Topic: Biblical History

Important Words:

تتلوا (followed). See 2:114

شیاطین (rebellious men). See 2:15.

علی (during) gives the sense of فی i.e. "in" or "during" (Aqrab & Mughni). It is also used to denote a hostile sense meaning "against", as one says خرج علیه i.e. he rebelled against him, or he went out against him with an army intending to fight (Wright). In this sense the phrase علی ملك سلیمان would mean, against the government of Solomon, or conspiring against his government.

سحر (falsehood and deception). In verbal senses سحرہ means, he deceived him; he coaxed him and involved him in trouble and deprived him of his understanding; he enchanted him. سحرالفضة means, he coated a piece of silver so as to make it look like gold. The noun سحر means, anything the source of which is not quite visible; showing off falsehood in the form of truth; a crafty device; craftiness; mischief; enchantment (Aqrab). It also means, producing what is false in the form of truth; any event of which the cause is hidden and which is imagined to be different from what it really is; embellishment by falsification and deceit (Lane). Thus every falsehood, deceit or crafty device which is meant to hide the real object from public view is included in the meaning of سحر.

ملكین (two angels) is the dual number from ملك (angel) for which see 2:31. Figuratively ملك is sometimes used to denote a handsome or holy person, as the Quran says, He (Joseph) is but a gracious angel, i.e. a handsome and pious youth (12:32). As in the verse under comment, the two angels are described as teaching something to the people, therefore the word cannot be taken in its literal significance, because angels do not live among men and do not generally have free intercourse with them (17:95, 96; 21:8). Thus in the present verse ملکین would not mean "two angels" in the literal sense of the word but "two holy men".

ھاروت (Harut) and ماروت (Marut) are both descriptive names. ھاروت is derived from ھرت which means, he tore up (Aqrab); hence ھاروت means, one who tears; the tearer. ماروت is derived from مرت which means, he broke (Aqrab & Lane). Thus ماروت means, one who breaks; the breaker. These names signify that the object of the appearance of these holy men was to 'tear' asunder and 'break' the glory and power of certain people.

فتنة (trial) means, the trial or means whereby the condition of a man may be demonstrated in respect of good or evil (Lane). They say فتن الصائغ الذھب i.e. the goldsmith melted the gold in the crucible so that its purity or impurity might be ascertained (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Many a legend unwarranted by the Quran and the Hadith—and even running contrary to them—clusters round this verse. It would be quite unreasonable to interpret it on the basis of those myths. For their true interpretation no external evidence is needed, the words being self-explanatory. It is clear from the verse itself that Jews in the time of the Holy Prophet were bent upon the same mischief which characterized them in the days of Solomon and during the days of their captivity in Babylon. The verse further indicates that the mischief-mongers of Solomon’s time were those "rebellious men" who called him an unbeliever. God says that those wicked men themselves, and not Solomon, lacked belief. Again, the verse tells us that these men taught their associates such signs as conveyed to them meanings quite different from those generally accepted, for the purpose of deceiving other people and concealing their own activities. All this leads to the conclusion that this verse alludes to those secret plots which the enemies of Solomon made against him, and by which they wished to break his empire. It is pointed out that now, in the time of the Holy Prophet, these people are resorting to the selfsame tactics, but that they will fail.

As the verse refers to a number of historical events, it is advisable to relate them here at some length.

When Jews saw that the power of Islam was steadily expanding and that no opposition from the Arabs had been able to arrest the progress of Muslims, they began to excite outsiders against them. At that time there were two large empires in the neighbourhood of Arabia: (1) The Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire; and (2) The Persian Empire. As Jews were already at enmity with the Roman Government, because they were in constant trouble under it, so it was only the Persian Government to which they could look for support. Harassed by the oppression of Christian rulers, they had taken refuge in Persia, where they enjoyed a good deal of religious freedom, and their religious centre shifted from Judah and Jerusalem to Babylonia (Hutchinson’s History of the Nations, p.550). In the seventh century of the Christian era, i.e., during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Jews suffered exceptionally cruel persecution at the hands of the Christian Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire. "Both Phocas and Heraclius", says the Historians’ History of the World (vol. 7, p. 175), "attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion, and if possible to put an end to their national existence. Heraclius not only practised every species of cruelty himself to effect this object within the bounds of his own dominions, but he even made the forced conversion or banishment of the Jews a prominent feature in his diplomacy." So, in the time of the Holy Prophet the only government to which the Jews could look for help was that of Persia, where their co-religionists enjoyed much influence, especially in the reign of Chosroes II (Jew. Enc., ix. 648).

Consequently, when the Jews saw that their efforts to check the progress of Islam had totally failed, they took to exciting the Persian Court against the Holy Prophet by various means; and as a result, Chosroes II issued orders to the Governor of Yemen to send to him the Arabian claimant as a captive. But when the envoys of the Governor came to the Holy Prophet, he asked them to see him the next day, when he told them that God had informed him that He had their king murdered. Thereupon they returned and related this incident to the Governor. A few days later, the Governor received a letter from Siroes, the son of Chosroes II, to the effect that he had killed his father on account of the latter’s tyranny and that the Governor should, on his behalf, renew the oath of allegiance from all the Chiefs of Yemen; and that the order of his father regarding an Arab should be considered as cancelled (Tabari, iii. 1573-1574).

Some historians, including Tabari himself, hold that it was the letter of the Holy Prophet to the king of Persia inviting him to Islam that was the occasion of his orders for the apprehension of the Holy Prophet. But on comparison of the dates of the above-mentioned events, this turns out to be a mistaken view. For, as we read in Zurqani (ii. 211-212), the letter in question was despatched from Medina on the first of Muharram, 7 A.H.–a date corresponding to 12th April, 628 A.D. (Lane under ھجرة); whereas Chosroes II, who sent orders for the arrest of the Holy Prophet, had been assassinated on the 29th of February, 628 A.D. (Historians’ History of the World, viii. 95). Thus the view that the letter of the Holy Prophet was the cause of Chosroes’ orders is quite untenable; and the only possible cause of Chosroes’ ignominious orders was that his ears had been poisoned by malicious reports, a fact admitted by Sir William Muir (The Life of Mahomet, p. 370). It is to these efforts of the Jews that the Quran alludes in the verse under comment.

The verse also points out that it was foolish on the part of the Jews to suppose that they would succeed in that way. Their attention is invited to the fact that they had already been responsible for two secret plots. The first was against Solomon, when some members of their community turned rebels, hatched plots and stirred up bitter feeling against him by calling him an infidel; whereas the infidels were those who opposed him, hurled imputations at him, and set up against him secret societies in which secret signs and symbols were taught. The Jews, however, themselves reaped the ill-reward of their sinister schemes: their power, as a consequence, fell into decay, and at last they became so powerless that they were driven into exile towards Babylon. This account of Jewish secret societies and conspiracies and treacherous signs and symbols, as alluded to in this verse, finds corroboration in the Bible (1 Kings 11:1-6), where we read that the charge of idol-worship was spread against Solomon. An account of his enemies is found in I Kings 11:14, 23, 26, and a reference to secret plots is met with in II Chron. 10: 2-4 where we learn that the Jews had sent for Jeroboam, a bitter enemy of Solomon, immediately after his death and had attempted to make Solomon’s son agree to some demands of theirs, involving certain imputations against Solomon, before his accession to the throne. We learn about the secret signs from I Kings 11:29-32, in which the ten tribes of the Israelites are likened to ten pieces of a garment, and Jeroboam is told that these ten tribes were on his side against Solomon; and so it proved to be, for on the death of Solomon, these ten tribes made Jeroboam their king (I Kings 12:20). Again, the reference of the Quran to the infidelity of Solomon’s enemies finds corroboration in II Chron. 11:15, from which we learn that his enemies, who falsely charged him with unbelief, themselves fell into idol-worship when they rose to power.

Besides the testimony of the Bible, there is other evidence to show that in the days of Solomon a secret society was at work against him. An old tradition, current among medieval Freemasons, indicates that Solomon was envious of the superior intelligence of Hiram, the chief architect who built the Temple at Jerusalem. He is said to have attempted to kill the great Mason by having him thrown into a tank of molten brass, but he was saved by the spirit of his ancestor, Cain, who prophesied that at last his people would get the better of their enemy. Solomon, however, as the tradition goes, had him afterwards put to death. It is said of him that he had fixed certain secret signs which were a sort of mystery known only to him and his associates (Secret Societies of the World, Volume II, pp. 1-8; as the original book could not be obtained, the reference is to an Urdu translation). We further learn from this book that before the period of the Accepted Masons, the same signs used in all the Lodges were current among the Masons of Solomon’s time (p. 11) and that at the time of initiation, the Hiram incident was related to the new member (pp. 29, 30). However incredible the story as a whole may be, it points at least to the conclusion that in one way or other, secret societies were associated with Solomon’s reign and were much in vogue in his time.

The second occasion when, according to the Quran, the Israelites had resort to secret societies was during their captivity in Babylon. But this time they were not acting against any Prophet but were, on the other hand, working under the leadership of two inspired personages, who were, in obedience to divine command, trying to bring about the deliverance of the Israelites. Their mission was to "tear asunder" and "break down" the empire of the enemies of the Israelites. These holy men told new members, at the time of initiation, that they were a sort of trial from God, serving to differentiate between the good and the bad, and that the Israelites should not therefore refuse to believe what they said, because this would lead them to infidelity. In their teachings they drew a distinction between males and females, confining membership to males only (this is an old practice found among most secret societies). It is also stated that the disciples of these holy men directed their activities against only those for whose chastisement they were commissioned by God.

