This verse has often times been incorrectly translated as in this case. This is what I have written in the past regarding this verse:
In addition to that the author of the text while translating this verse has not translated the word ‘min’ and has instead replaced it with a dash. If translated according to Arabic grammar rules, the correct rendering should instead be the following where I have included this word:
“And whoever follows God and the Messenger is with those on whom God has bestowed blessings from amongst the prophets, the siddiqeen, the shuhadah and the righteous; they are the best company.” (An-Nisa 4:69)
In order to truly appreciate the meaning of these verses, one must follow the context at least from the 64th verse:
“And we did not send a Messenger except that he be followed by the leave of God. If they, when they were unjust to themselves, had only come unto you and asked for God’s forgiveness, and the Messenger had also asked for forgiveness for them, they would have found God indeed Forgiving, Merciful. But no, by your Lord, they are not believers until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in them no resistance against your decisions and accept them with the fullest conviction. If We had ordered them to sacrifice their lives or to leave their homes, very few of them would have done it: But if they had done what they were (actually) told, it would have been it would be better for them, and more strengthening (for their faith); And then We would have given them from Ourselves a great reward; And We would have certainly guided them to the straight path.” (An-Nisa 4:64-68)
When followed in this context, it becomes evident that these verses are talking about the weak Muslims who had their loyalty distributed both between Muslims and non-Muslims. The next verse (verse 69) of this Surah simply continues the topic and states the status of those people who unconditionally submit to the commandments of God and His Messenger; a discussion which had already initiated in the preceding verses and quoted above.
I am claiming that Quran suffices for my salvation, this is the claim of Quran itself. All our beliefs also come from the Quran. Having said that, I am not rejecting this narrative, I am merely saying that I do not blindly accept it, and we must be cautious in accepting it. However, if a day dawned when actually prophet Jesus (pbuh) did come, I would not be surprised.
As for this narrative, I must let you know that Imam Maalik’s Muwatta, the first collection of narratives of the Prophet (pbuh) and also the first book on fiqh, is devoid of any mention to coming of Jesus (pbuh). That means that a scholar as esteemed as Maalik did not either know, or he rejected this concept in his collection of Hadith.
It is not my belief because Quran does not mention it clearly, and we know that narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) have falsely been created too. A vast number of narratives were rejected by Imam Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Abu Dawood, Maalik and others to arrive at what, in their opinion, were the correct narratives. Even then, we find differences of opinion and the same narrative that has been classified as ‘sahih’ by one scholars is outrightly rejected by the other. Many narratives were later found to be incorrect.
This is not because we doubt that Holy Prophet (pbuh) gave us the right information. We have full respect and regard for him and indeed if he was living with us today, he would be our only source of guidance of God’s law. However, it is those false narratives that people attempt to ascribe to the Prophet (pbuh) that we have to find and cut out. Muslim scholars have discussed in detail how narratives were crafted by hypocrites and what problems scholars of hadith had to go through in order to sift out the more reliable ones. In addition, since a narrative was a person to person transfer, it is often seen in the books of hadith that the same narrative coming from different chains of narrators often has different wording, some part missing or added and so forth. It is also for the same reason that these narratives have never been accepted as source of law by some scholars such as Abu Haneefa, except in a few cases. I do not wish to start a discussion on authenticity of hadith, if we want to discuss that, we can do that on a separate thread, but I need to explain some basics about the hadith literature before discussing this hadith.
Having mentioned this, I firmly believe that narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) cannot be taken independent of Quran because of the possibility of their weakness. It must be taken along with Quran if we must build a belief out of it. Secondly, if God really wanted us to believe in this concept, then why would it not be presented in Quran. Once again, I do not reject Hadith, but we all know that everything that we take from Hadith has its foundation in Quran: prayer, fasting, poor-due, pilgrimage, laws of inheritance, interest; pick a topic and it has its foundations in Quran.
