it that Allah would “clear” Jesus of?  It was not about Jesus being of illegitimate birth. Jesus was charged with sedition. This is the charge that the Jews had “sought false witness against Jesus”–(Matt. 26:59-65; Luke 22:70-71). They ‘disbelieved’ in him–(charging that “he made himself the “Son of God”–John 19:7).
If Jesus was born out of wedlock it would not have been his fault. A person does not have any say in how he/she was conceived. In such a case it would not be Jesus who would need to be ‘cleared,’ but the parents would need clearing.

As already pointed out, during Jesus’ time there was no question about the manner of his birth; because, as noted above, he was not given Divine status till in the “second century.”
Regarding the false charge against Jesus, Allah cleared Jesus of this false charge by having Pilate, perhaps through his wife, find “no fault” in Jesus, and “no cause” to put him to death–(Matt. 27:19; Luke 23:14, 22). (And saved him from crucifixion, also). (Why Coptic Christians honor Pilate and his wife, later).

It may be asked why did Allah not give the name of the father of Jesus?
   As Jews and Christians do not accept Mohammad as Prophet of God and the Qur’an as Revelation from God, Allāh naming Jesus’ father, it is doubtful Jews and Christians would believe.
   Instead of the name of Jesus’ father Allah has given us something more compelling and more definitive than the name of Jesus’ father; He has given us a fact that no rational mind can deny. Allah has called us to reason, to self-deliberation (and even to self-incrimination of those who persist against reason):
“How could He have a son when He has no consort”? (Qur’an 6:102).
Whoever Jesus’ father is he could not be God. This effectively and categorically demolishes the Christian claim that Jesus is “begotten son”/“son” of God.

Since there is no contradiction in the Qur’an and since Allah named Jesus the Messiah, who must come from the House of David, the Annunciation of the birth of Jesus could not be taken to mean ‘virgin birth.’ Because this would then be in contradiction with Qur’an 3:44, where Jesus is named the ‘Messiah.’
   Therefore verses about the Annunciation could not be taken to mean virgin birth or miraculous conception.

3.JESUS LIKE ADAM:
Allah says: “Surely the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said, Be, and he was”–(Qur’an 3:58. It is to be noted that all mortals are created from dust–(Qur’an 22:5; 30:20; 40:68).
   Allah’s command “Be” is noted in Qur’an 2:118; 3:58; 6:73; 16:40; 19:35; 36:82; 40:68. Allah’s command “Be, and it is”, and that creation is like the twinkling of an eye–(Qur’an 54:50), does not mean that a thing materializes without a process.
   “Be, and it is” only means that when Allah decrees a thing nothing can prevent it from manifesting. And a thing manifesting in the twinkling of an eye only means that in Allah’s sight it is instantaneous, whereas to us mortals it takes time.
For example, Allah tells us that a day of His is like a thousand of our years–(Qur’an 22:47).  (Unless my math is flawed) a day of Allah would be 365,000 days for us. Since it took Jesus (and all mortals, generally) nine months or approximately 270 days from conception to birth, then in the sight of Allah, the time from our conception to birth occurs in only 0.00074 day(s), or 0.0178 hour, or 1.07 minute or 64 seconds, or, figuratively, in the twinkling of an eye.
(A person of 70 years would have lived a mere one hour and forty minutes, in Allah’s estimation).

To restate. Allah says:  “Surely the likeness of Jesus is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He created him from dust, then said, Be, and he was”–(Qur’an 3:58). (Adam taken to be the first man).
   If Jesus’ likeness with Adam is taken literally then it would not be applicable. For Adam had neither father nor mother; whereas Jesus had a mother (at least); and Adam was created out of literal dust whereas Jesus was created out of his mother’s ovum (at least), and had to go through the process of fetal development and childbirth, (whereas Adam did not go through the process of fetal development).
   If this verse is taken to mean that Jesus was created through a miracle then Jesus could not be the Messiah; because then he would not have a father; and could not have come through the house of David. And the Messiah was to come from the house of David.
If Jesus was born though a miracle, it would be a contradiction of the statement that he was the Messiah. And there is no discrepancy in the Qur’an.

(Taking Adam to mean the first man). It is significant to note that Allah says that Jesus/Adam was first created THEN He said “Be, and he was.” Creation, in the form of the sperm, takes place in the man, and conception, which is the combining of the sperm with the ovum, takes place in the woman. So a person is first created before he is conceived.
   This creation of Adam/Jesus does not refer to the creation of the soul (of Adam/Jesus); because Allah says that the likeness between them is that he created them from “dust”, and the soul is not created from “dust.”
Allah’s word is not dust either, to those who hold that Jesus was created literally through the word of Allāh. Allāh  breathing into Mary of His spirit, as translated by Yusuf Ali–Qur’an 66:11–is no argument for virgin birth, the “spirit” of God is not “dust,” nor is such breathing restricted to Mary: the Spirit of God is breathed into all mortals–Qur’an 32:9.

   However, the correct translation, as noted by Muhammad Ali, is that God breathed into him, Jesus, not Mary, of His Spirit, or His Inspiration; which is what the Qur’an tells us, i.e. that God strengthened Jesus with the Holy Spirit–(Qur’an 2:87).
Jesus being like Adam, could only mean that Allah created them out of dust (Adam out of dust in the primary sense, and in the case of Jesus, dust in the secondary sense, as all things are created from dust) and then they were transformed into humans–Adam, by God breathing of His spirit into him; and Jesus, through the process of fetal development, through which process he received the spirit of God, as all beings receive the spirit of God–(Qur’an 32:9).

As noted, Allah’s command “Be, and it is” only means that when He intends for a thing to happen, no one can prevent it from manifesting. In the case of Adam this “Be, and it is” refers to His intention to put a ruler on earth, as He informed the angels–(Qur’an 2:30). And in the case of Jesus, this “Be, and it is” refers to His intention to send Jesus as messenger to the Jews; which was evident, not only at the annunciation to Mary, but seemingly even at the time Mary’s mother was expecting a son, instead of a daughter–(Qur’an 3:34-35).

It may be advanced that Allah created Jesus from his mother’s ovum, which is also dust in the secondary sense. While this is a viable point it is tempered by the force that Jesus could not then be the Messiah; because the Messiah came from the house of David; and his mother was not of the house of David but of the house of Imran–(Qur’an 3:34).

That Jesus had a father, is how the Prophet explained the birth of Jesus to the Christians of Najran, as noted by Khwaja Nazir Ahmad in his Jesus in Heaven on Earth, (pp. 174-176, the occasion being the discussion between the Prophet and the Christians of Najran, the topic being the divinity of Jesus).    Says the noble Messenger of Allah:
“Don’t you know that Jesus was conceived by a woman just as any other woman conceives a child, then she  gave birth to him like every other woman gives birth to  a child, he was then reared up like other children, then he used to eat and drink and answer the calls of nature like other human beings?” (See Christians of Najran & Prophet Mohammad).
Clearly, as the Prophet Mohammad is said to have pointed out, Jesus was conceived by a woman “just as any other woman conceives a child.”  And a woman conceives a child through the mixture of sperm and ovum –mating. And as Jesus was conceived “as any other woman conceives a child,” Jesus could not be of “virgin” birth, but had a father. And for Jesus to be the Messiah, Jesus had to have a father!
As miracles were the precursor to belief–(John 4:48), if Jesus was of virgin birth it is doubtful Jews would have rejected him.