In this narration, the Quran refers to the days when King Nebuchadnezzar brought the Jews as captives into Babylon and kept them there for a long time. The holy men referred to in the verse under comment were Haggai, the Prophet, and Zechariah, the son of Iddo (Ezra 5:1). When Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, rose to power, the Israelites entered into a secret agreement with him and greatly facilitated his conquest of Babylon. In return for this service, he not only allowed them to return to their own country but also helped in the rebuilding of the Temple (Historians’ History of the World, ii. 126).

After stating that the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s time were following the same course which was adopted by the rebels of Solomon’s days and which was later adopted by the Jews under two holy men in Babylon, it was necessary here to state the ultimate upshot of their efforts against the Holy Prophet, because on the two previous occasion’s their efforts had met with different results. On the first occasion the conspiracy of the Israelites, being directed against a Prophet of God, had ended in the total loss of their prestige and finally in their banishment to Babylon. On the second occasion, they took a similar course under two inspired personages and were successful. Hence, in order to indicate whether the efforts of the Jews against the Holy Prophet would meet with failure, as they did in the days of Solomon, or with success as in Babylon, the Quran says: these people are learning that which would harm them and do them no good; hinting that they will not be successful as in Babylon. Accordingly, the consequence of their hostile efforts against the Holy Prophet was that Chosroes, their only supporter, met his death at the hands of his son, and they themselves were exiled from Arabia in the time of ‘Umar. In the concluding portion of the verse, God adds: And they have certainly known that he who trafficks therein has no share of good in the Hereafter, meaning that a mischievous plotter never succeeds ultimately. The last clause, had they but known, throws a flood of light on how intensely God desires that His creatures should always take the right course and not be misled by mischievous people.

Important Words:

اله (God) is derived from اله (alaha) which means, he worshipped. So اله means, a thing or person or being worshipped, whether true or false; a deity (Aqrab).

Commentary:

Jacob or Israel was the son of Isaac who was a son of Abraham. Thus Ishmael was the uncle of Jacob, and yet the children of Jacob here include Ishmael among their "fathers" which proves two things: firstly, that the word اب (father) is also used of uncle; and secondly, that up to the time of Jacob’s sons, Ishmael was held in due respect by the Israelites. Nay, the children of Israel mention the name of Ishmael even before that of their own grandfather, Isaac, and do not mention any other son of Abraham.

The words, were you present when death came to Jacob, signify that the principle of submission to the will of God is not an innovation introduced by Islam, but has been recognized by good and righteous people in all times and even Israel, the founder of the Jewish tribes, acted upon that principle, so much so, that the only thought that came to his mind when death approached him was to enjoin the same noble principle upon his children. Israel wished his sons to become pious Muslims; will not the Jews of the Holy Prophet’s day act upon that principle?

In corroboration of what the Quran says about Jacob’s will to his sons, Rodwell quotes the following from Midrash Rabbah: "At the time when our father Jacob quitted this world, he summoned his twelve sons and said to them, Hearken to your father Israel (Gen. 49:2). Have you any doubts in your hearts concerning the Holy One, blessed be He. They said, Hear, o Israel, our father, as there is no doubt in thy heart, so neither is there in ours. For the Lord is our God, and He is One" (Midr. Rabbah on Gen. par. 98, and on Deut. par. 2). Compare also Targ. Jer. on Deut. 6:4.

5:27.

Commentary:

The commandments relating to conjugal relations were mentioned as an offshoot of the subject of جھاد (holy war) dealt with in 2:217 and the following verses. The Quran now reverts to the original subject and by way of re-introduction cites the example of the Israelites who had left the land of the Pharaohs for fear of death. Trodden under the foot of the tyrant, the children of Israel were then in a most abject condition, and the wise God, in His eternal wisdom, decreed that they should lead a life of ordeals in the wilderness before becoming fit for the great life that awaited them in the Promised Land. The words, Allah said to them: 'Die', point to the great truth that all life must be preceded by death, i.e. great trials and extraordinary sacrifices.

As mentioned above, the clause, those who went forth from their homes, refers to the Israelites who had gone forth from Egypt to escape persecution by Pharaoh. It was the fear of death which had made the Israelites migrate from the land (2:50).

The words, they were thousands, contradict the Bible which represents the number of the Israelites migrating from Egypt as six hundred thousand. Recent researches favour the Quranic view (See History of the People of Israel, p. 145, by Ernest Renan, London, 1888, and History of Palestine and the Jews, i. 174 by John Kitto, London, 1844). See also. 2:55.

The story of the exodus of the Israelites is briefly this. When, being persecuted by Pharaoh, they left Egypt and crossed over to Asia, Moses wanted them to enter the Promised Land, but they were afraid of the people that dwelt there and refused to march ahead, saying Go thou and thy Lord and fight and here we sit (5:25). The result was that they drew upon themselves the wrath of God, Who said to Moses, Verily, it shall be forbidden them for forty years; in distraction shall they wander through the land (5:27). The promise was thus put off for forty years and the children of Israel were left to wander in the wilderness until those who had refused to fight perished in the desert, whereafter the younger generation led by Joshua conquered the land. Thus it was that the people whom God had caused to perish had new life breathed into them. It is with reference to these events that the Quran uses the word "die" in the verse under comment. This very death, i.e. destruction of the rebellious and training of the youth through trials and ordeals, proved the forerunner of life. Elsewhere, the Quran says about the Israelites: Then We raised you up after your death (2:57).

It may also be noted here that from this verse onward, the Quran begins the description of تزکیة or means of national progress spoken of in 2:130, reference to "Signs" and "the Book" and "Wisdom" having already been made.

23:15.

Important Word:

خاویة (fallen) is derived from خوی. They say خوی البیت i.e. (1) the house fell down in ruins; (2) the house became empty and untenanted (Aqrab).

عروش (roofs) is the plural of عرش (roof). They say عرش i.e. he built a house. عرش البیت means, he raised the roof of the house. عرش means: (1) the roof of a house; (2) the throne or the ceremonious chair of a king; (3) the pillar, etc. supporting a thing; (4) honour and prowess; (5) leaders and chiefs among men; (6) tent, canopy, shed etc. affordingshade; (7) trellis supporting vines (Aqrab & Lane).

یتسنه (have rotted) is derived from سنه i.e. (1) it passed through a time extending over years; (2) it (food, etc.) became altered and rotten by the lapse of years or absolutely. تسنه gives the same meaning as سنه (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The preceding verse contained one illustration of how Allah brings His friends out of darkness into light. The present verse cites, as hinted in the words, or like him, another illustration of how He breathes new life into a people after they have fallen and become degraded.

The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laid waste by Nebuchadnezzar. The person who, as the verse says, passed by it was Ezekiel, the Prophet; and the words which had fallen down upon its roofs hint that it was soon after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar that Ezekiel passed by the town. Ezekiel was among the Israelite captives whom Nebuchadnezzar carried away to Babylon and who, in accordance with an ancient custom, were made to pass by the ruins of the town so that they might witness with their own eyes how their city had been laid in ruins by the conqueror. Ezekiel, who was a great well-wisher of his people, was immensely pained to see the ruins of the sacred city and pathetically asked God when the time would come when the ruined city would be restored to life, i.e. when its inhabitants, the children of Israel, would come back to it, rebuild it and make it prosperous once more. This prayer, it appears, was heard by God Who showed him in a vision that the restoration asked for would come in a hundred years.

The clause then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years does not mean that Ezekiel was actually made to die and then raised to life again. It was, in fact, a vision which Ezekiel saw (Ezek. 37). The Quran sometimes mentions scenes seen in a vision as if they had actually happened, without stating that they were witnessed in a vision or a dream (e.g. 12:5). What actually happened was that Ezekiel saw in a vision that he had died and remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. As he was the representative of his people, his death signified the death of the Israelites. Thus God informed him through this vision that the children of Israel would remain in their state of captivity and lifelessness for a hundred years, after which a new life would be given them and they would return to inhabit their sacred city. And this dream or vision actually turned out to be true. For Jerusalem was first invaded by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C. and again in 587 B.C., when after a long siege the city was totally destroyed by his general in 586 B.C. Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B.C. The city was rebuilt about 100 years after its destruction and thus the vision came true.

It is wrong to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that he remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would have been no answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town which was lying in ruins.

The words, which had fallen down upon its roofs; point out that Ezekiel saw the ruins soon after the destruction (not necessarily the complete and final destruction) of the town when the fallen roofs were still to be seen under the debris of the walls.

The words, I have remained a day or part of a day, are intended to express indefiniteness of time and mean, according to the Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. The words have been used in this sense in another passage of the Quran as well: They said, We have tarried a day or part of a day. Others said, Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried (18:20). Again, They will say, We tarried a day or part of a day, but ask those who keep count (23:114). In fact, یوم (day) here does not mean a day of 24 or 12 hours but time absolutely (see 1:4). The clause, I have remained a day or part of a day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision or the dream. Apparently Ezekiel thought that he was being asked about the duration of the time of the vision.

The clause, Nay, thou hast remained in this state for a hundred years, points out that although in one sense he had remained in that state for a hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for a hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day, was also correct, for the time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short. To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and to the ass. That his food and drink had not become stale and that his ass was still alive, showed that he had really tarried only for a short time. The words and look at thy ass also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in his fields with his ass by his side, for while in captivity the Israelites were made to work in the fields as farmers.