Combined this with the fact that some scholars such as Malik may have missed or rejected this concept, I think there is no confusion in my mind that this is not a belief of mine. I also firmly believe that Quran is what Muslims should also base their beliefs on.
The first article on Quran does not go into specific details. It is a good start, but if you look at styles used by Quran, the way words and phrases have been used, linguistic constructions, rhetoric, this article is a very high level introduction that does not suffice for the discussion we are having.
As for the second article, most of the verses are quoted out of context. I can write down a detailed exegesis of the verses, what they actually mean and why I differ with their interpretation in the article, but I think this discussion is becoming fruitless and one sided only. The bottom line is that the verses you have quoted are not meant for the purpose, if you wish I can provide you with the details on why I believe so.
However, the most important point that remains is that if we compare bible's commandment that a prophet will come with what you have provided, there is not even a single verse that is as clear about the prophecy of a prophet or a messenger after Muhammad (pbuh). Compare with the bible version:
"The Prophet
14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the LORD your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, "Let us not hear the voice of the LORD our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die."
17 The LORD said to me: "What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. 19 If anyone does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name, I myself will call him to account. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." (Deutronomy 18:14-22)
This is very plain, direct and letting the believers know that "a prophet" will come - no doubt, no rhetoric, no confusion that this indicates that or that indicates this. Just read it, and it means it. It is not a general rule that prophets will usually come. Most of the verses of Quran that you have presented are general rules, meant for some other purpose and in no way letting us know whether a prophet will come after Muhammad (pbuh) or not.
I think there is hardly anything more fruitful that I have to add to the discussion.
In the end, I will request everyone to ponder upon something. We keep quoting verses of the Quran for our beliefs and whenever we get a verse of Quran that seems to be in consonance with our beliefs, we accept it. If the verse is against our beliefs we get confused and run to those who share our beliefs to find out how to understand that verse. Why is this so?
From this thread and the discussion I have had, I think one thing that we must try to do is read and understand Quran without any regards to our beliefs, just to understand what Quran says. Usually what happens is that we know all the verses and narratives of the Prophet (pbuh) to support our claim, but we have not even understood the Quran once. Anybody can produce verses out of context and we will think that that is what Quran is really saying.
Interestingly, it is the only book that has so incessantly required its readers to read it and understand it, and perhaps the only book that is read without having understood mostly - we never do that with any other book in this world!
If that is the case, I will really like to know where I have gone wrong. Please let me know very specifically which verses did I interpret wrongly, and which verses that I said should be interpreted differently, I was wrong about them. Please do quote my postings and address those with errors so I can understand better. Posting an article that is completely off the tangent will not help me much.
Just to add another point, which slipped my mind initially, even if we were to take this narrative to be correct, you must see my previous post in which I have shown how ‘The Messiah’ is an epithet of prophet Jesus (pbuh) and according to Quran, it really only refers to him. Therefore, accepting this narrative leaves us with nothing but the fact that it would be prophet Jesus (pbuh) who will descend on the day of Judgment, precisely the same personality that is mentioned in the Quran.
Allah has made a scientific rule for this universe & for Human beings.
when a person die, he only raised again on the day of judgment.
[23:101] That I may do righteous deeds in the life that I have left behind.' That cannot be! It is only a word that he utters. And behind them is a barrier until the day when they shall be raised again.
[23:102] And when the trumpet is blown, there will be no ties of relationship any more between them on that day, nor will they ask after one another.
The Verse which you are pointing, that Allah give death to a person for 100 years, and then give life again. This death is in the form of sleeping. because sleeping is also the form of death.
So, According to Quraan a Death person can never reborn into this world again. but only on the day of judgment.
If there could any rule for reborning. Allah should reborn Muhammad s.a.w because he is khatam-un-nabiyeen.And King of the prophets. The greatest of the Prophets. What is special in Jesus to reborning him ? so, this reborning into this world again is not a Quranic belief. and insulting Hazrat Muhammad s.a.w !!