4. GOD BREATHING OF HIS SPIRIT:
God breathing into Mary of His spirit, as translated by Yusuf Ali, (Qur’an 66:11) is not restricted to Mary. The Spirit of God is breathed into all mortals–(Qur’an 32:9). However, the correct translation is that God breathed into him (Jesus) of His Spirit (or His Inspiration). Which is what the Qur’an tells us i.e. that God strengthened Jesus with the Holy Spirit–(Qur’an 2:87), and that He taught Jesus the Book and wisdom–(Qur’an 3:47).

5. JESUS AND MARY AS SIGNS OF ALLAH:
That the Qur’an refers to Jesus and his mother as a sign is no indication of virgin birth–(Qur’an 23:50).  If this is taken to mean ‘virgin birth’ then this would be a contradiction of Qur’an 3:44 where Jesus is named ‘Messiah’. But there is no contradiction in the Qur’an–(4:82).
   The Messiah must come from the house of David, who was a Jew –being from the house of Judah; but his mother, Mary (as noted was a Levite) of the house of Amran–(Qur’an 3:34).  Therefore Jesus and Mary being “a sign” could not be taken to mean ‘virgin birth’.

   Jesus and his mother are referred to together as one sign –“a sign.” They are not each a “sign.” How are they both one sign?
   Miraculous conception and birth would, admittedly, seem to be “one” sign. But so is conception and birth within the ordinary.
   There are several which are referred to as Signs, for instance: all creation are Signs–(Qur’an 42:29); Joseph and his brethren are Signs–(Qur’an 12:7); Noah’s Ark is a Sign–(Qur’an 29:15); man and his mate is a Sign–(Qur’an 30:20-21).

In Qur’an 19:21 Jesus by himself is referred as “a” sign. His mother is not included with him. This verse reads (after Mary inquires how she could have a son when man has not touched her):
            “He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord says: It is easy for me;
              and that We may make him a sign to men…..”

Allah did not make “them” a sign. If Jesus and Mary were “a sign” (one sign) through miraculous conception, then it is reasonable to expect that Allah would have referred to them as such when He sent His messenger to give Mary here (in the above verse) the news of the birth of Jesus.
As noted above Jesus will be a sign; not his birth will be a sign.
  Jesus is a sign in that he was a prophet–(Qur’an 3:48); the last of the Israelite prophets and the fore-runner of the Prophet Mohammad.
   Mary was a sign in that she was chosen above all women to be given Divine revelation and to make manifest the Divine decree/ word (of the birth of Jesus). Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mary being given the news of bearing a pure son and this pure son issuing forth from that Divine decree together forms one sign –“a sign.”

6. JESUS LIVING TO AN OLD AGE:
Jesus mission was to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” “to seek and save” them–(Matthew 15:24; Luke 19:10). But there were only two of the Twelve Tribes of Israel in Palestine. The other ten Tribes were in the Kashmir/Afghan region. Jesus’ eighteen missing years from the Gospels (from 12-30) were spent ministering to these Tribes. As noted from Khwaja Nazir Ahmad in his book Jesus in Heaven on Earth:

   “The Gospels record Jesus age twelve in the temple. Then about age thirty at the river Jordan. That leaves approximately seventeen years unaccounted for. (In fact, it was some thirty years that was unaccounted for: his birth to twelve plus from twelve to thirty).
   During those so-called lost years, the child “increased in wisdom and stature,” as Luke wrote. But was it in the carpenter shop at Nazareth?
   According to ancient Tibetan manuscripts, Jesus secretly withdrew from the home of Mary and Joseph at age thirteen.  Young “Issa” joined a merchant caravan. Destination: India and the Himalayas.
   At Juggernaut, “the white priests of Brahma made him a joyous welcome.  They taught him to read and understand the Vedas, to cure by aid of prayer, to teach, to explain the holy scriptures to the people, and to drive out evil spirits from the bodies of men.”

• Buddhist scholars documented “The Life of Saint Issa” two thousand years ago.
• Nicholas Notovitch discovered the long-lost document in 1887 at the Himis monastery in Ladakh.
• Swami Abhedananda published a Bengali translation of the Himis manuscript in 1929.
• Nicholas Roerich quoted the same verses in a 1929 travel diary of his Asian expedition.
• And in 1939, a beaming lama at Himis presented a set of parchments to Elizabeth Caspari with the words: “These books say your Jesus was here!” (p. 404).

(Khwaja Nazir Ahmad has dealt with all aspects of Jesus, and in minute detail, in his book Jesus in Heaven on Earth. Khwaja has many photographs, including those of the tombs of Moses, Jesus and his mother, Mary. This book may be obtained/viewed at www.muslim.org).

7. WHAT BECAME OF JEUS POST-“CROSS”?
Upon his return from the “lost Tribes”, Jesus became embroiled with the Jewish hierarchy who sought to kill him. The ‘Bible Dictionary’ notes as part of its explanation of the term ‘scribe’:
“Their familiarity with the law allowed the scribes to take on a role of growing importance in Jewish society –teaching in the synagogues, serving as judges, and becoming members of the Sanhedrin. Jesus refused to accept the mass of detail and the superficial technicalities which they affixed to the law, and He accused them of hypocritical interpretations of the law. For these reasons they op-posed His teachings and were one of  the groups, as were the Pharisees, that helped to plot His death–(Matt. 5:20; 21:15; Mark 10:33; 14:53; Luke 11:44; 20:46; John 8:3; Acts 4:5; 6:12).”–(King James Bible, Self-Pronouncing Edition, The World Publishing Company, 2231 West 110TH Street, Cleveland 2, Ohio, p. 77. Emphasis added).
But Allāh saved Jesus.

What became of Jesus “post” cross?
   -Matthew left Jesus in “a mountain” preaching to his disciples–(Matthew 28:16:20);
   -Mark postulates Jesus went and “sit on the right hand of God”–Mark 16:19. Mark must have more powerful X-ray vision than Superman to see where Jesus “sit”);
   -Luke says Jesus was “carried up into heaven”–(Luke 24:51);
   -John ended with Jesus at the “sea of Tiberias” eating fish and bread–(John chapter 21. Either Jesus was one hungry God or he was in no hurry to get to heaven).

But Allāh tells us He gave Jesus and his mother comfort:
“And We made the son of Mary and his mother a sign, and We gave them refuge on a lofty ground having meadows and springs”–(Qur’an 23:50).
To which Muhammad Ali comments:

“There has been much discussion as to the land spoken of in this verse. Rabwah is lofty ground, and qarar means cultivated land, and a place where water rests in a meadow (LL). Jerusalem, Egypt, Palestine or Damascus, which are the names suggested, do not answer the description, which applies exactly to the valley of Kashmir.”
Kashmir –heaven on earth as the poet says. Jesus (in disguise as a gardener-John 20:5), and his mother, aided by Jesus’ “secret” disciples, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, clearly must have gone back to Kashmir post “cross” where they lived out their remaining years. And, this verse (Qur’an 23:50)
“tells us that, being delivered from the hands of his enemies, he (Jesus) was given shelter at some other place, and the description of that place, as indicated in this verse, along with the fact that Kashmir has a tomb, which every available evidence shows to be the tomb of Jesus himself, leads us to the conclusion that Kashmir is the land referred to in this verse”–(Muhammad Ali).

Allah tells us that Jesus “will speak to the people when in the cradle and when of old age”–(Qur’an 3:45). Meaning that Jesus will begin his mission as a youth, as the Gospel shows–(Luke 2: 42-47); and until late in life.
   According to the Gospel Jesus’ mission ended when he was only about 33 years old. These 33 years cannot be taken to be “an old age.” If this “old age” is taken to be at the time of Jesus’ supposed return, when he would be over 2,000 thousand years old, this would be a tremendous “old age”–whether he has aged physically or not.
   After Allāh saved Jesus from death on the cross. Allah guided Jesus and his mother to India/Kashmir–(Qur’an 23:50). As Muhammad Ali notes:

“Part of the lost ten tribes of Israel is also traced to Kashmir, where a large number of towns and villages bear the names of the towns and villages of Palestine. The presence of a tomb known as the tomb of Nabi (i.e., the prophet), or ‘Isa (i.e., Jesus), or Yuz Asaf, in the Khan Yar street in the capital of Kashmir, lends additional support to this theory.