The words that We may make thee a Sign unto men show that Ezekiel was to be made a Sign to men inasmuch as his vision, according to which Jerusalem was to become re-inhabited by the children of Israel, was to come true. The words, look at the bones, are intended to echo the words used by the children of Israel in those days of misery, viz. that they had become like dry bones and there was no hope of their being ever endued with new life (Ezek. 37:11, 12). The words along with the accompanying clause meant that God had power to clothe the bones with flesh and to breathe new life into them. The bones were first to be set or placed in position and thereafter clothed with flesh, i.e. the Israelites, then like dead bones, were first to be brought back to their town and then the process of the clothing of the bones with flesh, i.e. the rebuilding of the town, etc. was to be completed.

The vision of Ezekiel has been mentioned in the Bible in chapter 37 of his book.

10:37; 53:29.

Important Words:

ماقتلوہ (they slew him not). قتله means, he slew him by striking him with a sword or with a stone or by poison or by any other means. See also 2:62 & 4:158.

ماقتلوہ یقینا (they did not convert this conjecture into certainty) is a peculiar Arabic idiom. The Arabs say قتل الشیء خبرا (lit. he killed the thing with certainty of knowledge and proper examination), i.e. he acquired full and thorough knowledge of the thing so as to dispel all possibility of doubt. So the words ما قتلوہ یقینا would mean, their knowledge regarding it was not comprehensive, or they did not know it for certain that he had been killed, or they did not convert this (conjecture of theirs) into certainty, meaning that they were not sure and they did not make sure whether Jesus died on the cross or not. In this case, the pronoun in قتلوہ would refer to the noun ظن (a conjecture) immediately preceding it (Lane, Aqrab, Mufradat & Lisan).

In plain English, the words would mean that their knowledge about the death of Jesus on the cross was not so full and comprehensive as to have attained the stage of certainty. The expression may also mean that they certainly did not slay him or that they did not kill him as a certainty, i.e. they did not execute him in such a way as definitely assure themselves that life had indeed become extinct in him.

ما صلبوه (nor crucified him). The word صلبوا is from the root صلب. They say صلب الشیء i.e. he burned the thing. صلب العظامmeans, he extracted the marrow out of the bones. صلب اللص means, he crucified the thief, i.e. he put him to death in a certain well-known manner (Lane & Aqrab). In crucifixion one was nailed to a framework made in the form of a cross and, being kept without food and drink, slowly died of pain, hunger, fatigue and exposure.

شبه لھم (he was made to appear to them like one crucified). شبھه إیاہ means, he made it or him to be like it or him, or he made it or him to resemble it or him. شبه علیه الامر means, the matter was rendered confused, obscure or dubious to him. شبه علیه الامرmeans, he rendered the matter confused to him (by making it to appear like some other thing); he rendered it confused, obscure or dubious to him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

This and the preceding verse mention two main objections of the Jews against Jesus: (1) his alleged illegitimate birth, and (2) his supposed death on the cross which, according to Jewish Law, was an accursed death (Deut. 21:23). The words, We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, Son of Mary—the Messenger of Allah, are spoken ironically and tauntingly, meaning, "we have killed Jesus who posed as the Messiah and a Messenger of God."

The argument of the Jews was that because Jesus died on the cross, he could not be a true Prophet according to Jewish Law. The inference was based on their sacred Scriptures; for, according to the Bible, he who is hanged is accursed of God, and a false Prophet shall meet with destruction. Says the Bible: "His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God) that thy land be not defiled, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance' (Deut. 21:23). Again: "My hand shall be upon false prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies" (Ezek. 13:9). Again: "Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the prophets that prophesy in My name, and I sent them not, yet they say, Sword and famine shall not be in this land, by sword and famine shall those prophets be consumed" (Jer. 14:15).

On the strength of such verses of the Bible, the Jews claimed that, as Jesus had been crucified and met with destruction, he could not be a true Prophet of God, but was a false claimant and an accursed one.

Regarding the charge about the alleged death of Jesus by crucifixion, the Quran says that the act of crucifixion having not been completed, and Jesus having been taken down alive from the cross, the charge carries no weight. It should, however, be noted that the Quran does not deny the mere hanging of Jesus on the cross; it only denies his death on it.

Two different views prevail among the Jews regarding Jesus’ alleged death by crucifixion. Some of them hold that Jesus 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 Acts, 5:30 where we read "which ye slew and hanged on a tree." The Quran refutes both these views by saying, they slew him not, nor crucified him. The words may also signify that the Quran first rejects the slaying of Jesus in any form, and then proceeds to deny the particular way of killing by hanging on the cross.

The verb شبه (in the passive voice) 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 Jesus 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. Hence, the theory invented by certain commentators that Judas or somebody else was made to appear like Jesus and was then crucified in his place is simply absurd. The context cannot be so twisted as to make room for somebody else of whom no mention at all is made in the verse.

To what then was Jesus 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 Jesus 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 شبه لھم is, as explained under Important Words, 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 Jesus 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 Jesus had actually died on the cross is supported by the Bible and by all authentic historical facts.

The statements made in this verse are clearly substantiated by the following facts narrated in the Gospels:

(1) Jesus had himself predicted his escape from death on the cross, saying, "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matt. 12:40). Now it is an accepted fact that Jonah had entered the whale’s belly alive and had come out alive; so, according to his own prophecy, Jesus was to enter the heart of the earth, (i.e. his tomb) alive and was to come out of it alive.

(2) The trying magistrate (Pilate) believed Jesus to be innocent and, being sympathetic, was anxious to save his life (Matt. 27:17, 18; Mark 15:9, 10, 14; Luke 23:4, 14, 15, 20,22; John 18:38, 39); and he must have secretly tried to save him or at least connived at the attempt of others to do so.

(3) Pilate’s wife had seen a vision concerning the innocence of Jesus: "When he (Pilate) was set down on the judgement seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, 'Have thou nothing to do with that just man, for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him'" (Matt. 27:19). This message must certainly have influenced Pilate, and his wife must have also done her best to save Jesus.

(4) Pilate held the killing of Jesus in such horror that he actually washed his hands with water, saying that he was innocent of the blood of that just man (Matt. 27:24).

(5) Pilate did all he could to help Jesus; and the soldiers in charge also treated Jesus with kindness, apparently under Pilate’s directions. The following are some of the special favours shown to Jesus: (a) Every malefactor carried his own cross but another man was made to carry that of Jesus (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21); (b) Jesus was given wine or vinegar mingled with myrrh. This was intended to render him less sensible to pain. The two thieves who were crucified with him were not given this drink. When after sometime the effects of the drink were wearing off and Jesus cried with pain, the drink was administered again to render him unconscious of pain (Matt. 27:34, 48; Mark 15:23, 36; John 19:29, 30).

(6) The unconsciousness which followed the administration of vinegar was mistaken for death (John 19:30).

(7) Jesus remained on the cross for only about three hours (John 19:14. cf. Matt. 27:46) and according to Mark only for six hours (Mark 15:25, 33), and either of these periods was by no means sufficient to kill a young man like Jesus on the cross.

(8) When Joseph of Arimathaea came and craved the body of Jesus, Pilate "marvelled if he were already dead", and calling to him the centurion asked him whether he had been any while dead (Mark, 15:44).

(9) The soldiers did not break the legs of Jesus, but the legs of the two malefactors who had been crucified with him were broken (John 19:32, 33).

(10) Jesus was not buried in the earth with the two malefactors but was laid separately in a spacious sepulchre hewn out of a rock and situated in a garden which was private property (Mark 15:46; John 19:41, 42).

(11) The Jews themselves were not sure that Jesus was dead; for they came to Pilate and besought him that his legs be broken (John 19:31).

(12) The doubt that Jesus was alive and might, with the aid of his sympathizers, escape from the sepulchre rankled in the minds of the Jews. They remembered also the prophecy of Jesus that he would show them the miracle of Jonah and would come out of the heart of the earth alive. So, influenced by such misgivings, the chief priests and Pharisees went together to Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember that the deceiver said, while he was yet alive—'After three days I will rise again.'—Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day. Pilate told them to make their own arrangements; "so they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch" (Matt. 27:62-66).

(13) In spite of the watch and despite the sealing of the stone, Jesus had left the sepulchre before the third day had dawned, when Mary Magdalene and Mary, mother of James, came to see the sepulchre and found the stone rolled away and the sepulchre empty (Matt. 28:1-6 Mark 16:1-6), which shows that the men set to watch were also in league with, and won over by, the friends of Jesus.

(14) After leaving the sepulchre, Jesus moved about secretly, lest the Jews should have him arrested again (Mark 16:12 John 20:19, 26; 21:4).

(15) Mary Magdalene and other disciples actually saw Jesus in this body of clay (Mark 16:9, 12).

(16) Jesus showed them his wounds to assure them that he was not a spirit but a man of flesh and blood and that the body they saw before them was the same physical body that had been nailed to the cross (Luke 24:39, 40; John 20:27).

(17) After leaving the sepulchre, Jesus felt hungry and partook of food with his disciples (John 21:5, 13; Luke 24:41, 42, 43).

The above references among others make it abundantly clear that Jesus did not die on the cross, that he was alive when he was taken down from the cross, and also when he was laid in the sepulchre, and that he came out of it alive on the third day at early morn, as he had himself prophesied, and that later he appeared to his disciples in secret and assured them that he was not dead.