Has God said that He will operate according to the scientific rule only? Anywhere in Quran? I can show you many places where God has said that he does anything anywhere He wants.
No sir. Let us look at the verse again: (with Arabic words added in brackets)
“Or the like of him who passed by a town, and it had fallen down upon its roofs; he said: How will God give it life after its death (mautiha)? So God caused him to die (amata) for a hundred years, then raised him to life. He said, ‘How long have you tarried?’ He said, ‘I have tarried a day, or a part of a day.’ (God) said, 'Nay! you have tarried a hundred years; then look at your food and drink - years have not passed over it; and look at your donkey; and that We may make you a sign to men, and look at the bones, how We set them together, then clothed them with flesh; so when it became clear to him, he said, ‘I know that God has power over all things.’” (Al-Baqarah 2:259)
Both maut and amata used in the verse mean death as we know when a person dies. They do not mean sleep. maut - when someone has died, the same word is used in Urdu. We never understand maut to mean ‘sleep’, it is just death. amata, to give death to someone, not sleep to someone. For sleep, there are other words such as naum and naama etc. So Quran is VERY clear it was death, not sleep. If you think it is sleep, please bring your proof.
You can verify it in any dictionary, the meaning of word ‘maut’ must exist as what you have specified in order for us to take this verse to mean that.
Similarly, the verse about Jesus (pbuh):
“And remember when God said, 'O Jesus son of Mary! Remember my favor on you and your mother … … … and when you brought forth dead (mauta) by My permission …” (Al-Maidah 5:110)
Again mauta, someone who is dead. Very clear.
God gave birth to Jesus (pbuh) without a father, not to prophet Muhammad (pbuh). God had prophet Jesus (pbuh) raise dead to living but not Muhammad (pbuh). God had prophet Jesus (pbuh) give sight to blind, but not Muhammad (pbuh).
We cannot understand why God does what He does unless He tells us. We cannot sit in His place and decide why He would do (or did) that He does. It is His domain, we cannot judge, we just do not have the capability.
As for the messengers of God, God says that they are all equal, and we must treat them equally, therefore we cannot say one messenger is better than other therefore it does not make sense (naoodu billah) for God to raise this prophet instead of that.
If He decides to raise prophet Jesus (pbuh), it is not befitting for us to say that prophet Muhammad (pbuh) should be raised instead!
These verses do not tell that one cannot be reborn. As Quran has clearly specified, God did raise the dead. If we look at the verses you have quoted, they simply imply that there is barrier between us and the dead. We cannot communicate with them, cannot call them, they cannot hear, cannot communicate with us. But on our death, we do go from this side of the barrier to that side. Why can’t then, when God raises the dead, He bring from there back to here? He already raised the dead as per Quran despite this rule being in effect!
barrier deos not only mean that we can not communicate with them. But also they can not communicate with us. like see this verse;
[36:32] Do they not see how many generations We have destroyed before them, and that they never come back to them? 36:51] **And they will **not be able to make a will nor will they return to their families.
**36:52] **And the trumpet shall be blown, and lo! from the graves they will hasten on to their Lord.
So, the verse you are Pointing cannot be applicable to real death. "maut" also mean "sleeping". because sleeping is the form of death.
So, this is Allah's Sunat. Allah deos not do any thing against HIS sunat.
No disagreement here. In fact, in my post I iterated the same thing; I wrote:
First I will come to the matter of ‘maut’ and then to the verses you have quoted. The verse that talks about Jesus (pbuh) raising the dead is here:
“When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor on you and on your mother; how I strengthened you with the holy Spirit so you will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how you shaped out of clay the form of a bird by My permission, and then you blew upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and you healed him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how you raised the dead by My permission; and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) you when you came to them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is nothing but mere magic;” (Al-Maidah 5:110)
Now in this context, see how God is saying to prophet Jesus (pbuh) that he spoke as an infant, how he created a form of bird and gave life to it, how he gave blind sight, how he cured leper and then how he woke a person from sleep? I fail to understand how is that a miracle of God. Anybody can do that!