  The fact that the chapter deals with the final triumph of prophets and their followers and their deliverance from the hands of their enemies also gives us a clue to the mystery attending the circumstances of the disappearance of Jesus Christ after the event of the Cross; for, as shown in 4:157a, Jesus did not die on the cross. According to a saying of the Holy Prophet, Jesus lived 120 years (IK, vol. ii, p. 246). This verse tells us that, being delivered from the hands of his enemies, he was given shelter at some other place, and the description of that place as indicated in this verse, along with the fact that Kashmir has a tomb, which every available evidence shows to be the tomb of Jesus himself, leads us to the conclusion that Kashmir is the land referred to in this verse. As regards the tomb, the following evidence shows that the sacred body of no less a personage than Jesus Christ rests there: (a) oral testimony, based on tradition, of the people of Kashmir tells us that the tomb belongs to one who bore the name of Yuz Asaf, who was known as a nabi (i.e., a prophet), and who came to Kashmir from the West about 2,000 years ago; (b) the Tarikh A‘zami, an historical work written some two hundred years ago, says, referring to this tomb, on p. 82: “The tomb is generally known as that of a prophet. He was a prince, who came to Kashmir from a foreign land…. His name was Yuz Asaf ”; (c) the Ikmal al-Din, an Arabic work, which is a thousand years old, also mentions Yuz Asaf as having travelled in some lands; (d) Joseph Jacobs states, on the authority of a very old version of the story of Yuz Asaf, that he (Joasaph) at last reached Kashmir, and there died (Barlaam and Josaphat, p. cv).

   This evidence shows that the tomb in Khan Yar (Srinagar) is the tomb of Yuz Asaf. But who is this Yuz Asaf? That he is called a nabi (prophet) both in oral tradition and in history settles the time in which he lived, for no prophet is recognized by the Muslims to have appeared after their Holy Prophet. Again, there is a striking resemblance between the names Yuz and Yasu‘, the latter being the Hebrew form of Jesus. There is also a remarkable similarity in the teachings of Yuz Asaf and Jesus; for instance, the parable of the seed-sower occurring in Matt. 13:3, Mark 4:3 and Luke 8:5 occurs also in “Barlaam and Josaphat” (p. cxi). Another very striking circumstance is that Yuz Asaf gave the name Bushra (Arabic for Gospel) to his teachings, as the following passage from the Ikmal al-Din shows: “Then he began to compare the tree to the Bushra, which he preached to the people”. All these circumstances lead us to the conclusion that Jesus Christ went to Kashmir after the event of the crucifixion, and that he preached, lived, died and was buried there.”

As Muhammad Ali notes (in the above) from Ibn Kathir: “According to a saying of the Holy Prophet (Mohammad), Jesus lived 120 years”.
  It is reasonable that Jesus living to 120 years is the “old age” to which Jesus lived, as mentioned in the Qur’an 3:45. And his speaking at this “old age” was to this “Part of the lost ten tribes of Israel” which “is also traced to Kashmir.”

8. JESUS “CRUCIFIXION”:
Qur’an 4:157 speaks about the Jews boasting of having killed Jesus. But Allah says “they killed him not, nor crucified him, But so it was made to appear to them. ….”–(Yusuf Ali).
   The Qur’an emphatically states that Jesus did not die on the cross,
-“but he was made to appear to them as such”–(M. Ali).
-“but he was made to appear to them like one crucified”–(Ghulam Farid).

Instead of the words but he was made to appear to them as such, one translator of the Qur’an says, “but the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man).” This is an incorrect if not dishonest translation. Jesus’ name is not mentioned in the Qur’anic text! Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Ali, Malik Ghulam Farid, and Marmaduke Pickthal translated the Arabic text in words to mean but so it was made to appear to them. The translation that “the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)” seems to imply that Allāh is unjust, having another, and maybe even innocent, man killed.
It is significant to note that the verse says that it appear to the Jews that they “killed/crucify” Jesus (i.e. Jesus seemed to be dead) not that it appear to them that the ‘person on the cross’ was Jesus.

   One source says that at the time of the arrest, “a tumult ensued;” and the “foreign Roman soldiers” who did not know  Jesus, took Judas captive instead; thus we have the Qur’an saying “yet they did not slay him, nor crucified him only a likeness of that was shown to them.” Allah is said to have “transformed” Judas to such perfection that even his mother and his closest followers accepted him to be Jesus. Other conjectures ranged from Pilate taking a “bribe,” to, one of Jesus’ followers who “very closely resembled” Jesus being crucified.

It is rather befuddling that Judas and this one who were arrested in place of Jesus did not scream out their true identity –not even in the court (unless they were struck dumb by Allāh)– and that no one recognized their voices (unless Allāh changed their voices also) but preferred to be killed on the cross. However, according to the Bible, Judas was not the one put on the cross –though there are conflicting accounts of how he died: Matthew says Judas “went and hanged himself,” whereas in the Acts he fell and “burst asunder in the midst” (must have been quite a fall)–(Matt. 27:5; Acts 1:18).

Regarding the suggestion that Pilate may have knowingly condemned Judas, allowing Jesus to go free, because Pilate and his wife are noted as “saints” by the Coptic Church in both Egypt and Ethiopia.
If the Coptic Church knows that Pilate had knowingly condemned Judas (or another) and allowed Jesus to escape, then, the Coptic Church, in honoring this fabled Crucifixion of Jesus is deliberately honoring falsehood; and these leaders, instead of hoping to sit with Jesus “on the right hand of God,” are shrouding themselves for the Hell Fire.
It is doubtful that the Coptic Church would confer sainthood on a man who takes a ‘bribe;’ even if he did save their Lord from the cross. And if Pilate received sainthood for saving Jesus, why did his wife receive this high honor of sainthood?
Pilate and his wife could have been taken as “saints” because of Pilate wife’s “dream” for him to not have anything to do with Jesus, and Pilate having found Jesus to be a “just person” (which could have been a Divine intervention to save Jesus from  death on the cross)–(Matt. 27:19, 24). (Perhaps the Coptic Church can be queried as to why it honors Pilate and his wife as “saints”).

Regarding the parade that Allāh put the features of Jesus onto the man who was sent to arrest him.
Not only  was Jesus invariably accompanied by his twelve disciples. Considering that Roman soldiers were short-haired and clean-shaven, Allāh must have also made this soldier bearded and long-haired (and attired him in robe) as Jesus. And considering that more than one Roman  soldiers went to arrest Jesus, the others as well as the disciples (unless Allāh had struck them blind at the moment of change) would have been eye-witnesses to the alleged substitution wrought by Allāh and alarmed the authorities. Not forgetting to mention to their masters that Jesus went through the solid roof of the house, and without even raising a shingle. In which event one would expect them (especially the Jewish leaders whose religious landscape is colored in miracles so much so that Balaam’s ass spoke to him) to accept Jesus as “God” or “son of God” or even prophet of God –considering that Jews at one time took Ezra to be son of God: Qur’an 9:30– instead of labeling him “bastard”  and his mother as “adulteress.”
Paramountly:
As Allāh  was going to raise Jesus up from his enemies, what need then was there for Him to put Jesus’ face on another man?