(18) Jesus had said, "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16). In these words he was obviously referring to the lost ten tribes of Israel who had scattered in Afghanistan, Kashmir, etc. In search of these Jesus came to the East after his miraculous escape from an accursed death on the cross, and among these he now lies buried in Khan Yar Street in Srinagar Kashmir. Conclusive historical evidence has established the fact that the holy occupant of the tomb in the Khan Yar Street in Srinagar is no other than Jesus, son of Mary. For further discussion of this important subject, see Masih Hindustan Meiń (Jesus in India) by the Promised Messiah, and R. Rel. Vol. II Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 published from Qadian, and the "Tomb of Jesus" by Dr M. M. Sadiq of Qadian.

19:43.

Important Words:

اب (father) which is originally ابو gives the following meanings: a father; an ancestor; a paternal uncle. ابوالمرأة means, the woman’s husband. ابوالمثوی means, master or owner of the dwelling (Lane). See also 4:12.

آزر (Azar). For the discussion of the word and the relationship of Azar with Abraham see under Commentary below. The word is considered by some to be of non-Arabic origin, though in Arabic too it has a root. Thus آزر النبات means, the vegetation grew thick and strong. آزر فلانا means, he strengthened such and such a person. آزرہ means, he sympathized with and helped him (Aqrab). The name, which thus appears to be attributive, was given to Azar probably because he helped his people in establishing idol-worship. According to Mujahid, آزر was originally the name of an idol (Qadir).

Commentary:

With this verse the Quran turns to an account of Abraham, which is given here for two reasons: Firstly, because it is the idolatrous Quraish that are chiefly addressed in these verses and they revered Abraham as their progenitor and patriarch. Hence, by giving an account of Abraham, God wants to tell the Quraish that their great ancestor Abraham was also, like the Holy Prophet, opposed to idolatry, which shows that idol-worship is a later innovation. Secondly, by means of this account, God wants to impress upon idolaters the hollow and unsound foundation on which stands the belief and practice of idol-worship and the absurd ideas which give rise to idolatry.

In the present verse Abraham is represented as arguing with his اب (father) on the subject of idolatry. This اب (father) is here named Azar. Now we have to see in what relation this man stood to Abraham and what his true name was. Christian writers have criticized the Quran on the, ground that it calls Abraham’s father by the name Azar while his true name was Terah. It is true that in Gen. 11:26 Abraham’s father is named Terah. But it is equally true that in Luke 3: 34 Abraham is called the son of Thara and not Terah. The reader should note the change not only in the first consonant but also in the vowel that follows. The Talmud also gives the name of Abraham’s father as Thara. Eusebius, the great Church historian, who has been rightly styled the Father of Ecclesiastical History, gives, in spite of Gen. 11:26 and Luke: 3: 34, which could not be unknown to him, Athar as the name of Abraham’s father (Sale). This clearly shows that even among the Jews there existed no unanimity as to the name of Abraham’s father. The fact that Eusebius, followed neither Gen. 11:26, nor Luke 3: 34 shows that he had strong reasons to differ from these two well-known sources. The correct form thus appears to be Athar, which later became changed into Thara or Terah. Now the form adopted by Eusebius is almost, if not exactly, the same as given by the Quran. If there is any difference, it is only that of pronunciation; otherwise both forms, i.e. Azar and Athar, are identical. Christians have, therefore, no reason to quarrel with the Quran for calling Abraham’s father by the name Azar. It may also be noted that Abraham’s father is also called Zarah in the Talmud (Sale) and Zarah is approximately the same as Azar. All this goes to prove not only that the Quran is not wrong on calling the father of Abraham by the name Azar, but also that the Quranic version is much more reliable than that of the Bible.

The next question we have to consider is that of the relationship in which Azar stood to Abraham. In the Quran, he has been called Abraham’s اب (ab), a word applied, as shown under Important Words, not only to father but also to uncle, grandfather, etc. who stand in the position of a father. From the Quran it appears that Azar, though called the (ab) of Abraham, was not really his father. In 9:114 we are told that Abraham had made a promise to Azar, his اب (ab), to pray to God for his forgiveness, but when he came to know that he was an enemy of God, he abstained from praying for him and was actually forbidden to do so (see also 26:87 where again Azar is spoken as the اب of Abraham). Elsewhere, however, the Quran itself records a prayer of Abraham which he offered in the last days of his life, after he had built the Ka‘bah in company with his son, Ishmael. In this prayer, Abraham prays for his father and is not forbidden to pray for him; but here Abraham does not use for him the word اب but والد (14:42). Now, as has already been stated, the word ابmay be applied to a person other than the real father, but the word والد (walid) which means "the begetter" is applied to none but the actual father. This clearly shows that Azar who has been called the اب (ab) of Abraham was a different person from the والد (walid) of Abraham. He was probably his uncle.

Some passages of the Bible also support this conclusion. We are told that Abraham married Sarah, the daughter of Terah (Gen. 20:12). This shows that Terah was not his real father, for in that case he could not marry Terah’s daughter, his own sister. It appears that his father being dead, he was brought up by his uncle, Azar or Athar, who gave him his daughter Sarah in marriage. As Azar brought up Abraham and was in the position of a father to him, the latter came to be ascribed to him as a son, and this led to the error of Azar or Athar being taken as the real father of Abraham. Again, from the Talmud it appears that Azar prosecuted Abraham and presented him before the king for the offence of breaking idols. If Azar had been the real father of Abraham, he would not have followed such a course against his own son.

Important Words:

فجاسوا (and they penetrated). جاس means, he sought for or after a thing or news or tidings eagerly and with the utmost of his endeavour. They say جاسھم الاسد i.e. the lion trod upon them, or came into the midst of them and did mischief among them. The Arabs say جسنا خلال دور القوم i.e. We went to and fro or went about amidst the houses of the people. The Quranic expression فجاسوا خلال الدیار means, they went through the midst of the houses and sought for what was in them or they went to and fro among the houses in a sudden attack or they slew you amid your houses (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

The first disaster befell the Israelites after David, and the second after Jesus. It appears from the Bible that the Jews had become a very powerful nation after Moses and in the time of David they laid the foundation of a mighty kingdom which continued to flourish for some time after his death in its old might and glory. Then it fell prey to gradual decay and about 733 B.C. Samaria was conquered by the Assyrians, who annexed the whole of Israel north of Jezreel. In 608 B.C. Palestine was ravaged by an Egyptian force under Pharaoh Necho and the Israelites came under Egyptian sway (Jew. Enc., vol. 6, p. 665). The loss of their temporal power and their destruction and desolation, however, did not make them mend their ways. They continued in their old wicked practices. The Prophet Jeremiah warned them to give up their iniquities as the wrath of God was about to overtake them. These are Jeremiah’s warnings:

O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee…? For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers (Jeremiah 4:14 & 31).

The Israelites paid no heed to Jeremiah’s warnings. So "the Lord was very angry with them and removed them out of His sight; there was none left but the tribe of Judah only" (2 Kings 17:18). In the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon made his first invasion of Palestine and carried off some of the Temple vessels, but the city was spared the rigours of a siege. In 597 B.C. also, the city was invested and fell victim to a severe famine. The rebellion of Zedekiah, however, caused a second invasion in 587 B. C., and after a siege of a year and a half, the city was taken by storm. King Zedekiah fled from the city but was taken prisoner. His sons were slain and his eyes were put out and he was bound in fetters and carried off to Babylon. The Temple, the King’s palace and all the great buildings in the city were burnt down, the chief priests and other leaders were put to death and many people were carried off in captivity (Jew. Enc., vol. 6, p. 665 & vol. 7, p. 122 under Jerusalem).

Thus was fulfilled the promise about the first of the two warnings held out to the Israelites by Moses to which the present verse refers. The following passages of the Bible contain Moses’ warnings to the Jews:

"But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee…The Lord shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand; a nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young: and he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which also shall not leave thee either corn, wine, or oil, or the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he hath destroyed thee. And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustest, throughout all thy lands: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. And thou shalt eat the fruit of thy own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the Lord thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee…And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to naught; and yet ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone. (Deut. 28:15; 49-53; 63-64).

Commentary:

The Jews fared well in exile. Most of them were employed on public works in central Babylonia and many among them eventually gained their freedom and rose to influential positions. Their faith and religious devotion were renewed; the literature of the kingdom was studied, re-edited, and adapted to the needs of the reviving community, and the hope of restoration to Palestine was preached and cherished. About 545 B.C., this aspiration took a more definite form. Cyrus, King of Media and Persia, had by this time attained to dominion over the whole uplands of Asia as far as the shores of the Aegean Sea. The Jews made a secret agreement with him and helped him to conquer Babylon. The city surrendered to his army without resistance in July, 539 B.C. As a reward for their services Cyrus permitted the Jews to return to their country, and also helped them in the rebuilding of the Temple. In 538 B.C. Cyrus proclaimed the rebuilding of the Temple as his divine mission but the work was not started till the following year (Historians’ History of the World, vol. II, p. 126; Jew. Enc., vol. 7, under Jerusalem, Enc. Bib., under Cyrus and 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23). The Judean, Sheshbazzar (a Governor under Cyrus) brought back to the Temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away and prepared to undertake the work at the expense of the royal purse. A large body of exiles returned to Jerusalem (Ezra 1:3-5). The work of rebuilding the Temple steadily progressed and it was completed in 516 B.C. (Jew. Enc., vol. 7, under Jerusalem).

It is to these events and the subsequent prosperity of the Jews that the verse under comment refers. All this, however, was foretold by Moses long before it came to pass. Says he:

And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; That then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee: And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers (Deut. 30:1-5). See also 2:105.

4:124-125; 6:161; 28:85; 41:47; 99:8-9.