Then, look up an Arabic dictionary and see what meaning does the word ‘maut’ have in English. It will be something like: ‘to die; to perish; to lost life; become dead’ etc. If you still insist on changing the meaning of this word to sleep, then that would be against the Arabic language as well as the context in which it appears in this specific verse in Quran.
In that case, you must provide a proof that in the Arabic, this word really means ‘sleep’.
I am not able to appreciate how this says that prophet Jesus (pbuh) was not able to give life to dead. Furthermore, it is when someone IS dead that they cannot communicate, but when God gives them life, the entire purpose of giving them life is so that they are no longer dead and reverse this entire operation. It is for this reason that this is really a miracle, that someone is not able to communicate when dead, but they are given life and can communicate.
Once we have established that it was really the dead that was brought to life by Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and that Quran testifies it. Unless we’re bent upon changing the meaning of that phrase, we should understand this verses in the meaning of those verses that we have established.
The verse 36:31, I will quote in context:
“Alas for the servants! there comes not to them an messenger but they mock at him. Do they not consider how many of the generations have We destroyed before them, because they do not turn to them?” (YaSin 36:30-31)
Essentially this verse is saying that the nations to which messengers were sent did not turn to their messengers and therefore they were destroyed. This is the same law that I wrote in my first post. This verse is not at all related to people not being able to become alive from death, if seen in the context.
Let us look at the other verses in context too, let us read from the beginning all the way to verses that you have quoted:
"And when it is said to them: Spend out of what God has given you, those who disbelieve say to those who believe: Shall we feed those whom, if God pleased, He could have fed? You are in a clear error. And they say: When will this threat come to pass, if you are truthful? They are waiting for a single blast which will overtake them while they will still be contending with one another. So they shall not be able to make a will, nor shall they return to their families.
And the trumpet shall be blown, when lo ! from their graves they shall hasten on to their Lord. They will say: Ah! Woe unto us! Who raised us up from our graves? (It will be sad): This is what God Most Gracious had promised. And true was the word of the messengers!" (YaSin 36:47-53)
If you see, you will find that it is the disbelievers that are saying to those who believe. They are also mocking them and saying “When will the threat that you are giving us will come to pass?” In other words, they are also saying that a messenger has come and the fact that we should be dealt with Almighty is not happening, and they are jesting regarding that. The answer to them is that the time when that will happen, they will not be able to turn to their families and they will be done. On the Day of Judgment, they will rise and run to their lord even though today they are bent upon disbelieving God and His messenger; on that Day they will realize that they were wrongfully rejecting the messenger of God. The context makes it clear.
Once again, this verse is not related to prophet Jesus (pbuh) being able to raise the dead. Of course, if we take any verse of Quran out of context, we can make it to mean anything we like, so we should look at the meaning of a verse in its context.
I hope this makes my point of view clear.
A very happy Ramadan to you,
Best Wishes,
Omer Iqbal
To be honest, the word 'maut' is for physically dead. It has been used in Quran for objects that do not have spirit (e.g. earth) to express their dead physical condition. I am not sure how initially you were able to deduce it as sleep, and from there, you have gone on to say they were spiritually dead.
But let me ask you something, given your understanding, if God really wanted to say physically dead, how else should He have said it? What language would have assured you that He was talking about physically dead, what word to be precise in place of 'maut' should He have used?
If you do not know the answer to this, then may be God is really saying that!
Hazrat Eesa (AS) is not dead (as said above by some christain apparently)
He once prayed to Allah that he wished he was also from the Ummah of Hazrat Mohammad (PBUH) and that he was from this Ummah.
This wish was granted to him. he was risen into heaven when they tried to crucify him.
And he will come back one day. And what armughal said above is correct. Prophet will Eesa will come back as a normal human being and not as a prophet (also the fact that the doors of prephetship are closed) indicates that it is true.