9. JESUS DEATH:

1. Allah tells us: “Therein (the earth) shall you live, and therein shall you die, and therefrom shall you be raised”–(Qur’an 7:25). (If Jesus went back to Allāh before being “raised” from the earth then he is an exception to this law of Allāh).

2. Allah says “Every soul must taste of death; THEN to Us you will be returned”–(Qur’an 29:57. Also 21:35). (We have to die first, THEN we are returned to Allah. And if Jesus returned to Allah without first having died, then he is an exception to this law of Allah–him having returned to Allah without having died).

3. Allah tells us that those whom they call upon besides Allah: “Dead (are they). And they know not when they will be raised”–(Qur’an 16:20-21). (And Jesus is one of those called upon besides Allah. And if he is not dead, then he is an exception to this statement of Allah, and knew when he was raised to Allah).

4. Allah revealed to the Prophet Mohammad that all the prophets before him were men, “Nor did We give them bodies that ate no food, nor were they exempt from death”–(Qur’an 21:7-8). (Since Jesus was before the Prophet Mohammad, and if he went up to heaven being “exempt from death,” and has a body not eating food, then he is an exception to this statement of Allah).

  In the above, Jesus is the only mortal (from some Muslims perspective) who is an exception to the words of Allāh –him having returned to Allah without having died.

   The Prophet Mohammad in his discussion with the Christians of Najran (noted above) said to the Christians:  “Don’t you know that our God is alive and will never die and Jesus had to die?”
   It is to be noted that the Prophet did not say Jesus ‘will have to die’; he said that Jesus “had” to die –meaning that Jesus died. And, as already noted, “According to a saying of the Holy Prophet, Jesus lived 120 years–(Ibn Kathir, Vol. ii, p. 246).” (See Christians of Najran & Prophet Mohammad)

The Prophet’s Ascension (Mi’raj) is not to be taken to be the same as Jesus returning to Allah. The Prophet Mohammad did not return to Allah.
Unlike Jesus who is believed to have been taken by Allah to “Himself”, the Prophet Mohammad was on a journey to see the signs of Allah. That this Ascension of the Prophet was not a bodily occurrence, but a spiritual one seems evident from the following observations:
(1) Qur’an 17:60 speaks of Allāh showing the Prophet “the vision,” not an actual sighting.
(2) The Prophet said he was in a state between sleep and wakefulness when this event, Miraj, occurred–(Bokhari Vol. 4, # 429).
And Bokhari Vol. 9, #608 reports that three angels came to the Prophet while he was “SLEEPING” in the Ka’ba, and that when the Prophet saw them “HIS EYES WERE ASLEEP BUT HIS HEART WAS NOT –AND SO IS THE CASE WITH THE PROPHETS: THEIR EYES SLEEP WHILE THEIR HEARTS DO NOT SLEEP”; and at the end of the journey the Prophet then “WOKE” in the Ka’ba. This supports the view that the Mi’raj was a spiritual experience of the Prophet.
This narration also says that the angels carried the Prophet to the Zam-Zam well, where Gabriel “cut open” the Prophet’s chest area and removed “all the material out of his chest and abdomen” and then washed the inside of his body with Zam-Zam water and then stuffed the Prophet’s “chest and throat blood vessels” with “belief and wisdom” and then closed the chest–(Bokhari Vol. 9, # 608).
It may be advanced that since Mohammad was a Prophet and believed in Allāh why was it necessary to fill his body with belief? Also, wisdom and belief are not physical factors so as to require a physical insertion of them into the body. This seems to be another proof that the Mi’raj was a spiritual experience.

10. JESUS “ASCENSION”:
If Christians had not asserted the bodily ascension of Jesus and his physical return, it is doubtful that Muslims would interpret the Qur’an to mean that Jesus had ascended bodily, and would return. Allah says that we first have to die before returning to Him: “Every soul must taste of death; then to Us you will be returned.” And that the dead are not returned: “And before them is a barrier, until the day they are raised”–(Qur’an 29:57; 23:100).

Allah reveals that He said to Jesus:  “O Jesus, I will cause thee to die and exalt thee in My presence….”–(Qur’an 3:54).
Muhammad Ali notes regarding Qur’an 3:54, that “Pickthal’s translation is, O Jesus, I am gathering thee, and this is the Biblical idiom for causing to die. Yusuf ‘Ali, in his first edition, translated the words as meaning I will cause thee to die, but in the second edition he changed it to I will take thee”–(Qur’anic comm. 436).
   Yusuf Ali notes: “The same word rafa’a is used in association with honour in connection with (Mohammad) Mustafa in xciv 4 (Qur’an 94:4).”(Comm. 664).

Muhammad Ali explains Qur’an 3:54:
“Raf ‘signifies raising or elevating, and also exalting or making honourable (T, LL).  But where the raf’ of a man to Allah is spoken of in the Holy Qur’an, or in the religious literature of Islam, it is always in the latter sense, for raising a man in his body to Himself implies that the Divine Being is limited to a place. This is made plain by the prayer which every Muslim repeats several times daily in his prayers in the sitting position between the two prostrations: wa-rfa’-ni, meaning and exalt me.  Of course no one supposes this prayer to be for the raising of the body to the heavens. Hence even those commentators who are predisposed, having, no doubt, been misled by Christian tradition, to accept Jesus Christ as having been raised alive to heaven, have been compelled to admit that the word raf’ is here used not for raising aloft but for exalting and honouring. And commenting on the words which follow this statement, Rz says: This shows that raf’ here is the exalting in degree and in praise, not in place and direction.  The exaltation of Jesus is mentioned here as a reply to the Jews, whose object was to make him die an accursed and ignominious death on the cross.”
“Being exalted in the Divine presence was opposed to being killed on the cross. Deut. 21:23 explains this, for there we have, he that is hanged is cursed of God.  If Jesus had died on the cross he would have been accursed; hence the statement made here (Q. 4:157-158)–he was not killed on the cross and accursed, but he was exalted in the Divine presence.” (Comm. #’s 437, 649).

According to the Bible Elijah and Enoch also ascended to heaven. And according to some Muslims the Prophet Mohammad also ascended bodily –the Mi’raj.  Buddha is also believed to have ascended and would return.
Those who believe that Jesus was raised bodily must consider if flesh and blood can enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

11. JESUS RETURN A CHURCH MYTH:
Who is greater, Allāh or Jews? Since Allah is greater, and since He sent Jesus to minister onto the Jews, no one can prevent Jesus from fulfilling this mission. And as Jesus completed his mission: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do”–(John 17:4), there is no return for Jesus.

Regarding Jesus’ second coming, there are three verses of the Qur’an that seem to give rise to this belief–Qur’an 4:158 and 159; and 43:61. And in which there are differences in translation between translators; these differences are shown in bold type; and those in agreement, in italics:

First, Qur’an 43:61
(Yusuf Ali) “And (Jesus) shall be a sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): Therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way”
(Muhammad Ali): And this (revelation) is surely knowledge of the Hour, so have no doubt about it and follow me. This is the right path.”
(Malik Ghulam Farid): “But, verily, he was a sign of the Hour. So entertain no it doubt about it, but follow me. This is the right path.
Which is the correct translation?
Ghulam Farid states that “the pronoun “hu” in “inna hu” (of the Arabic text) may refer either to Jesus or to the Qur’an.” But how to know which one the Qur’an is referring to? To know what the verse is referring to, we have to investigate the subject matter of this section (section 6).