Commentary:

This verse speaks of the Jews’ second relapse into iniquitous and evil ways and of the punishment which befell them in consequence. They persecuted Jesus and sought to kill him on the cross and stamp out his Movement. So God afflicted them with a terrible punishment when in 70 A. D. the Roman forces under Titus swept the country and, amid circumstances of unparalleled horror, Jerusalem was destroyed and the Temple of Solomon was burnt down (Enc. Bib., under Jerusalem). This disaster took place when Jesus was yet living in Kashmir. It was also foretold by Moses. The Bible says:

Of the rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. And when the Lord saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters. And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very forward generation, children in whom is no faith. They have moved me to jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with their vanities: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation. For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains. I will heap mischiefs upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of grey hair. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among them (Deut. 32:18-26).

It may be noted here that this prophecy about the second punishment is mentioned in the Bible after the prophecy which spoke of the first punishment (Deut. 28). More than that, it is mentioned even after the prophecy which speaks of the return of the Jews to Jerusalem (Deut. 30:1-5). This shows that this prophecy (Deut. 32:18-26) refers to the second punishment, to which reference has been made in the words of the Quran, in v. 5, viz. You will surely do mischief in the land twice.

Important Words:

مریم (Mary) is probably a compound word consisting of مر and یم and possesses, in Hebrew, a variety of meanings. Some of these meanings are: 'bitter sea'; 'drop of the sea'; 'star of the sea'; 'bitterness'; 'mistress or lady'. The word also means 'exalted'. It may also mean 'pious worshipper'. From two alternative roots the word might also mean, 'the rebellious', or 'the corpulent'. It seems that among the Jews and the Arabs corpulence was considered as a mark of beauty and girls who were corpulent were considered beautiful and therefore named Maryam. Maryam also seems to be a popular name among the Jews in the time of Jesus. See also 3:37.

شرقیاً (to the east) means, (1) facing the east; (2) to the east. مکاناً شرقیاً means, a place to the east; a place facing the east; a place in which the sun shines; an open dwelling place (Lane).

الکتاب (the Book) may refer both to the Bible and the Quran.

Commentary:

It seems relevant and necessary to mention, as a prelude to the somewhat detailed account of Jesus’ fatherless birth as given in the next several verses, some facts related about Mary in the Quran and the Bible.

The New Testament sheds practically no light on the life of Mary before she became pregnant. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke give an extremely brief and discursive description of her circumstances before the above important event took place while Mark and John are completely silent over it. According to Matthew, Mary, on being married to Joseph, was found to be with a child. Joseph intended secretly to put her away but was refrained from taking this extreme step by an angel saying to him in a dream: "Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife" (Matt. 1:19, 20). According to Luke, Mary was a relation of Zachariah’s wife and used to go to their house. Apart from this unimportant additional fact Luke leaves us quite in the dark about Mary’s account prior to her marriage with Joseph. But the Quran gives us a much more detailed account of Mary’s family, the circumstances that attended her birth, the vow of her mother, her childhood being dedicated to the service of the Church and lastly of her having conceived Jesus (3:36-38).

The present Surah, however, gives a still more detailed account of Mary having conceived Jesus and of what happened to her and to Jesus after his birth and after he was commissioned with his divine mission. The Quran has provided us with all necessary details about Mary that have any bearing on the important subject of prophethood which was about to be transferred from the House of Israel to that of Ishmael and which forms the principal thesis of the present Surah. If anything the Bible has given a very sorry picture of Jesus and his relations with his mother. Whereas the Quran depicts him to be kind, dutiful and very compassionate towards his mother, the Gospels show that he did not like his mother because she did not believe in him (Matt. 12:46-50). Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21 show that besides Mary, Jesus’ other relations did not believe in him while the Gospel of John keeps discreetly silent over this painful subject. We also know that the Jews used to taunt Jesus by saying that if his mission was true why his own relations did not believe in him (Matt. 13:55-56). Some of his relations and friends went so far as to lay hold on him for they said that he was beside himself (Mark 3:21). This attitude of disbelief on the part of his relatives towards Jesus had made him so bitter that when he was being taken to Calvary to be put on the cross and his mother appeared on the scene, he addressed her saying 'Woman, behold thy son!' (John 19:26). And when on another occasion a woman being very much impressed by his discourse said: 'Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked' (Luke 11:27), he retorted: 'Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it' (Luke 11:28), which signified that he could not even bear his mother being praised.

Such is the picture which the Gospels have drawn of the unenviable relations between Jesus and his mother. But the description is not only self-contradictory, it also offends against human nature and intelligence. The Quran, however, presents both these blessed and holy persons in quite a different light. Regarding Jesus it says that he was kind and loving, obedient and dutiful to his mother and that he was not haughty and rude (19:33) while about Mary it states that she was a pious, chaste and truthful woman and was a great worshipper of God and that God purified her, accepted her and chose her above the women of the world (3:43, 44; 5:76; 66:13). How great is the difference between the unenviable picture of Mary drawn by the Gospels and the beautiful description given of her in the Quran. Whereas the Biblical description is highly derogatory and self-contradictory, the Quranic description is not only consistent with the dignity of a highly righteous woman but is also more akin to truth and facts of history.

As the verse shows Mary withdrew herself to a place to the east. Special mention has been made of "a place to the east" in the verse, in order, perhaps, to point to the time-honoured custom of the Jews that they attached special significance to مشرق (east) and considered it sacred. They believed that the birth of the first man took place in the east where God planted a garden (Gen. 2:8). The Babylonians by whose traditions the Jews became much impressed as they had lived under them as captives also looked upon the east as "the gate of light" (Ezekiel 11:1). Matthew 2:2 and Revelation 7:2 also shed some light on the importance of the east. Both the Jews and Christians hold the east in special respect. They build their places of worship facing the east. This is why special mention has been made in the present verse "of a place to the East" and Mary has been described as having gone to "a place which was facing the east."

For a somewhat detailed note on the early life of Mary see vv. 3:36, 37, 38.

6:87; 38:49.

38:49.

Commentary:

For Ishmael see 2:128, 130; and for Idris 19:58.

The identity of Dhul-Kifl is wrapped in uncertainty. Muslim commentators of the Quran identify him with several persons, chiefly with Biblical Prophets. But the Prophet known by this name appears to be Ezekiel who is called Dhul-Kifl by the Arabs. There seems to exist a close resemblance between the words ذوالکفل and حزقیل (Ezekiel), both in form and meaning, the former word meaning "possessed of an abundant portion" and the latter "God gives strength." Thus the two words seem to possess an identical significance. Rodwell says that Ezekiel is called Dhul-Kifl by the Arabs.

According to Karsten Niebuhr, a little town called Kefil which is situated midway between Najaf and Huila (Babylon) contains the shrine of Ezekiel which is still visited by Jewish pilgrims. He is further of the view that Kifl is the Arabic form of Ezekiel. The Jews too regard Ezekiel as Dhul-Kifl (Enc. of Islam under "Dhul-Kifl" and Carsten Niebuhr’s "Travels through Arabia…" ii, 265). See also 38:49.

Born probably about 622 B.C. in a priestly family Dhul-Kifl had spent the first twenty-five years of his life in Judah. In 592 B.C. at the age of thirty he received the Call and began to preach against idol worship and the injustice and immorality of his people. In the meantime, Babylon had taken the place of Assyria as the dominant power in Western Asia and Judah had acknowledged its over lordship. But Jehoiakim, the King of Judah under the influence of his evil councillors revolted against the authority of Babylon, thus drawing upon himself the vengeance of Nebuchadnezzar who successfully besieged Jerusalem in 597 and carried into exile many of her leading citizens, including Ezekiel and Jehoiachin, a king of three months’ standing—his father Jehoiakim having meanwhile died. Jehoiachin was succeeded by his uncle, Zedekiah, who for a time remained faithful to Babylon, but foolishly depending upon the support of Egypt he renounced his allegiance to Babylon, an act which Ezekiel bitterly resented and denounced as treachery to Yahweh Himself. The result was that Jerusalem was invested by Nebuchadnezzar, and after a siege of eighteen months was destroyed amid horrors untold. The Temple on which such a passion of love had been lavished was reduced to ashes and the people deported to Babylon (586 B.C.).

Such was the situation which confronted Ezekiel. In 592 B.C. five years before the downfall he had foreseen it and with some detail had predicted it and had warned the Jews of the impending disaster. The first terrific blow by Babylon in 597 B.C. had left the Jews unconvinced of the probability of their imminent political extinction—a probability which to Ezekiel was a certainty as clear as noonday. But as Ezekiel foretold the destruction of the Jews so did he predict their restoration. The picture drawn by him of the salvation in store for his people is as gracious and brilliant as his forecast of their downfall had been stern. His prophecy of the restoration and return to Jerusalem was based upon a vision which he had seen (Ezekiel, ch. 37) and to which a reference is to be found in the Quran also (2:260). Ezekiel’s book is full of prophecies. He foretold the destruction and eventual restoration and rehabilitation of the Jews. He also made a prophecy about the great rise of Christian nations of the west and of communism and a prophecy about the equally great decline and downfall of both (chapters 38:39).

But he did not live long to see the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, because he died in captivity in 570 B.C. at the age of 52. From the Book of Ezekiel it appears that he was a great admirer of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon. According to him Nebuchadnezzar was justified in taking the severe steps that he took against Egypt, Tyre and the Israelites. The destruction and sack of Jerusalem was the result of the Israelites’ own iniquity and wickedness. He, along with the Prophet Jeremiah, was in favour

of supporting the Babylonian government and for this support both these Prophets were condemned as traitors by the Jewish priests of the time, just as Jesus was condemned as a traitor for supporting the Roman government in the time of Titus, and the Promised Messiah in our own time was condemned as a traitor and a sycophant for preferring British rule in India to that of the Sikhs. Ezekiel and Daniel are called the Prophets of the Exile (Holy Bible edited by C.I. Scofield and Peak’s "Commentary of the Bible").

