Topic: Son Of…

5:78.

58:23.

5:74.

2:117; 10:69; 17:112; 18:5; 112:4, 5.

Important Words:

کلمته (His word). کلمة has been used in the Quran in different senses:(1) good tiding (e.g. 37:171, 172); (2) warning of coming punishment (e.g. 39:20); (3) a thing or being created without the instrumentality of any physical means, i.e. by the Will of God expressed by saying "Be" (e.g. 3:46-48); (4) a Sign (e.g. 18:110); (5) a message (e.g. 3:65); (6) a design; (e.g.9:40); (7) a word or saying (e.g. 23:101). See also 3:46.

روح (mercy) is derived from راح i.e. it became cool and pleasant; he was brisk, lively, active, prompt or quick. روح means, soul or spirit; the subtle substance in man which is the principle of vitality and of sensation and of voluntary motion; the breath which a man breathes and which pervades the whole body, after the exit of which he ceases to breathe; Divine revelation or inspiration; the Quran; angel; joy and happiness; mercy (Lane).

Commentary:

From the above-mentioned different meanings of روح and کلمة becomes clear that no higher spiritual status can be assigned to Jesus than to the other Prophets, on account of the word روح or کلمة having been used about him in the Quran. These and similar expressions have been used in the Quran about other Prophets also and even about persons who were not Prophets, such as Mary and the children of Adam (see 58:23; 15:30; 32:10; 21:92). It may be noted here that the words روح منه (mercy from Him) do not mean that the روح formed a part of the Divine Being but that it was only a gift of God. The expression منه (from Him) has been used in the Quran in this sense in 45:14.

In fact, the Quran uses these words about Jesus because foul charges were brought against him and his mother, Mary, by the Jews. These words are thus meant to exculpate and exonerate him from those charges and not to deify him. The Quranlends no support whatsoever to the absurd and unfounded view that Jesus was anything higher than a human being. He was human and of the earth, and yet a Messenger of God (e.g. 43:60; 19:31).

The verse refers to the three alleged persons of the Trinity, i.e. the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, and condemns Trinity, declaring Allah alone to be the one true God, and the Messiah and the Holy Spirit as only the servants of God and in no way sharers in Godhead.

5:73, 74.

See 3:190.

Important Words:

یھلك (bring to naught) is derived from اھلك which is the causative form of ھلك which means, he or it perished or came to naught; or he or it came to an end and became non-existent. اھلكه means, he caused him or it to perish, or he destroyed him or it, or he brought him or it to naught (Lane). اھلكه also means, he punished him (Mufradat). The Holy Prophet is reported to have said: اذاقال الرجل ھلك الناس فھواھلکھم i.e. "When a man says, such and such people have perished (viz. they have become morally and spiritually ruined and their state is past recovery), it is he himself who causes them to perish by saying so, for he makes them despair of recovery and of salvation" (Muslim, ch. on Birr Was-Silah). The word is used in this sense also elsewhere in the Quran (67:29; 8:43).

Commentary:

The expression یھلك (bring to naught) is used here not simply in the sense of destroying but in that of destroying by punishment. It is indeed a jealous and indignant God that speaks in this verse. He condemns Christians in a tone of strong indignation and vehement reproach at their preposterous claims about the Godhead of Jesus; and as Jesus and his mother, Mary, have become the means and object of this highly sinful doctrine, the verse fittingly refers to the divine power of punishing them also if God should so desire. It will be noted that a section of Christians looks upon Mary also as Divine and superhuman.

The words, those that are in the earth, obviously refer to those who deify Jesus. God’s purpose in using such strong language is to expose the monstrosity of the doctrine that Jesus was God or the Son of God. Elsewhere also in the Quran strong language has been used about those who hold such blasphemous beliefs and they are threatened with exemplary punishment (19:89-92).

The words, what is between them, corroborate and add force and strength to the argument given in the earlier part of the verse at the same time hinting at the final dissolution of Christian empires as a result of the most blasphemous doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. See also 3:27.

What the Christians say is, "The Messiah, son of Mary, is God," and not "God is none but the Messiah" as the verse puts it. The assertion has been inverted in order to bring home to Christians their great error; for, to say that "The Messiah is God" is really tantamount to saying that "God is none but the Messiah," But Christians, being too conscious of the weaknesses of their Messiah, dare not accept the latter proposition, which thus goes to prove the hollowness of their claim that the Messiah, son of Mary, is God.

2:88; 57:28.

3:51; 61:7.