Section 6 of chapter 43 begins with the verse: “When (Jesus) the son of Mary is held up as an example, behold, thy people raise a clamour thereat (in ridicule)!” (Qur’an 43:57).
(Yusuf Ali. Ghulam Farid and Muhammad Ali are in agreement; except that the verse begins with “And” –“And when Jesus….is held up”).
   While Jesus seems to be the subject of this section he is not the subject. He is only used as an example, as noted in the verse.
   For, as the people opposed Jesus, similarly the Prophet Mohammad is opposed. And that the prophecies that Jesus made regarding the coming of another Comforter/Ahmad–(John 14:16; Qur’an 61:6)–and that the kingdom of God shall be taken from the Jews and given to another nation–(Matt. 21:43)–were now being manifested with the advent of the Prophet Mohammad and the Qur’an; (that this was the Hour marking the end of prophethood to the Jews, so “follow me,(Mohammad), this is a straight way”–43:61).

The topic of this section is about the Qur’anic revelation as noted by the italicized words in the above verse (43:61) in which the Prophet is commissioned to tell the disbelievers, “follow ye me; this is a straight way.”

   (a) In Yusuf Ali’s translation there is no correlation between ‘Jesus shall be a Sign of the coming of the Hour’ and “follow ye me; this is a straight way’. That “Jesus SHALL BE a Sign” is speaking about the future, whereas “follow ye me; THIS IS a straight way” is speaking about the present. People cannot be expected to follow me (Mohammad) using a future event (the return of Jesus) as proof of his mission.

(b) But in Muhammad Ali’s translation there is agreement between the statements that “THIS REVELATION is surely knowledge of the Hour” (when prophethood to the Jews would end, and which is now ended) so “follow me. THIS IS the right path.”

(c) And also in Ghulam Farid’s translation there is agreement between the statements that “he (Jesus) WAS a sign” (ending prophethood to the Jews) and “follow me THIS IS the right path.”

Second, Qur’an 4:157-158
   Qur’an 4:157 speaks about the Jews boasting of having killed Jesus. But Allah says “they killed him not, nor crucified him, But so it was made to appear to them. ….”.
Ghulam Farid states:
“Two different views prevailed among the Jews regarding Jesus’ alleged death by Crucifixion. Some of them held that he was first killed and then his dead body was hung on the cross, while others are of the view that he was put to death by being fixed to the cross. The former view is reflected in The Acts 5:30…The Qur’an refutes both these views by saying, they slew him not, nor did they bring about his death on the cross.  The Qur’an rejects the slaying of Jesus in any form, and then proceeds to deny the particular way of killing by hanging on the cross. It does not deny that Jesus was hung on the cross; it only denies his death on it.”–(Comm. 699).
And Muhammad Ali notes:
“The words ma salabu-hu (of the Arabic text) do not negative Jesus’ being nailed to the cross; they negative his having expired on the cross as a result of being nailed to it. Salb is a well-known way of killing (T, LA). Salabu-hu means he put him to death in a certain well-known manner (LL).”–(Comm. 645).

To restate, Qur’an 4:157 speaks about the Jews boasting of having killed Jesus. But Allah says “they killed him not, nor crucified him, But so it was made to appear to them. ….”.
   And verse 158 says:  “God RAISED him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise”–(Yusuf Ali translation).
Yusuf Ali translated the verse as:  “God RAISED him up unto Himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise.”
Ghulam Farid translated the verse as: “Allah EXALTED him to Himself. And Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
Muhammad Ali translated it as: “Allah EXALTED him in His presence. And Allah is ever Mighty, Wise.”

Does Allah being “Mighty, Wise” in reference to Him raising up Jesus bodily to Himself or is it in reference to Him frustrating the plan of the Jews to kill/crucify Jesus? And is Allah raising up Jesus a physical elevation or a spiritual elevation?
   The verse does not state that Jesus physically ascended to heaven. That it was a spiritual raising/exaltation is gleaned from the fact that “no fixed abode” can be assigned to Allāh.
   If Allah raised Jesus physically to “Himself” Allah must be on a heaven lower than Abraham; for, the Prophet on his Mi’raj, met Jesus on a lower heaven than Abraham, who was said to be “on the sixth heaven”–(Bokhari Vol. 1, #345. And Bokhari Vol. 4, #640 notes that Jesus was on the third heaven. This would seem to mean, if Allāh raised Jesus literally to Himself, Allah is on the third heaven. Unless He sent Jesus lower).

Allāh exalting/raising Jesus to Himself does not mean Allāh literally raised Jesus up to Himself; only that Allāh took Jesus’ soul to make him appear to be dead, thus saving him from being killed/crucified.
   Allah exalting Jesus in “His presence” does not mean Allah made Jesus equal with Him in power or position, but instead of Jesus being made a “curse” Allah conferred honor onto him.

Qur’an 4:159 (The third verse of Jesus’ alleged return).
    Qur’an 4:159 states:
   -Yusuf Ali translates: “And there is none of the People of the Book but MUST believe in HIM before HIS death; and on the day of Judgment he (Jesus) WILL be a witness AGAINST them (the People of the Book)”
   -Muhammad Ali translates: “And there is none of the People of the Book but will believe in THIS (that Jesus was crucified/ accursed was divine/of illegitimate birth and atoner for sins) before HIS death; and on the day of Resurrection HE (Jesus) Will be a witness AGAINST them [the People of the Book].”
   -Ghulam Farid translates: “And there is none among the People of the Book but will continue to believe in IT (crucifixion and atonement) before HIS (the people of the Book) death, and on the Day of Resurrection HE (Jesus) shall be a witness AGAINST them.”

   (a) The first question is, who is the “HIS” referring to in the statement “before HIS death” –is it referring to Jesus’ death or the death of the People of the Book?
   (b) The second question is, which is the correct translation, is it that they “must believe in HIM (Jesus)”, or they “will believe in THIS (that Jesus was either crucified for original/ inherited sin or died the death of an accursed, or that he was divine as Christians believe or of illegitimate birth as Jews believe)?

Regarding the first question, (a). If the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) MUST believe in Jesus (as him being only a messenger of God) before HIS death, whether it be Jesus’ death or their own, Jesus could not be a “WITNESS AGAINST THEM” seeing that they would have believed in him. Jesus cannot be a witness AGAINST those who believe in him. If anything Jesus has to be a witness “FOR” them.
   And if the “emphatic form “must believe” (in Jesus) “denotes more a question of duty than of fact,” it cannot be said that “AND” Jesus will be a witness “AGAINST” them; it should say “OR” Jesus will be a witness against –meaning that they must believe in Jesus OR he (Jesus) will be a witness against them.

In Qur’an 5:116-117 Allah says when He will ask Jesus if he taught people to take him and his mother as gods, Jesus will answer he had no right to teach what he was not instructed to: “and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die Thou wast the Watcher over them.”
   This statement by Jesus could not refer to Jesus’ death after his alleged Second coming. If Jews and Christians would have to accept him as only a messenger of Allāh after this alleged second coming there would be no question of Allah being a Watcher over Jews and Christians after Jesus’ death –they would already be believers.
Moreover, if this statement refers to Jesus’ second coming it would imply that Jews and Christians would have reverted to their false beliefs a second time, even after Jesus returned to them and taught them the truth about himself as being only a messenger.

Regarding the second question (b) as to which is the correct translation. It would seem that Muhammad Ali’s translation (as well as Ghulam Farid’s) is the correct one. For, both Christians and Jews believe in “THIS” –that Jesus was either crucified, or “is an accursed of God” because he died from hanging–(Deuteronomy 21:23). Or that he is divine or of illegitimate birth.
   And as Allāh tells us both these views are false beliefs, then and only then can Jesus be “WITNESS AGAINST THEM” (against the Jews and the Christians for their false beliefs –the former making Jesus illegitimate, the latter making Jesus divine).