Commentary:

By الارض (the land) is meant Palestine. It is worthy of note that Christian commentators themselves have interpreted the phrase 'inherit the land' or 'inherit the earth' in the Psalms as meaning, 'inherit Canaan, the pledge of God’s covenant.' ("Commentary on the Old Testament," published by The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, notes on Ps. 37:3, 9). The reference in the words, "in the Book of David" is to Psalms 37: 9,11,18,22 & 29, where it is stated:

For evildoers shall be cut off; but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace. The Lord knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be forever... For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut; The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever.

The word الذکر may also refer to Torah, the Book of Moses. There is a prophecy in Deuteronomy (28: 11 & 34: 4) that Palestine was to be given to the Israelites:

For when I shall have brought them into the land which I swore unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant .... And the Lord said unto him, this is the land which I swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed.

The Israelites rose to great power after Moses and in the time of David and Solomon their rule extended far and wide till it embraced in its orbit far-off lands. Then they fell on evil days. They sinned and transgressed and killed God’s Prophets with the result that Divine nemesis overtook them. First Samaria was conquered and ravaged by the Assyrians about 733 B.C. and the whole country north of Israel was annexed by them. Then under Pharaoh Necho, the Egyptians ravaged Judah in 608 B.C. and last of all the greatest blow fell on Israel when Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian king, laid waste Judah, killed in cold blood the inhabitants of Jerusalem and burned and razed the holy Temple of Solomon to the ground and carried away in captivity the members of the royal family and their Prophets. After wandering in wilderness for about a century the Israelites were restored to Jerusalem and to some of their lost glory through the instrumentality of Cyrus, the Persian king and his successors. To this restoration the following passage of the Bible makes a prophetic reference from the mouth of Moses:

And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee—thou shalt return unto the Lord thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; that then the Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee.... And the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and He will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers (Deut. 30:1-5).

Again the Israelites relapsed into sin and iniquity. They opposed and persecuted God’s Messengers and the cup of their wickedness became full to the brim when they hung on the cross Jesus, their last great Prophet. Then God’s wrath fell upon them. The Roman hordes under Titus attacked them in 70 A.D. and amid circumstances of unparalleled horror Jerusalem was destroyed and the Temple of Solomon was burnt down for the second time (Enc. Bib. & Jew. Enc. under "Jerusalem"). To this double disaster of the Israelites vv. 17:5-8 of the Quran make a pointed reference.

Palestine, the Holy Land, remained in the hands of Christians till Muslims conquered it in the Caliphate of ‘Umar, the Second Successor of the Holy Prophet, and unlike Nebuchadnezzar and Titus he accorded such benign and kind treatment to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and showed such respect and reverence to the Temple of Solomon as are unparalleled in the whole annals of foreign conquest. It is to this conquest of Palestine by Muslim arms that the prophecy embodied in the verse under comment particularly refers. Palestine remained under Muslim possession for about 1350 years with the exception of a brief space of 92 years when during the Crusades it changed hands, till in our own time through the evil designs of some so-called democratic Christian powers, the country of the name of Palestine has altogether ceased to exist and on its ruins the State of Israel has been built. The Jews have come to their own after wandering in wilderness for about 2000 years. But this great historical event, too, has taken place in fulfilment of a Quranic prophecy. The Muslims were told that in the time of the Promised Messiah, the Jews will be made to come back to their Holy Land from the ends of the earth (17:105). But this is only a temporary phase. The Muslims are destined to win it back. Let the whole world know that sooner or later—sooner rather than later—Palestine will revert to Muslim possession. This is a Divine decree and nobody can alter God’s decree.

Important Words:

آویناھما (We gave them refuge) is derived from أوی. They say أوی البیت اوالی البیت i.e. he lodged in the house and found rest and satisfaction therein. آواہ البیت اوالی البیت (awa) means, he lodged him in the house, he gave him shelter, refuge or asylum in the house. أوی is used when a person finds protection, asylum, satisfaction and comfort in a place after he has been through hardships and privations (Lane & Arqab). See also 8:73; 11:44; 12:70 & 93:7.

ربوة (elevated land) is derived from ربی which means, it increased; it became high; he grew up. ربوة means, a hill or elevated ground or an elevated place (Lane & Aqrab). See also 2:266; 22:6.

قرار (meadows) is inf. noun from قر. They say قر بالمکان i.e. he settled or became established; rested; resided in the place. قرار means, a state or place or time of rest, permanence or continuance; a secure dwelling; a place where water rests in a meadow. It is also a plural (or rather a coll. gen. n.,) of which the singular is قرارة. The word is also applied to low and fertile grounds (Lane & Aqrab).

معین (springs of running water) may be taken as derived from معن or عان. They say, معن الماء i.e. the water flowed. معن المطر الارض means, the rain constantly fell upon the ground and its thirst was satisfied. معن النبات means, the plant had plentiful irrigation. عان الماء اوالدمع means, the water or the tear flowed. عانت البئر means, the water of the well became plentiful. معینmeans, flowing water, a spring. ماء معین means, flowing water or the water which the eye sees flowing upon the surface of the earth (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The verse constitutes a befitting sequel to the subject dealt with in the few preceding verses, viz. that it is an invariable divine law that God’s Messengers are at first rejected and persecuted but eventually they succeed and their rejecters come to grief and that in consonance with this divine law, Jesus, the last Israelite Prophet also met with severe persecution at the hands of his opponents. They got him hung on the cross. But true to His law and promise God delivered him from the accursed death by crucifixion, and to offset his seeming failure in the early stages of his mission gave him shelter along with his mother in a land full of green meadows and running springs, where his mission prospered and where he lived to a ripe old age. As Jesus’ death, like his birth, has become a subject of great controversy, and some confusion and doubt still persist as to how and where he passed the last days of his crowded life, and as the question of the manner of his death forms a vital question with the Christian Faith, a somewhat exhaustive note on this very important, albeit baffling religious question is called for.

The Quran and the Bible, reinforced by authenticated facts of history, lend powerful support to our view that Jesus did not die on the cross. The following arguments substantiate and support this contention:

1. Jesus could not have died on the cross because he was a Divine Prophet and a righteous servant of God and according to the Bible "he that is hanged is accursed of God" (Deut. 21:23).

2. On the night before Jesus was nailed to the cross he had prayed to God in great agony to "take away this cup (of death on the cross) from me" (Mark 14: 36; Matt. 26:39; Luke, 22: 42); and his prayer was heard (Heb. 5:7).

3. Jesus had predicted that like Jonah who had gone into the belly of the whale alive and had come out of it alive (Matt. 12:40) he would remain in an excavated sepulchre for three days and would come out of it alive.

4. He had also foretold that after having delivered his message to the Israelites in Palestine he would go to seek out the lost ten tribes of Israel and would bring them back into the Master’s fold (John 10: 16). Even Jews themselves in Jesus’ time believed that the lost tribes of Israel had become dispersed in different lands (John 7: 34, 35).

5. Jesus had remained hung on the cross only for about three hours (John 9: 14) while persons of normal constitutions, had remained on the cross for as many as three to six days and then died from exhaustion, hunger and exposure

6. Immediately after he had been taken down from the cross Jesus’ side was pierced and blood and water flowed out of it which was a certain sign of life (John 19: 34).

7. The Jews themselves were not sure of Jesus’ death because they had asked Pilate to have a guard posted at his sepulchre "lest his disciples come by night and steal him away and say unto the people, 'He is risen from the dead' (Matt. 27:64).

8. There is not to be found in all the Gospels a single recorded statement of an eye-witness to the effect that Jesus had died on the cross or that he was dead when he was taken down from the cross or when he was placed in the tomb. The Jews had their own doubts and none of the disciples was present at the scene of crucifixion, all having fled when Jesus was taken to Calvary.

The fact of the case seems to be that, presumably due to the dream of his wife "to have nothing to do with that just man," Pilate had believed Jesus to be innocent and had therefore conspired with Joseph of Arimaethia, a respectable member of the Essene Order to which Jesus himself belonged before he was commissioned as a Prophet, to save his life. The trial of Jesus took place on Friday, Pilate having purposely prolonged it knowing that the next day being the Sabbath Day the condemned persons would not be left on the cross after sunset.

When at last he found himself compelled to condemn Jesus, Pilate gave his judgement only three hours before sunset, thus making himself sure that no person of normal health could die in such a short time by remaining on the cross. He took additional care to see that Jesus was given wine or vinegar mingled with myrrh to render him less sensitive to pain. When after three hours’ suspension Jesus was taken down from the cross in an unconscious state (probably under the influence of vinegar which was administered to him) Pilate readily granted Joseph of Arimaethia’s request and handed over Jesus’s body to him. Unlike those of the two malefactors who were hung along with him, his bones were not broken and Joseph had him placed in a spacious room hewn in the side of a rock. There was no medical autopsy, no stethoscopic test, no inquest with the aid of the evidence of those who were last with him ("Mystical life of Jesus" by H. Spencer Lewis).