Commentary:

The words, We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, show that, like the Prophets who preceded him, Jesus also was a follower of the Law of Moses, the Gospels being only an exposition of selected teachings of the Torah suited to those times.

4:172; 5:18; 9:30.

5:118; 19:37.

Commentary:

That Jesus taught the Israelites to worship God alone is apparent even from the Gospels in their present distorted form (e.g. Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8). Also see 5:18.

21:9.

Important Words:

یؤفکون (they are turned away) is derived from افك (afaka). They say افکه i.e. he changed his or its state or condition or manner of being; he turned him or it away or back from a thing; he turned him away or back by lying; he changed or perverted his judgement or opinion; or he deceived or beguiled him. They say افك الرجل عن الخیر i.e. the man was turned away or turned back from good by deceit or guile. افك (afaka) or افك (affaka) also means, he told a lie or uttered a falsehood which, in essence, is the same as changing the state of a thing (Lane).

Commentary:

The verse advances a number of arguments against the alleged divinity of Jesus. Firstly, it points out that Jesus was no better than other Messengers of God in any way. He enjoyed no higher status. He showed no miracles the like of which were not shown by other Prophets. In fact, the greatest miracle ascribed to him by his followers is that of the alleged raising of the dead. But the Bible ascribes similar miracles to other Prophets also (see 2 Kings 4:16-35; 13:21).

The second argument mentioned by the verse against his alleged divinity is that he was born of a woman. Being born of a human being, he could not be divine. Moreover, a child is known to inherit some of the prominent traits of the physical and moral make-up of its parent. Jesus, being born of a woman must have inherited her nature and her qualities and so he could not be God.

Again, being human, he was, like other human beings, subject to the natural laws of hunger and of satisfying it by taking food and he was subject also to the natural phenomena that ensue.

By describing the mother of Jesus as "a truthful woman", the Quran has incidentally refuted the Jewish allegations concerning the birth of Jesus.

3:87, 88; 4:48.

Commentary:

Of all the Israelite Prophets, David and Jesus suffered most at the hands of the Jews. Jewish persecution of Jesus culminated in his being hung on the cross, and the hardships and privations to which David was subjected by these ungrateful people are reflected in the deep pathos of his Psalms. From the agony of their hearts did David and Jesus both curse them. The curse of David resulted in the Israelites being smitten by Nebuchadnezzar, who destroyed Jerusalem and carried the Israelites into captivity in 586 B.C.; while, as a result of the curse of Jesus, they were visited by terrible afflictions by Titus, who captured Jerusalem in about 70 A.D., devastated the city and profaned the Temple by causing swine to be slaughtered there—an animal hated and abhorred by Jews.

2:88; 2:254.

3:47.

3:49.

3:50.

5:12.

Commentary:

In the clause, thou didst speak to the people in the cradle and when of middle age, the act of speaking in the cradle signifies speaking words of wisdom and piety in childhood. This sort of speaking on the part of Jesus reflected great credit on his mother, who, herself being wise and pious, brought him up as a wise and pious child. And the speaking of good words in middle age shows that not only was Mary a pious woman, but Jesus, too, was a righteous man so that even when he was of middle age and was no longer under the direct influence of his mother, he spoke words of piety and wisdom to men. See also 3:47 & 3:49, 50, where similar works of Jesus, i.e. the creation of birds and the quickening of the dead, etc. have been discussed.

Protection similar to that alluded to in the latter part of this verse in the words, I restrained the Children of Israel from putting thee to death, was promised to the Holy Prophet as well (5:68). This promise met with a remarkable fulfilment. Though, even at Mecca, his life was in constant danger, at Medina that danger very much increased. The Holy Prophet led many expeditions in person and several attempts were made on his life. At Uhud, he was severely wounded and at Hunain he was left alone among a large host of bloodthirsty archers. Yet amidst all these dangers he remained safe, and after having triumphed over his enemies, passed away peacefully in his house at Medina. The reference in the present verse is to the attempts of the Jews to kill Jesus on the cross, from which—accursed death—God delivered him. The words, I restrained the Children of Israel, should not, however, be understood to mean that Jesus suffered even no persecution at the hands of his enemies. A similar expression has been used with regard to early Muslims in the Quran (5:12), but it is a well-known fact that they had to pass through grievous trials and tribulations. The expression thus only means that the enemy will fail to kill Jesus, whom God will protect from being destroyed.

Commentary:

The words, send down to us a table spread with food from heaven, show that it was not a single meal that the disciples of Jesus asked for, but a permanent provision of sustenance which might be had without any trouble or hardship. The words "from heaven" denote a thing that is obtained without trouble and is sure and lasting.