That Jesus would return to “break the cross, kill the pig and abolish the Jizya tax”–(Bokhari Vol. 3, # 656. And then what –all will become believers and there would be no more evil?).
So Allāh will send His prophet to be a pig-killer (?). The pig is a scavenger; and if Jesus kill the pigs then the earth would have one less “cleaner.” Would Jesus be able to kill all the pigs in every place?
If killing the pig is a metaphor then “cross” and “jizya” in the hadith would also be metaphorical. What is metaphorical “jizya” and how is it abolished? If killing the pig and breaking the cross are metaphors (meaning to expose uncleanness and falsehood in religion), the Prophet Mohammad did this 1400 years ago.

   Regarding Jesus abolishing the “Jizya,” the explanatory note to this saying of the Prophet–(Bokhari Vol. 3, # 656)–says:
“The Jizya (which) is a tax imposed on non-Muslims who would keep their own religion rather than embrace Islam, will not be accepted by Jesus (peace be on him), but all people will be required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative.”
If “all people will be required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative,” this would be compulsion. But Allah says that there is no compulsion in religion–(Qur’an 2:256; 6:107; 9:6; 10:99-100; 17:7; 18: 6, 29; 42:15; 50:45; 76:3; 109:1-6); and in 10:99 He says: “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”
Jesus can not abolish the jizya, which is a law of Allah, when there might be those among the Jews and Christians in a Muslim state who would not believe him to be Jesus. The Qur’anic law is for all time. To the Resurrection.

Malik Ghulam Farid notes in his Qur’anic comm. 424: “The fact cannot be denied that Jesus is dead. The Holy Prophet is reported to have said, “Had Moses and Jesus now been alive, they would have found themselves forced to follow me” (Kathir). He even fixed the age of Jesus at 120 years (‘Ummal). The Qur’an, in as many as 30 verses, has completely demolished the absurd belief of the physical ascension of Jesus to, and his supposed life in, heaven.”
  Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said in his farewell Sermon that after him NO prophet will come. To resend Jesus as lower than a “prophet” is to demote him.

According to the Bible Elias also returned to earth in the form of John the Baptist –John the Baptist was “in the power and spirit” of Elias (Luke 1:17; Matt. 11:11-14; 17:10-13).
   Jesus’ alleged second return is believed to be tied in with the letting loose of Gog and Magog–(Qur’an 18:94 -100; 21:96). But as Muhammad Ali explained, this prophecy of the Gog and Magog has already been fulfilled–(Qur’anic comm. 1523, 1524a, 1525, 1525a).

Jesus’ return is a Christian invention based on ancient Iranian Mythology:

“David was Israel’s first successful king….
“David became the prototype of an awaited Messiah. As symbol of the Messiah, the return of David, or the coming of David’s “son” stood for the reassertion of the divine rule and presence in history: to judge it, to redeem it, to renew it. David thus became the symbol of a fulfilment in the future, final peace.
In the apocalyptic developments in Judaism that mark the last two pre-Christian centuries, the symbolic rule of David stressed his status as divine mediator. The son of David became more emphatically a heavenly figure, the son of God enthroned to rule over the nations of the world. This was the matrix for the rise of Christianity. The new faith interpreted the career of Jesus by means of the titles and functions assigned to David in the mysticism of the Zion cult, in which he served as priest-king and in which he was the mediator between God and man.” -(Ency. Britannica, 15th, ed; Vol. 5; art. David; Nation Builder, and Messianic symbol, pp. 518, 519. Emphasis added).

Regarding Jesus’ alleged 1000-year reign some time in the future.  The Book of Revelation is said to be a vision given to John by Jesus through an angel with the permission of God–(Revelation 1:1). But the Book of Revelation is not prophecies about a future coming and rule of Jesus:

“Revelation to John appears to be a collection of separate units composed by unknown authors who lived during the last quarter of the first century, though it purports to have been written by John….
Although Christ is clearly the central figure of Revelation, an understanding of the text presupposes familiarity with the Old Testament language and concepts, especially those taken from the books of Daniel and Ezekiel …References to a “thousand years” (ch. 20) have led some to expect that the final victory over evil will come after the completion of some millennium.”-(Ency. Britannica, 15^th Edn; Vol. VIII, art. Revelation to John, p. 537. Emphasis added).

   “One of the most pervading and dominant mythological themes to be noted in the New Testament and the writings of the subapostolic church (late 1st–early 2nd centuries) was that of the ages of the world. Derived from Indo-Iranian (or Indo-European) sources and transformed through Jewish concepts of history, the theme of the ages of the world that most influenced Christianity came from the apocalyptic speculation that flourished during the period of the rise of Christianity.
…It was Iranian mythological concepts of the ages of the world, translated through Jewish apocalyptic views, that most influenced Christian views of time, history, and man’s ultimate destiny.
…The theme of the ages of the world and its attendant subthemes that came primarily from Iranian mythology were transformed by apocalyptic literature––which flourished in Judaism and then Christianity from about the 2nd century BC to about 2nd century AD––into a historical context, though Zoroastrian had done this in reference to the last age. Indo-Iranian myth was thus historicized through the Judeo-Christian view of historical time as the arena of struggle between good and evil. The four ages of the world in Christianity are: (1) from creation of the world and man to the Fall of man; (2) from the Fall of man to the first advent of Christ; (3) from the first to the second advent of Christ, which includes the 1,000-year reign of Christ and his saints and the Last Judgment; and (4) the creation of a new heaven and a new earth in which those who have chosen the good (i.e., Christ) will live in eternity.” -(Ency Britannica, 15^th Edn; Vol. 4, art. Myth and legend from the 1st to the early 2nd centuries, pp. 551-552. Emphasis added).
Now you know!
From earth to eternity, Christianity is bottled in mythology.
JESUS IS DEAD BURIED NO RETURN.
(For more on Jesus see Christianity dupes people).

12. DAJJAL:
Commenting on chapter 18 of the Qur’an, Muhammad Ali notes:
“The Holy Prophet is reported to have said:  He who remembers the first ten verses of the chapter entitled the “Cave” is protected from the tribulation of Dajjal (Antichrist) (Muslim 6:42). Shi’bah mentions the last ten verses of The Cave instead of the first ten (Abu Dawud, 36:12).
   Now in the first and last sections of this chapter the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is condemned. In the first section a warning is given to those who say Allah has taken to Himself a son (v.4), in the last two to those who take My servants for Protecting  Friends (v. 102), and this doctrine, the doctrine of sonship and of the Divinity of a servant of God, is the basic doctrine of the Christian religion. Moreover in the concluding ten verses, a true description of the occupation of the Christian nations is given in the words whose labour is lost in this world’s life (v. 104). The Holy Qur’an does not speak of the appearance of Dajjal, or Antichrist, anywhere, but the Prophet’s saying quoted above plainly shows that the Dajjal of the Hadith is the same as the upholders of the erroneous Christian doctrine of the sonship and divinity of Jesus Christ. Christianity, in its present form, being opposed to the true teachings of Christ, is thus the only Antichrist known to the Qur’an. It may be added that Dajjal signifies one who conceals the truth with falsehood, or a liar or a great deceiver (LL–Arabic English Lexicon by Edward William Lane)”–(M. Ali, Qur’anic comm. 1478).