I am not saying whether he has died or he is alive - to be honest, I am not interested in that at this time. It does not affect my faith either, Quran does not talk about prophet Jesus (pbuh) coming back. I have iterated this many times in my responses that I am open to the fact that he may come back, yet it is not my belief. Muslim scholars always had differences of opinion regarding this, so it might also not be prudent to declare this unconditionally binding on all.
The discussion here is that if prophet Jesus (pbuh) was to come back, and suppose he was dead, does that make a difference or not. Once again, the discussion is not whether he is dead or not.
We should open a new thread if we want to discuss this further so the two issues remain separated out.
[2:260] Or hast thou not heard of the like of him who passed by a town which had fallen down upon its roofs and exclaimed, ‘When will Allah restore it to life after its destruction?’ Then Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then He raised him and said, ‘How long hast thou remained in this state?’ He answered, ‘I have remained a day or part of a day.’ Allah said, ‘It is so but thou hast also remained in this state for a hundred years. Now look at thy food and thy drink; they have not rotted. And look at thy ass.And We have done this that We may make thee a Sign unto men. And look at the bones, how We set them and then clothe them with flesh.’ And when this became clear to him, he said, ‘I know that Allah has the power to do all that He wills.’
Significance of Town:
The ruined town referred to in the verse is Jerusalem which was laide waste by the King of Babylon in 599 B.C. Ezekiel, the prophet, was among the Jews whole the King carried away into captivity to Babylon and who was made to pass by, and witness the ghastly sight of, the devastated town.
Understanding ‘Hundred Years’:
Ezekiel was naturally shocked at the sad sight and prayed to God in words full of extreme pathos as to when the ruined town would be restored to life. His prayer was heard and was ** made to see a vision** that the restoration prayed for would take place in a hundred years. The verse doesn’t mean the Ezekiel remained actually dead for a hundred years. Only he saw a vision that he died and had remained dead for a hundred years and then had come back to life. The Quran sometimes mentions scenes in a vision or dream (12:5). The vision signified and Ezekiel understood significance, that the children of Israel would remain in the state of captivity and complete national degradation for about a hundred years after they would receive a new life and come back to their sacred city. And it actually came to pass as Ezekiel had dreamt. Jerusalem as take by Nebuchadnezzar in 599 B.C (2 Kings 24:10). Ezekiel probably saw the vision in 586 B. C. The city was rebuilt about a century after its desctruction. Its building started in 537 B.C and was completed in 515 B.C. It took the Israelites another fifteen years to settle in it and thus virtually a century passed between the destruction of Jerusalem and its restoration to life. It is puerile to think that God actually caused Ezekiel to die and that be remained dead for a hundred years and was then brought back to life; for that would not have been an answer to his prayer, which did not pertain to the death and resurrection of any individual but to that of a town representing a whole people.
‘I have remained a day or part of a day.’
The words are intended to express indefiniteness of time (18:20 & 23:114) and mean, according to Quranic usage, that Ezekiel did not know how long he had remained in that state. **Yaum/b here doesn’t mean a day of 24 hrs but time absolutely (1:4). The words, I have remained a day or part of day, may also refer to the time for which Ezekiel slept or the time he took in seeing the vision. Apparently Ezekiel thought that the was being asked about the duration of the time of VISION.
The clause, “It is so but thou hast also remained in this state for a hundred years”, points out that although in one sense Ezekiel had remained in that state for hundred years (for he had dreamt that he had been dead for hundred years), yet the statement that he had tarried for a day or part of a day was also correct, for the actual time spent in seeing the vision was naturally very short.
To bring home this fact to the mind of Ezekiel, God directed his attention to his food and drink and his ass. That his food and drink had not rottend and his ass was still alive showed that he had really tarried only for a day or part of it. The words, “look at thy ass”, also indicate that Ezekiel saw the vision while sleeping in the fields with his ass by his side.
So, my friend, it is clear that it was merely a vision. Jazakallah!