Commentary:

This verse shows that Jesus approved of the wish of his disciples and, therefore, while praying, he included himself among them.

The words, that it may be to us a festival, to the first of us and to the last of us, embody a great prophecy. There were to be two periods of prosperity and progress for the Christian peoples, as the word عید (festival) literally meaning "a day which returns", shows. The first was to be in the time immediately after Jesus, while the second was to be in the latter days; and the period between these two was to be marked by decay and decline. And this is exactly what is more clearly referred to in the words, to the first of us and to the last of us. Christian peoples were granted worldly goods in abundance in the early ages, i.e. before the rise of Islam, and now in the latter days, i.e. after the decline of Islam, they have had material prosperity and grandeur in such measure as has no parallel in the history of any other religion. But with the advent of the like of Jesus in the person of Ahmad, the Promised Messiah, in Islam, the sun is indeed nearing its setting on "the last of the Christians", who can now save themselves only by identifying themselves with him who had come in the spirit and power of their Master.

5:110; 9:78; 34:49.

Important Words:

The words ما یکون لی (I could not) may be interpreted in various ways, such as, it was not fitting or proper for me to do so; or it did not behove me; or it was beyond my power or position; or it was impossible for me; or I had no right to do so, etc. See also 3:80.

نفس (mind) means, among other things, knowledge; purpose or intention (Lane). See also 3:29.

Commentary:

The expression, Holy art Thou, besides hinting that it is only God Who is free from error, embodies a beautiful reply on the part of Jesus to the question put to him by God in the words, didst thou say to men, 'Take me and my mother for two gods', which seemed to imply a sort of reproach and an expression of displeasure. The reply of Jesus appears to be something like this: "I was only a humble Messenger, O God, therefore I could not ask men to take me and my mother as gods beside Thee, for if I had done so, that would have been a reflection on Thee that Thou didst choose as Thy Messenger a person who turned faithless to Thee and asked his followers to take him and his mother as gods beside Thee. But Thy choice, o God, cannot be wrong; hence it was impossible that I, a Messenger of Thine, should have bidden men take me and my mother as gods, and Thine own all-embracing knowledge, o God, is a testimony of my innocence."

The word نفس (mind) when used about God implies "intention." Thus the last sentence of the verse would mean, "I do not know what Thou meanest by this question. Thou, being All-Knowing, well knowest that I did not say so; hence, I fail to understand the object or purpose of Thy ques-tion." This reply of Jesus shows that in his heart he was afraid that some shortcoming in the execution of his duty might have displeased the Almighty.

20:87.

20:95.

Important Words:

فلاتشمت (make not rejoice). تشمت is formed from اشمت which is derived from شمت. They say شمت or شمت به i.e. he (an enemy) rejoiced; or he (someone) rejoiced at his enemy’s affliction. اشمته الله به means, God made him (the enemy) rejoice at his affliction. شمت علی العاطس means, he prayed for the sneezer that he might not be in a state in which his enemy might rejoice at his affliction (Lane).

Commentary:

When the return of Moses was delayed owing to the ten additional nights, his followers became impatient and thought that he was lost. They expressed their impatience in the words "we wot not what is become of him" (Exod. 32:1).

According to the Bible, Moses cast the tablets out of his hands and broke them beneath the Mount, so that they had to be renewed (Exod. 32:19; 34:1). But this is not borne out by the Quran which simply states, And he put down the tablets and this is more in harmony with the dignity of a Prophet.

Moses caught hold of Aaron’s head, not because the latter had abetted calf-worship, as he is represented to have done in the Bible (Exod. 32:2-4), but because he did not successfully prevent the people from worshipping the calf. As Moses’ representative, he should have effectively prevented the people from idol-worship, but he failed to do so. So the display of anger on the part of Moses was due not to any religious or legal offence committed by Aaron, but to his failure to manage affairs properly in the absence of Moses. Aaron had hoped that Moses would set things right on his return. That was only an error of judgement or lack of proper control, not a legal or religious offence.

The way in which Moses treated Aaron also shows that the latter was subordinate to the former. The treatment, however, should not be taken as a display of rough manners on the part of Moses. The anger of Moses was justified because a great sacrilege had been committed and the very work of his life was jeopardized; and Aaron being subordinate to Moses, the latter was entitled to take disciplinary action.

The words, Son of my mother, were used by Aaron not because Moses was a half-brother to him but because he wished to make an effective appeal to his feelings of tenderness and affection, and in this he succeeded.