Regarding the narrations which speak of Jesus’ return to kill the Dajjal at ‘Lud’, Kaukab Siddique in his booklet Dajjal says: “I suspect these narratives are fabrications owing to a number of reasons.” He lists seven (7) reasons (pp. 28-30). Briefly, they are:

1. “the sections on iman (faith) in the books of hadith do not mention belief in the return of Jesus in any way. Two verses in the Qur’an have been interpreted to mean that Jesus will return but these are farfetched interpretations. Faith has to be clearly stated because it makes the difference between heaven and hell: it is not a function of interpretations.”

2. That Jesus’ return “to affirm the teachings of Muhammad” compromises Mohammad as being the “seal of the prophets.” (As religion was perfected through Mohammad no prophet, old or new, is needed to affirm the Qur’an. Only Reformers, as the Prophet says, will come).

3. “Imam Bukhari does not accept the hadith about Jesus returning to kill Dajjal.”

4. Abu Huraira’s narration in Bukhari about the return of Jesus “does not refer to Jesus killing Dajjal. A hadith from only one companion on a matter of faith is open to question in any case. Abu Huraira made some mistakes in hadith narration which were criticized by Hazrat ‘Ayesha.”

(Ency. Britannica, Vol. 9, p. 949, notes that, “the Jewish convert, Ka’b al-Ahbar brought much of the Isra’iliyat [things Jewish] into Islamic tradition.” Thus it is possible that Christian reverts to Islam had infused Christian teachings into Islam).

5. Muslim (another compiler of Traditions of the Prophet Mohammad) and other compilers have hadith about Jesus “returning to slay Dajjal;” the descriptions of Jesus “are taken verbatim from a hadith in Bukhari’s sahih in which Prophet Muhammad saw Jesus in a dream and then saw Dajjal. Bukhari narrated only the dream, which does not include Jesus going on to kill Dajjal. The other collectors seem to have interpolated the dream sequence into the story of Jesus killing Dajjal.

6. “Where the narrative in Muslim and others begins about Jesus killing Dajjal, it is in a longer narrative about dajjal. By the time the narrative reaches the story of Jesus, it is no longer clear that those are the words of Prophet Muhammad and not of some other (unnamed) narrator. The words: “the Prophet then said” do not appear anywhere near Muslim’s narrative about the return of Jesus.

7. “In a way Imam Muslim’s own narrations about Jesus, (peace be on him) contradict his other narrations, which I have quoted above, on how to deal with Dajjal. Muslims are told to “contend” with him and to remember (verses 1-10 of) sura al-Kahf. Here waiting for Jesus is simply left out. When we turn to sura al-Kahf, Jesus’ sonship is rejected. This is where God the most eloquent could have told us to wait for Jesus’ return, but there is no such hint.”

According to the Traditions of the Prophet Dajjal would be “one-eyed;” “will have two flowing streams with him, one seemingly white and the other seemingly bursting with flames;” between his eyes will be written the word “kafir” (disbeliever); he will travel over the land “like the rain shower which is being swept forth by a blowing gale behind it;” and most important, Dajjal cannot be “killed,” in the literal sense of the word.

   Dajjal or “the great Deceiver” is not a person –a being cannot have two streams with him. Dajjal is an unjust (one-eyed) system, unGodly (disbeliever), having the power to dominate, and to control (travel through the land like the rain), its allies are rewarded with “riches and prosperity” (the white stream) and its “opponents” are visited with death and destruction (the stream of  flames).
   Since Dajjal is a system and not an individual, he cannot be killed by physical methods. But he can be killed. A system can only be killed by another system. Allāh God, through the Prophet Mohammad, has given us this system –Islam.
   We combat Dajjal with abstinence from intoxicants; immorality; injustice; deception; and by following and propagating Islam, developing self-sufficiency in agriculture; industry; and military, as Allah says, speaking about the idolaters and the future enemies of Islam, “make ready for them whatever force you can;” not for offense, but for defense–(Qur’an 8:59-60). Muslims are to equip against aggression. (Some materials taken from Kaukab Siddique, Dajjal).

But what about the saying of the Prophet that Jesus would return as a “just ruler”?–(Bokhari Vol. 3, # 425, 656). Is this return physical, or metaphorical as in the case of Elias who returned as John the Baptist–(Luke 1:17; Matt. 11:11-14; 17:10-13)?
   It would seem that this return of Jesus is metaphorical. The Prophet Mohammad is reported as describing Jesus to be of “red complexion, curly hair and a broad chest”–(Bokhari Vol. 4 #648). Whereas in a dream he is reported to have seen a “brown” Jesus having “lank” hair “circumambulating the Ka’ba”–(Bokhari Vol. 4, #649).
   Perhaps this “brown” Jesus that the Prophet Mohammad saw would be a Muslim of colored descent, who will have the disposition of the Israelite Jesus; one who would reform the Muslims that have lapsed from the practice of Islam.

13. WHO IS A MUSLIM?
A Muslim is one who believes in the Holy Kalima: There is no god but Allah, Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah. 
Zahid Aziz notes in his book The Ahmadiyya Case:
“Husain Ahmad Madani, This well-known Deobandi theologian of this century has written in his autobiography Naqsh-i Hayat: “All great scholars are unanimous in holding that if, out of hundred ingredients of the belief of some Muslim, ninety-nine are those of unbelief, and merely one of true Islamic faith, it is not allowed to call him kafir.…In fact, Hazrat Gangohi [a founder of Deo-band religious school] clearly states in his Anwar al-Qulub that the saying of the jurists about ninety-nine grounds does not set a limit, and that if 999 out of a thousand points in the belief of a Muslim are unbelief (kufr) and only one is true belief, even then he cannot be called kafir.” (Naqsh-i-Hayat, vol. i. p. 126)” (p. 85).

Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi, says: “In these hadith, the Holy Prophet has explained the constitutional law of Islam. And that is that when a person professes the unity of God and the apostleship of the Holy Prophet, he enters the fold of Islam and becomes a citizen of the Islamic state. As to whether he is a true believer or not, only God can judge that. We are not permitted to judge it because of the [Holy Prophet’s] words: ‘I have not been commanded to cut open people’s hearts and search their inner selves.’ Security of life and property is established by the mere confession of unity and apostleship.” (Tafhimat, Pathankot, India, 1942, p. 164)” (Ibid. p.75).
Since acceptance of the Kalimah makes one a Muslim, only renouncing it can remove one from Islam. There are varying degrees in being a Muslim; acceptance of the Kalimah is the first degree.
Maudoodi also said:
“You become Muslims by reciting a few words called the Kalimah: La ilaha illa ‘llah Muhammadu’r-rasulu ‘llaah: There is no god but Allah; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” And that  “there should be as much caution in calling a Muslim kafir as there is in pronouncing a death sentence against someone….Should there even be an iota of Islamic belief in that man’s heart, the slander of kufr shall reflect back upon the accuser.” (Ibid. pp. 315, 85).
Difference of opinion and in interpretation of the Qur’an does not remove one from Islam, nor does it constitute disbelief. The judgment thereof is with Allah, He will make clear to us wherein we differed–(Qur’an 16: 92; 39:46; 42:10).  Our common factors as Muslims are Faith in Allah and the Messengership of Mohammad; Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Hajj.

Allah, the Glorious and the High, says not to say to any person who offers you salaam that he is  not a believer until you have investigated him–(Qur’an 4:94).  Obviously, this does not mean that a person who is known to be of another religion and offers the salaam, that he should be accepted as a believer in Allah.  This verse refers to the individual whose religion is unknown to the Muslim.  The person who claims to be a Muslim must believe in the Kalima, pray as Muslims do etc.

Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said, “Three things are the basis of faith: to withhold from one who confesses faith in la ilaha ill-Allah, you should not call him kafir for any sin, nor expel him from Islam for any deed…” (Abu Dawud 15:33)”.  And ‘Umar is reported to have said, “Whoever calls the people of la ilaha ill-Allah unbeliever (kafir) is himself nearer to unbelief (kufr).” (Muhammad Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.125).

