ٱبْنَ

See 2:54.

5:47; 57:28.

2:254; 3:185; 5:111; 43:64.

16:103.

Important Words:

قفینا (We caused to follow) is derived from قفا which means, the back of the neck. Hence قفا أثره means, he followed him. قفی(qaffa) means, he made a person or thing follow or come after another (Aqrab).

بینات (manifest Signs) is derived from بین meaning, he explained a thing so as to make it clear or manifest. So بینات means, such signs and arguments as make a thing manifest and clearly establish the truth of a claimant (Mufradat & Aqrab).

روح القدس (Spirit of Holiness) is a compound word made up of روح and القدس. The first-mentioned word, i.e. روح means, a spirit, an angel, a word of God; and قدس means, sanctity, holiness. روح القدس would thus mean, the holy or blessed word of God; the spirit or angel of holiness (Aqrab & Lane). It is generally taken to signify the angel Gabriel.

Commentary:

In this verse, the Israelites are told that they had opposed all the Prophets of God, beginning from Moses and ending with Jesus, for no other reason than that some of the teachings of these Prophets were at variance with their cherished desires.

The verse, while speaking generally of the Prophets who came after Moses, makes a special mention of Jesus. The reason for this lies in the fact that somehow or other, the Jews accepted all those Prophets who appeared prior to Jesus, but they stubbornly refused to accept him. It was, therefore, in the fitness of things that particular mention should have been made of Jesus, and it should have been declared that he was as good and as holy a Prophet as so many others who had gone before him and in whom the Jews had believed, inasmuch as he possessed, in common with them, that characteristic Spirit of Holiness which distinguished God’s Prophets from other men of the world. The most powerful proof of the truth of the claims of Jesus as a Prophet was his being favoured with Signs and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, and this is the very proof on the basis of which the Jews had believed in the previous Prophets. The بینات(manifest Signs) and روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) have been mentioned here not because they were the unique characteristics of Jesus, but because both these evidences, which must accompany every true Prophet, were denied him by the Jews. From Matt. 12:38-40, it is apparent that the Jews denied that Jesus showed any Sign, while from Luke 11:15 and Matt. 10:25 we learn that, according to the Jews, Jesus, far from being favoured with the Holy Spirit, was influenced by the Evil Spirit and was (God forbid!) himself a devil.

That بینات (manifest Signs) and روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) are the common characteristics of all the Prophets of God and not an exclusive distinction of Jesus is apparent from other verses of the Quran as well. Says the Quran: That was because their Messengers came to them with بینات (manifest Signs) but they disbelieved; so Allah seized them. Surely, He is strong and severe in chastising (40:23). Also see 2:100. And elsewhere the Quran says about the Holy Prophet, Say, theروح القدس (Spirit of Holiness) has brought it (the Quran) down from thy Lord with truth that He may strengthen those who believe and as a guidance and glad tidings for Muslims (16:103). The Quran goes still further and declares that the Spirit of Holiness descends not only on Prophets but also on true believers (58:23).

In this connection we have also the testimony of the Holy Prophet who is reported to have said to the poet Hassan, "Reply, O Hassan (to the disbelievers), on behalf of the Prophet of God, and O God, help Thou Hassan with روح القدس i.e. the Spirit of Holiness" (Bukhari & Muslim).

Hassan also declares in a couplet of his that روح القدس i.e. the Holy Spirit was always with the Muslims. Says he:

و جبریل رسول الله فینا

و روح القدس لیس له كفاء

"And Gabriel, the Messenger of God, is among us and the Spirit of Holiness has no match" (Muslim).

From the above it is clear that البینات (manifest Signs) and روح القدس (the Spirit of Holiness) are not the exclusive privileges of Jesus but were vouchsafed to all the Prophets of God. Even holy men other than Prophets have received the Spirit of Holiness from God. The specific mention of "manifest Signs" and "the Spirit of Holiness" in this verse is thus meant only to bring home to the Jews that the rejection of Jesus was entirely unjustified.

It is commonly believed that روح القدس is another name of the angel Gabriel (Jarir & Kathir). As explained under 2:31, out of His infinite wisdom, God has appointed different angels to execute His will and manifest His attributes in the universe; and the angel to whom the work of bringing about purification in the world and of reflecting God’s attribute of holiness has been assigned is called, روح القدس. The expression "Holy Spirit" is also met with in the Old Testament (Ps. 51:11). Some commentators have also interpreted روح القدس as a special manifestation of God’s اسم اعظم i.e. His chief attribute of Holiness (Kathir).