The meaning of the particle مع (with) in the clause, and place me not with the unjust people, helps to explain its real sense in 4:70. Here, as well as there the particle gives the meaning of "among".

2:117; 5:18; 10:69.

Important Words:

عزیر (‘Uzair or Ezra) may be taken to have been derived in Arabic from عزر. They say عزرہ i.e. he prevented him or forbade him; he taught him the obligatory statutes or ordinances of God; he aided or assisted him; he strengthened him; he treated him with reverence or honour (Lane). Ezra (a Hebrew name), perhaps abbreviated from Azariah, meaning "Yahwe (God) helps," was a descendant of Seraiah, the high priest, and being himself a member of the priestly order, was known also as Ezra the Priest. He was one of the most important personages of his day and had far-reaching influence on the development of Judaism. He was especially honoured among the Prophets of Israel. In fact, he marks the spring time in the national history of Judaism and is regarded and quoted as the type of person most competent and learned in the Law. The Rabbis associate his name with several important institutions. Renan has remarked in the preface to his History of the People of Israel that the definite constitution of Judaism may be dated only from the time of Ezra. In Rabbinical literature Ezra was considered worthy of being, the vehicle of the Law, had it not been given through Moses. According to tradition he died at the age of 120 in Babylonia. He worked in close collaboration with Nehemiah. Ezra lived in the 5th century B.C. (Jew. Enc. & Enc. Bib.).

یضاھئون (they imitate) is derived from ضاھی which is derived from ضھی. They say ضاھاہ or ضاھاہ i.e. he resembled or conformed with him or it; he imitated him; he was or became gentle, tender or courteous to him. The well-known saying of the Holy Prophet اشد الناس عذابا یوم القیامة الذین یضاھئون خلق اللّٰه means, "The most severely punished of mankind on the Day of Judgement will be those who imitate (by what they make) the creation of God," e.g. sculptors, etc. (Lane).

قاتلھم اللّٰه (Allah’s curse be on them). قاتل is from the root قتل. They say قتله i.e. he killed him; or he rendered him as one killed; or he attempted to kill him; or he cut off all connections with him. قاتله means, he fought or warred against him, قاتله اللّٰه means, may God curse him; or may He drive him from His mercy (Lisan & Aqrab), The expression also means, may God make war against him, which cannot result except in such a one being destroyed (Mufradat). See also 2:62.

Commentary:

After having dealt at some length with the idolatrous beliefs and practices of the pagans of Arabia, the Quran proceeds in this verse to deal with the polytheistic beliefs and practices of Jews and Christians. Those of the Jews who lived in Medina looked upon Ezra as the son of God. Similarly, a sect of Jews living at Hadramaut in the south of Arabia believed him to be the son of God. The remnants of this sect continued to linger till the end of the fourth century A.H. (Qastalani & Dawud, Zahiri). As this doctrine of the Jews, which appears to be sectional, was a later innovation and did not subsist long, present Jewish sources make no mention of it, but that does not affect the real situation. Elsewhere the Quran says that the Israelites were rather free in attributing sons to God (5:19).

This verse also shows that these blasphemous doctrines were not taught to Christians and Jews by their Prophets but were later borrowed by them from pagan sources. Incidentally, this claim of the Quran constitutes a proof of its Divine origin, because here it states a fact which was not known to the world even two centuries ago and has been only recently brought to light by modern research. A study of the origins of the Christian Faith has now established the fact that Jews and Christians borrowed their later doctrines from Babylonian and Roman pagan sources.

The words, Allah’s curse be on them, when spoken by man signify only an imprecation but, when spoken by God, they imply a prophecy of the destruction of the person or persons about whom they are uttered.

12:41; 17:24; 98:6.

Important Words:

For احبار (learned men) and رھبان (monks) see 5:45 and 5:83 respectively.

Commentary:

احبار (learned men) belonged to Jews and رھبان (monks) to Christians. Both these people virtually looked upon their religious leaders as so many gods besides the true God.