Further, Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said that, Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals is a Muslim and is under Allah’s and His Apostle’s protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection. And that: If somebody accuses another of Fusuq (by calling him Fasiq, i.e. a wicked person) or accuses him of Kufr, such an accusation will revert to him (i.e. the accuser) if his companion (the accused) is innocent.  Also, “cursing a believer is like murdering him; and whoever accuses a believer of disbelief, then it is as if he had killed him” (Bokhari Vol. 1 # 386.  Vol. 8 # 71–See also chapter 73. And  #’s 125 (A), 125 (B), 126).

   Also, The Prophet is reported as saying that on the Day of Resurrection he will ask Allah to admit into Paradise those whose faith is equal to a mustard seed and even less–(Bokhari Vol. 9, #600; also 601).
Since the Prophet will intercede for those with minimum faith, how can one who believe in the Holy Kalima be called a kafir (disbeliever)?

    It is clear that a person who believes in the ‘Kalimah’ cannot be properly called a kafir; he remains a Believer/Muslim even though he may be guilty of an act of unbelief. Believers are those who believe in Allah and His Messenger, and who doubts not and struggle in the way of Allah–(Qur’an 49:15).
Regardless of how shallow he may be in intelligence, or how wrong in his interpretation of the Qur’an, he cannot be called a kafir. Our common factors as Muslims are Faith in Allah and the Messengership of Mohammad; Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Hajj.
Every person who accepts the kalima–There is no God but Allah, and Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah– is a Muslim. Only his/her renouncing this formula of belief can remove him/her from Islam.

Muhammad Ali has noted in his The Religion of Islam, that as explained by Ibn Kathir in his dictionary of tradition, the Nihaya, that: “Kufr (unbelief) is of two kinds: one is denial of the faith itself, and that is the opposite of faith; and the other is a denial of a far’ (branch) of the furu’ (branches) of Islam, and on account of it a man does not get out of the faith itself.” (p. 123).
Regardless of the depth of his error, a Muslim who advances his arguments from the Qur’an cannot be a called a kafir (disbeliever).

Finality of prophethood: Finality of prophethood with Prophet Mohammad does not close the door to Allah communicating with His servants–(Bokhari. Vol. 9, #’s 119, 116, 112, 123).
Prophet Mohammad is reported to have said, “Nothing remains of prophethood except mubashshirat [same as bushra]. People said: What are mubashshirat? He said, True dreams”–(Bokhari, Vol. 9, # 119).
And these “true dreams” are related to prophethood, as the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, “The good dream of a righteous believer is one of the forty-six parts of prophethood”–(Bokhari, Vol. 9, # 123).

Imam Abdul Wahhab Shi’rani says, “The door of prophethood is closed after the Holy Prophet Muhammad, and shall not be opened for anyone till the Day of Judgment. However, revelation [wahy, ilham] remains for the saints, which does not contain Shari’ah in it.”(The Ahmadiyya Case, p. 111).

Ghazali (d. 1111 C.E.) This great philosopher, writer and mujaddid, wrote in his best-known work: “Know that the men of the heart are shown the secrets of the worlds through inspiration [into the mind], or through true dreams, or through visions while awake. This is one of the highest grades of the degrees of prophethood, as a true dream is one of the forty-six parts of prophethood. So beware of denying this knowledge through lack of understanding.”(Ibid. pp. 108-109).

Allama Sir Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938). In praise of the perfect believer, he writes in a poem: “He is Kalim [Moses], he is Masih [Messiah], he is Khalil [Abraham]. “He is Muhammad, he is Qur’an, he is Gabriel.”(Ibid. p. 151). (Of course the “Allama” means this metaphorically/spiritually)

Regarding Mirza’s claim to be the Messiah/Mahdi, Maulana Abul Jamal Ahmad says: “If Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claims to be the Mahdi and the like of the Messiah, this does not militate against the Shari’ah. Nor do we have any reason to deny it because the services he has rendered to the religion of Islam can undoubtedly prove him true in the claim to be Mahdi.”(Ibid. p. 207).

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad says: “…..What has the question of whether a certain individual was or was not the Mahdi to do with the beliefs in Islam? It is not the basis of sin or goodness, nor the criterion of faith and unbelief. If a person accepts as Mahdi a man who calls to the law of Islam, enjoins good and forbids evil, it does not corrupt his Islamic beliefs.” (Ibid. pp. 207, 208).

Khwaja Ghulam Farid of Chachran (d. 1904). This famous Sufi saint was a contemporary of Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Commenting upon the latter’s claim to be the Mahdi, he said: “Mirza sahib has given many signs in support of his claim to be Mahdi.  Two of these signs which he has explained in his book provide a high quality of evidence about his being the Mahdi…” (Isha-rat-i Faridi, Persian edition. Ibid. p. 70).
When someone put to him the objection: If we do not find the characteristics of the Messiah and Mahdi in Mirza sahib, how can we accept him as such? The Khwaja replied:
“The characteristics of the Mahdi are secret, and not those which people have in mind. Why is it surprising that this very Mirza Ghulam Ahmad sahib could be the Mahdi? One hadith says that Messiah and Mahdi is the same person. It is not necessary that all the signs of the Mahdi should appear as people have them in mind in accordance with their views and comprehension. If it had happened as people expected, everyone would recognize the Mahdi and believed in him. In fact, when we look at the prophets we find that only a few people in a prophet’s nation would recognize the signs and believe in him. Others would remain doubtful, and some would not recognize him at all. These people would deny and be known as unbelievers. If the entire nation of every prophet could recognize him, they would all become believers. Look at the history of the Holy Prophet. His qualities and signs were prophesied in the scriptures. When he appeared, people did not find some of the signs to be as they had thought them to be. Those to whom these things became clear, they became believers. Those to whom these things did not become clear, they denied. The same applies to the Mahdi. So if Mirza sahib is the Mahdi, what is the thing which prevents it?” (ibid; pp. 123-124).”(Ibid. pp. 208-209).

And finally, Sayyid Abul Ala Maudoodi (d. 1979). He is the best known Sunni religious and political leader of this age in Pakistan, and well-known all over the Muslim world. He wrote:
“Whatever may be said about the Mahdi, everyone can see that his position in Islam is not such that being a Muslim and receiving salvation depends upon recognising and accepting him. If that had been his position, he would have been explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an, and the Holy Prophet would not have rested content with explaining this to a couple of individuals, but would have conveyed it to the whole nation in the way in which we find that Unity of God and the Last day have been preached. Anyone having even a little understanding of religious matters cannot see for an instant why a question which is so crucial to the faith could be left to a few isolated reports. And these reports are of such a low order that compilers like Malik, Bukhari and Muslim did not like to include them in their collections.” (Ibid. p. 209).

Again, the Bountiful Messenger of Allah instructs us, “imbue yourselves with Divine attributes.” Meaning that we are to emulate the Divine attributes of  grace, mercy, forgiveness, love etc. Thus, as prophets are the closest to God and as they live these attributes of God are they not in a sense the reflection of God? The Prophet himself is referred to as a “walking Qur’an,” meaning that he lived the Qur’an.
And if a Muslim should emulate his prophet, is he not in a sense a reflection of his prophet, or a metaphorical prophet?
If we are not to become a reflection of Mohammad or a metaphorical Mohammad, what is the need for us to imbue ourselves with Divine attributes?
If Muslims knew the gravity of labeling another believer in Allah “kafir” he/she would chain his/her tongue for fear of making such a charge.
*******************************************