9. "The Crucifixion by an Eye-Witness," a book which was at first published in 1873 in U.S.A. and which is an English translation of an ancient Latin copy of a letter written seven years after the Crucifixion by an Essene brother in Jerusalem to a member of this brotherhood in Alexandria lends further support to the view of Jesus having been taken down from the cross alive. The book narrates in detail all the events leading to the Crucifixion, the scenes at the Calvary and also the incidents that took place afterwards.

10. An ointment, the famous Marham-i-‘Isa, (the ointment of Jesus) was prepared and applied to Jesus’s wounds and he was tended and looked after by Joseph of Arimaethia and Nicodemus, a very learned and highly respected member of the Essene brotherhood.

11. After the wounds of Jesus had been sufficiently healed he left the tomb in which he was placed and met some of his disciples who "were horrified and affrighted and supposed that they had seen a spirit." He assured them that he was no spirit but a man of flesh and bones and had his food with them and walked the whole distance from Jerusalem to Galilee on foot (Luke 24: 37-43).

All these authentic facts of history show that Jesus did not die on the cross. The story of his death on the cross and his having risen from the dead after three days and having bodily gone to heaven may deceive a gullible people holding fantastic beliefs, it cannot satisfy any reasonable person (Enc. Brit. article on "Ascension").

The fact having been established that Jesus survived Crucifixion, the question still remains, if Jesus did not die on the cross and there being no trace of his tomb in Palestine, the scene of his early missionary activities, where did he go and live and die after the great event? It is now a known fact established by reliable historical data that after the event of Crucifixion, Jesus, finding life unsafe in Palestine, forsook that country forever and went to seek the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel and to preach his Message to them. For this purpose he took a long and arduous journey to the East, where those Ten Tribes had lived after their great dispersion by the Assyrians and Babylonians, first to Assyria, Mesopotamia and Media and then to further East––Afghanistan, Kashmir and India. While yet in Palestine, Jesus had given sufficient indications, though in parables and proverbs, as was his wont, that in some future time he would have to leave Palestine for another country (John 8: 21; 10: 16; 13: 33).

After Crucifixion Jesus felt that he was a hunted man and that if he remained in his native place he would be arrested again and probably killed. He, therefore, went into hiding. The news having reached him of the cruel persecution of his disciples he was sorely distressed, and in extreme agony of spirit exclaimed; "the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt. 8: 20). He decided to leave Palestine for all time. From Jerusalem he went to Nazareth and from Nazareth to Damascus where he stayed for some time at a place which is known to this day as Maqam-i-‘Isa. Finding himself insecure even in Damascus he left for Nisibin (Raudatus-Safa and Jami‘ut-Tawarikh). He did not feel safe even at Nisibin (Tabari) and left for far-off Kashmir. Finding it unsafe to travel under his real name he henceforward, travelled under the assumed name of Yuz Asaf (Yuz in Hebrew being the same as Yasu‘ and Asaf meaning the gatherer). Henceforward Jesus becomes Yuz Asaf and is known by this name till his death. On his way from Nisibin to Kashmir he passed through Iran and Afghanistan. At last he reached his destination.

The last vestiges of doubt as to Jesus’ travel to Afghanistan and Kashmir are dispelled by that very useful book "The Unknown Life of Jesus" written by Nicholas Notovitch, a Russian traveller, who visited the Far East in about 1877. He calls Kashmir "the valley of eternal bliss" which may be regarded as an apt rendering in English of the Quranic words ذات قرار و معین.

In this book Notovitch tells us that Jesus came to India, while he was only 14 years of age, lived there for some time, learnt the use of herbs, medicine and mathematics and studied also the Hindu religion and held religious discussions with the Brahmans who ultimately became his enemies. The fact having come to his knowledge that the Brahmans were seeking to kill him, he left India for Nepal and then went to Kashmir and Afghanistan and stopping on the way in Persia he went back to Judea. Sir Francis Young husband, who was at the time when Nicholas Notovitch visited Kashmir, British resident at the court of the Maharaja of Kashmir, met him near the Zojila Pass.

Recent research about Jesus’ travels in the East lends powerful support to Notovitch’s book. The following quotations are very significant:

In Srinagar we first encountered the curious legend about Christ’s visit to the place. Afterwards we saw how widely spread in India, in Laddakh and in Central Asia, was the legend of the visit of Christ to those parts ("Heart of Asia," by Professor Nicholus Roerich). All over Central Asia, in Kashmir and Laddakh and Tibet and even further north, there still exists a strong belief that Jesus or Issa travelled about there ("Glimpses of World History," by Jawaharlal Nehru).

One day Raja Shalewahin went to a country in the Himalayas. There he saw a Raja of Sakas (foreigners) at Wein, who was fair of colour and wore white clothes. The Raja asked him who he was. He replied that he was Yusashaphat(Yuz Asaf) and was born of a woman (according to another report, "born of a virgin"…) The Raja asked him about his religion. He replied, 'it is love, truth and purity of heart and on account of this I am called ‘Isa Masih’: (Sutta. Bhavishya Maha Purana, P. 282, translated by Dr. Shiv Nath Shastri and quoted by Robert Graves and Joshua Podro in "Jesus in Rome").

Finding it impossible to deny the fact of Jesus’ having been taken down alive from the cross and of his journey to the East, some scholars have taken refuge behind some obscure passages in Notovitch’s book to claim that Jesus came to East before and not after he was commissioned as a Divine Prophet. But this inference appears manifestly to be ill-founded. A mere boy of 13 or 14 years of age as Jesus is stated to have been when he came to India, he could not have conceived of undertaking so long and arduous a journey to a far-off land, and thus of exposing himself to mortal danger on the way. After all what attraction or motives Jesus had, at such an early age, in coming over to India and studying the Hindu religion and in having discussion with the Brahmans so as to make them his enemies, as we are told in Notovitch’s book. And if at all he came to India, what interest the people of India and Kashmir had in keeping a record of the activities, doings and wanderings of a boy of 13 or 14. It is only God’s great Prophets who in the discharge of their divine mission regard no sacrifice too great to suffer. It is, therefore, after Jesus had been entrusted with his divine mission and had been rejected by the Jews in Palestine, that he forsook that country to seek, in fulfilment of the old Biblical prophecies, the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel and undertook the long and dangerous journey to India and Kashmir. It is after he had come to Afghanistan and Kashmir and had preached his message to the Israelites living there and after hundreds of thousands of people had accepted him and he had lived an eventful life to the very ripe age of 120 (Kanzul-‘Ummal, vol. 6) that records came to be kept of his doings. Early Christian writers and dignitaries of the Church were forced to admit that Jesus had lived up to old age and died full of years. In his "An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament" (p.610) the famous Biblical scholar, Dr. James Moffatt writes: "Irenaeas quotes from the presbyters who are claimed to have been in touch with the apostle John,... that Jesus died when he was in his aetasSenior, i.e. over forty or fifty."…"According to tales current in the days of Papies the Lord lived to a great age...aetas Senior [Early History of the Christian Church by Monsignor Louis Duchesne, vol. I, p. 105] "In the later he also includes the fact that Jesus must have passed through and been subjected to all the conditions of a complete human life from birth to old age and death" (History of Dogma by Dr. Adolf Harnack, vol. 11, pp. 277-278).

It is also in keeping with the time-honoured practice of God’s Messengers that they have to do migrate after and not before they are entrusted with a divine mission and Jesus too was true to this prophetic tradition. Other facts of unimpeachable historical evidence, to which we will presently refer, also prove and establish this event of outstanding historical importance. Jesus came to Afghanistan and Kashmir because "other sheep which are not of this fold" (John 10:16) lived there. His mission could not have become complete unless he should have brought those sheep into the Master’s fold. Here are some of the arguments to show that the lost ten tribes of Israel lived in Afghanistan and Kashmir, after the Israelites were dispersed by the Assyrians and Babylonian kings:

After the death of Solomon and in the reign of his cruel and worthless son whom the Quran calls "the worm of the earth" (34:15) a revolt headed by Jeroboam split the Jews into two perpetually hostile camps. The major section, the Ten Tribes assumed the name of Israel and the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin came to be known as Judah. At the invitation of the King of Judah, the Assyrians, under Tiglath-pileser, Shalmaneser and Sargon invaded Samaria, the capital of the Ten Tribes, destroyed it and carried the Ten Tribes as captives to Assyria, Mesopotamia and Media. Later on the Assyrian Kingdom was destroyed by the combined armies of Babylonia and Media. When Zedekiah, the King of Judah, revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, the latter, laid siege to Jerusalem, completely destroyed the Temple and carried almost all the inhabitants into captivity. The ten tribes were forever lost to the Palestinian Jewry because when the Assyrians and the Babylonians extended their territories to the east, they carried their captives, the ten tribes of Israel, to Iraq and Persia for the purpose of colonization and later when the Persians under Darius and Cyrus extended their territories still further east, to Afghanistan and India, these Jewish tribes migrated with them to these countries and thus they became settled in the East—in Afghanistan and Kashmir and even in Samarkand and Bukhara, and were forever lost to western Jewry.

Thus as a result of their conquest first by the Assyrians and the Babylonians and then by the Persians the Jews became dispersed to Persia, Afghanistan and Kashmir and even to Khurasan, Samarkand and Bukhara. The Kashmiris and Afghans of today are the descendants of those 'Lost Tribes of Israel.' This fact is quite evident from the traditions, history and written records of these two peoples. The names of their towns and tribes, their physical features, their customs, habits, mode and manner of living, their dress, etc., all point in the same direction. Their ancient monuments and old inscriptions also support this view.