Commentary:

Perhaps there is no individual of any prominence in religious history about whom so many and so far-reaching differences exist as about Jesus, the son of Mary. The Jews, the Christians and the Muslims all hold widely different views about Jesus’ birth, the manner of his death, and about the account of his life. The Jews believe that he was born out of legal wedlock and therefore his birth was illegitimate. He was a false Prophet and therefore deservedly met an accursed death on the cross. The Christians hold that Jesus’ mother became conceived of the Holy Ghost, therefore he was the son of God. He persuaded himself to be put on the cross and by his death he atoned for the sins of all humanity. He remained dead for three days and then rose up to heaven. He is a part of the Holy Trinity and yet is God Himself. Orthodox Muslims believe that he was miraculously born without the instrumentality of a father as the result of a special Divine decree. He was an Israelite Prophet. The Jews tried to crucify him but instead succeeded only in crucifying another person who by God’s special decree was made to look like Jesus and Jesus bodily went up to heaven where he is sitting by the right hand of God and will someday descend from heaven to win for Muslims the kingdom of the whole world. The so-called modernists among Muslims think that he was the son of Joseph the carpenter, and died a natural death, and so there was nothing miraculous or unusual about his birth, death or his life. He was only an Israelite Prophet. The orthodox Ahmadis, however, believe that his birth took place without the agency of a father as the result of a special Divine decree, and that this unusual form of birth constituted a rebuke and a warning to the Israelites that on account of their persistent rejection of truth and God’s Messengers, and their immoral practices the whole Israelite nation had been rendered quite unfit to give birth to a Prophet of God and therefore prophethood, in accordance with God’s covenant with Abraham, was transferred from the House of Israel to that of Ishmael (see Introduction to this Surah). They further believe that Jesus was hung on the cross by the Jews but did not die there and was taken down from it alive and for three days remained in a tomb hewn out of a rock and then travelled to Kashmir to preach his Message to the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel. He lived up to the ripe old age of 120 years, died a natural death and lies buried in Khanyar street in Srinagar, Kashmir. In fact, the existence of so many and so serious differences about Jesus implies a rebuke to Christians that there is nothing certain about their god.

The expression "son of Mary" (ابن مریم) is Jesus’ distinctive name. Whereas on the one hand it seems to point to his fatherless birth, on the other it confers on him a name which is incapable of being confused with that of anybody else. The Gospels have also used for Jesus the epithet ابن آدم (son of man) but this epithet has been used in the Bible for other persons also. So ابن مریم (son of Mary) is at once a distinctive and descriptive name of Jesus.

7:151.

Important Words:

لم ترقب (didst not wait for) is formed from رقب. رقبه means, (a) he looked, watched or waited for him or it; (b) he guarded, kept, preserved or took care of it; (c) he was mindful or regardful of it; (d) he feared him (Lane & Aqrab).

Commentary:

Taking the word رقب in its different senses the expression لم ترقب قولی would mean, thou didst not wait for my word; thou didst not preserve and guard my word (the instructions which I left for your guidance); thou wast not regardful of my word i.e. thou didst not pay any regard to my directions which I left for your guidance.

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.

3:82.

Commentary:

The four Prophets—Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus, have found special mention in this verse inasmuch as they occupy a very eminent and exalted position among the hierarchy of pre-Islamic Divine Prophets. Noah was the first Law-bearing Prophet in the real sense of the word and in Abraham converged both the Mosaic and Islamic Dispensations, and Moses was the Holy Prophet’s counterpart while Jesus was the last of the Israelite Prophets and the Holy Prophet’sharbinger. The words "their covenant" mean the covenant which was taken from them or which befitted their dignity and exalted position and was in harmony with their high duties and responsibilities. See also 3:82.

Important Words:

یصدون (raise a clamour) is derived from صد. They say صدہ عن کذا, aorist یصد (yasuddu) i.e. he hindered him from such a thing; he turned him away from it. صد aorist یصد (yasiddu) means, he raised a clamour; he cried (Aqrab).

Commentary:

The main theme of this Surah, as already mentioned, is the Unity of God. The Surah condemns idolatry in very strong terms. But in the case of Jesus who is also worshipped as God by Christians, it has made an exception. Not only has it not condemned him but has actually mentioned his name with great respect. This invidious distinction (as it appeared to the Quraish of Mecca) between Jesus and their idols cut them to the quick. The verse under comment refers to this mortification of the Quraish. The exception made in case of Jesus needed some explanation. The explanation is given in the verses that follow.

The word مثلا signifying anything similar, like, equal to another (6:39), the verse, besides the meaning given in the text, may also signify that when the people of the Holy Prophet—the Muslims—are told that another person who would be like Jesus and would be his counterpart would be raised from among them to regenerate them and restore their lost spiritual glory, they, instead of being glad over this good tidings, raise a clamour. The verse may thus be taken as referring to the Second Coming of Jesus, which has taken place in the person of Ahmad, the Promised Messiah.