17:56.

4:165.

4:159;

2:88.

4:56; 10:41.

Important Words:

اقتتلوا and اقتتل (fought with one another) are derived from قتل i.e. he killed. اقتتلوا means, they fought with, and attempted to kill, one another (Aqrab).

Commentary:

This verse supplies an answer to an implied question that naturally arises from the preceding verse. The Prophets that had been raised previous to Islam were sent to particular peoples and their missions were confined to specified periods, but the Holy Prophet was sent to all nations and for all times. Hence it may be argued that the case of David or similar other Leaders who had to deal with certain hostile tribes could not apply to him. God answers this implied question by saying that the previous Prophets also were not all alike, for some of them were greater in rank and had to perform more difficult tasks than others. David, for instance, whose name has just been mentioned as the final link in the chain of the Israelite Prophets and kings who had to contend with their enemies, performed a much greater work than many of his predecessors. So the final victory promised to the Holy Prophet should not appear doubtful in the eyes of the people.

The clause, among them there are those to whom Allah spoke and some of them He exalted by degrees of rank, does not mean that there are some Prophets to whom Allah does not speak or that among them there are those who are not raised in rank. The expression has been used to point out that there are two kinds of Prophets: (1) those who bring a new Law, i.e. those who receive revelation bearing new and direct commandments from God; and (2) those who are not Lawgivers, i.e. those whose prophethood consists only in the loftiness of their spiritual rank. By the word "speaking" therefore is here meant a special kind of speaking, i.e. a revelation which brings a new Law. Thus those Messengers who are represented here as having been "spoken to" by God are the Law-giving Prophets, while those who are spoken of here as having been simply raised in rank are those Messengers of God who are raised to the rank of Prophets without being given any new Law. Of Moses who was a Law-giving Prophet the Quran says: And Allah conversed with Moses particularly and freely (4:165). That there are two kinds of Prophets, (1) مکلم (to whom God speaks particularly), i.e. Lawgivers, and (2) غیر مکلم (to whom God does not speak in that particular manner), i.e. Non-Lawgivers; is also clear from the sayings of the Holy Prophet. For instance, when asked by Abu Dharr whether Adam was a Prophet, the Holy Prophet is reported to have answered, "Yes, he was a مکلم (Mukallam) Prophet" (Musnad). The addition of the word Mukallam to the word Prophet clearly shows that Prophets are of two classes, Mukallam (Lawgivers) and Ghair Mukallam (Non-Lawgivers). Adam was a Lawgiver because it was he who brought the elementary Law.

The Arabic clause منھم من کلم الله و رفع بعضھم درجات may also be rendered as, "Among them there is he to whom Allah spoke and one of them He exalted by degrees of rank." In this case the clause would signify that by the Prophet to whom Allah spoke is meant Moses and by the Prophet whom He exalted by degrees of rank is meant the Holy Prophet to whom God did not only speak, as He speaks to all Prophets, but whom He raised above all others by so many degrees.

The clause, And We gave Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs, does not mean that other Prophets were not granted such proofs. As a matter of fact, all Prophets are given clear proofs and all are strengthened with the Spirit of Holiness; but here God makes particular mention of Jesus in order to refute the objections of the Jews who declared that he had shown no Sign and that he was possessed with an Evil Spirit (Luke 11:15, 16). The Quran declares that Jesus was not an impostor, as the Jews believe, but a true Prophet, and that he was not possessed with the Devil but, like all other holy men, was aided with the Spirit of Holiness. In this connection see also note on 2:88.

The Arabic clause translated as, if Allah had so willed, those that came after them would not have fought with one another, does not mean, as some may wrongly think, that God is the originator of differences. The expression like لوشاء according to the Quranic idiom, does not simply mean "if Allah had willed" but "if Allah had acted according to His will", i.e. if He had enforced His will. In fact, Allah has, in His infinite wisdom, made man free to choose or reject a thing as he likes. That being so, differences are sure to arise among men. But God does not remain a placid on-looker; for whenever differences become vast and acute, He raises a new Reformer. This is why when discord and disagreements began to rend the ranks of the followers of the previous Prophets, God, in accordance with His old law, raised the Holy Prophet of Islam.

The words, Allah does what He desires, further indicate that the infinite wisdom of God demanded that man should be made a free agent. So God does not compel anyone to adopt this course or that. He has given man the power to choose the good or the evil course as he may like and God rewards him accordingly; He does not force anyone to accept the truth; nor should the Faithful.

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.

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; 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.

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".

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.

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.