The fact that there are many places, persons and tribes in Afghanistan and particularly in Kashmir which are named after Israelite names, and that the customs, habits, manners, mode of life, form of dress of the Kashmiris, and their physical features resemble those of the Jews, coupled with the fact that their folklore is full of Jewish stories and that their language possesses hundreds of words which in pronunciation and meaning are identical with Hebrew words and that the name Kashmir is in reality Kashir meaning "like Syria" (or it seems to have been named after Kash or Cush, a grandson of Noah), impart a certainty to the view that the Afghans and Kashmiris are largely the descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel which is incapable of being assailed.

When it is established that Jesus did not die on the cross and that after having recovered from his wounds and being afraid of his life he left Jerusalem for the East, and when it is also established that the Afghans and the Kashmiris are descendants of the lost ten tribes of Israel and that in fulfilment of the prophecies of the Prophets of yore, Jesus had to search for these tribes to reclaim them, there remains no manner of doubt about the fact that he did come to Afghanistan and Kashmir. But the greatest and best proof of his having come to Kashmir and of having lived and died there is the presence of his tomb in Khanyar street, Srinagar, Kashmir. There is a tomb in this street which is called Rauzabal and is variously known as the tomb of Yuz Asaf, of Nabi Sahib, of Shahzadah Nabi and even of ‘Isa Sahib. According to well-established historical accounts this Yuz Asaf came to Kashmir more than 1900 years ago and preached in parables and used many of the same parables as Jesus did. In certain books of history he is described as a Nabi (Prophet). Moreover, Yuz Asaf is a Biblical name meaning "Yasu‘, the gatherer," which is one of the descriptive names of Jesus as his mission was to gather the lost tribes of Israel into the Master’s fold as he himself says: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold, them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd" (John 10:16).

The following historical quotations shed some light on this subject:

The tomb next to that of Sayyid Nasirud-Din is generally known as that of a Prophet who was sent to the inhabitants of Kashmir, and the place is known as the shrine of a Prophet. He was a Prince who came to Kashmir from a foreign land. He was perfect in piety, righteousness and devotion; he was made a Prophet by God and was engaged in preaching to the Kashmiris. His name was Yuz Asaf and he was a descendant of Moses (Tarikh A‘zami pp. 82-85)... Yuz Asaf wandered about in several lands till he reached a country called Kashmir. He travelled in it far and wide and lived and stayed there till death overtook him (Ikmalud-Din... pp. 358-359).

Kashmir legend, I have been told, contains reference to a Prophet who lived here and taught as Jesus did by parables little stories that are repeated in Kashmir to the present day (John Noel’s article in Asia, Oct. 1930).

The flight of Jesus, therefore to India and his death in Srinagar is not foreign to the truth rationally or historically (Tafsirul-Manar, vol. 6).

The following facts clearly emerge from the above quotations and historical references:

1. The tomb in Khanyar street in Srinagar is variously described as that of Nabi Sahib, ‘Isa Sahib, Shahzadah Nabiand that of Yuz Asaf.

2. This Yuz Asaf was a Prophet of the People of the Book, being a spiritual descendant of Moses.

3. He came to Kashmir from a far-off land.

4. He was called a Prince (Jesus was also known as Prince of Peace).

5. He talked in proverbs and parables (so did Jesus).

6. He was not a follower of Islam as no prophet, according to Muslim belief, had appeared after the Holy Prophet.

7. He was a Jew, because the name Yuz Asaf is a Hebrew name.

In view of the above-mentioned facts it is not possible to deny that Jesus did come to the East to preach to the lost tribes of Israel, and that Yuz Asaf is Jesus and that the tomb in Khanyar street is that of Jesus. For a better and fuller treatment, however, of this subject see "Masih Hindustan Main" by Ahmad, the Promised Messiah. See also the well-known book, "Nazarene Gospel Restored," whose authors maintain that though officially crucified in A.D. 30, Jesus was still alive some twenty years after the Resurrection.

There could be no better description of the place, where Jesus and his mother, after his deliverance from accursed death on the cross, lived in peace and tranquillity and then went to their eternal rest, than in the Quranic words, viz. ذات قرار و معین (having meadows and springs of running water), which is quite an apt description of the beautiful valley of Kashmir which is full of green meadows and of springs and streams running with fresh, sweet water.

Commentary:

See next verse.

27:14; 43:31.

Important Words:

أحمد (Ahmad) is derived from حمد and حمدہ means, he praised, eulogised or commended him; spoke well of him; he requited him; he gave him his due. أحمد (Ahmada) means, he did or said that for which he should be praised or which was praiseworthy. أحمد الشیء means, the thing was or became praiseworthy. أحمد means, one who praises much or who is praised much or most (Lane & Taj).

Commentary:

The prophecy of Jesus about the coming of Paraclete or the Comforter or the Spirit of Truth as given in the Gospels is as follows:

I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it sees him not, neither knoweth him… but when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me… for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart, I will send him unto you… I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when the Spirit of Truth is come, he will guide you unto all truth, for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak, and he will show you things to come… He shall glorify me (John 14: 16-17. 15: 26; 16: 7, 12-14).

From these verses of the Gospel of John the following inferences are clearly deducible:

(1) That Paraclete or the Comforter or the Spirit of Truth could not come unless Jesus should have departed from the world.

(2) That the Comforter was to abide in the world for ever.

(3) That he was to say many things which Jesus himself could not tell because the world could not then bear them.

(4) That he would guide men unto all truth.

(5) That he would not speak of himself, but whatever he would hear that would he speak.

(6) That the Comforter would glorify Jesus and testify of him.

This description of Paraclete or the Comforter or the Spirit of Truth is in complete harmony with the status and mission of the Holy Prophet as given in the Quran:

(1) The Holy Prophet appeared after Jesus had departed from this world.

(2) He is the last Law-giving Prophet and the Quran the last revealed Divine Law for the whole of mankind till the end of time (5:4).

(3) Jesus could not guide mankind to all truth because his Message was meant only for a particular people and for a particular period. And the Law as amended and given to the Jews by him was not and could not be a complete and perfect Law because they had not yet mentally and morally so developed as to be the bearers of a complete Shari‘ah and the world had to wait till it was given a perfect Law in the form of the Quran (5:4) and a Prophet par excellence i.e. the Holy Prophet who could guide all mankind.

(4) The Holy Prophet gave to the world a Law complete in all its details which alone could guide mankind unto all truth (5:4).

(5) The Holy Prophet did not speak of himself but whatever he heard from God that did he speak (53:4).

(6) The Holy Prophet glorified Jesus (2:254; 3:56).

The prophecy in the Gospel of John resembles the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment except that instead of Ahmad the name stated therein is Paraclete. Christian writers challenge the correctness of the Quranic version of the prophecy, basing their contention on this difference of names, irrespective of the otherwise similar features of Biblical & Quranic versions.

In fact, Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew. Aramaic was his mother tongue and Hebrew his religious language. The present Biblical version is the translation of Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek.

A translation naturally cannot fully convey the beauty of the text. Languages have their limitations. The same is true of the people who speak them. Their limitations are reflected in their works. The Greek language has another word, i.e.Periklutos, with a similar meaning as Ahmad in Arabic. Jack Finegan, the renowned theologian, in his book, "The Archaeology of World Religions," says:

"Where in Greek the word Comforter (Parakletos) is very similar to the word for 'renowned' (Periklutos), the latter being the meaning of the names Ahmad & Muhammad."

Moreover, "The Damascus Document" a scripture discovered towards the end of the nineteenth century in Ezra synagogue, Old Cairo (p. 2. lines 12, 13) describes Jesus as having foretold the advent of a "Holy Spirit," named Emeth.

ویود یعیم بید مشیحو روح قد شو و ھوا ایمة و بفروش

شمو شمو تیھم

i.e. And by His Messiah, He has made them know His Holy Spirit. For it is He who is Emeth i.e. “The Truthful One”, and in accordance with His name are also theirs.

"Emeth" in Hebrew means "the Truth," or "the Truthful one and a person of constant goodness" (Strachan’s Fourth Gospel, page 141). The word was interpreted by the Jews as "God’s Seal." Naturally, though Jesus must have used the name Ahmad, the phonetic resemblance of the two words (Ahmad & Emeth) caused later writers to substitute "Emeth"for Ahmad, its Hebrew synonym.

Thus the prophecy mentioned in the verse under comment applies to the Holy Prophet, but as a corollary it may also apply to the Promised Messiah, Founder of the Ahmadiyya Movement, since in his person the Second Manifestation of the Holy Prophet took place. To this Second Manifestation or Second Coming of the Holy Prophet, the third verse of the next Surah—Al-Jumu‘ah pointedly refers.

It may be mentioned here that a prophecy about the Holy Prophet is also clearly stated in Gospel of Barnabas which is treated by the Church as apocryphal but which has as much claim to be accepted as authentic as any of the four Gospels.

3:53; 5:112.

Commentary:

Of the three religious groups among the Jews to whom Jesus preached his Message—the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes—Jesus belonged to the last, while he had not yet been commissioned as a Divine Preacher. The Essenes were a highly religious and righteous people who lived away from the world’s hustle and bustle, passing their time in meditation and prayer and in the service of humanity. It was from these people that most of Jesus’s early followers came ("The Dead Sea Community" by Kurt Schubert and "The Crucifixion by an Eye-Witness"). They have been called "Helpers" by Eusephus.

The concluding words of the Surah are indeed very prophetic. Throughout the ages the followers of Jesus have enjoyed power and precedence over their enemies—the Jews. They have founded and ruled over vast and powerful empires while the Jews have been a dispersed people so much so that "The Wandering Jew" has become a byword.