Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Society Religion & Philosophy
81

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace psyah,

[QUOTE]

It has already been established that tawaffi is used for sleep so why dwell on terms that can take multiple meanings?

[/QUOTE]

In that case, you cannot dwell on this word either to prove ascension of Jesus (as). The burden of proof is on the proponents of ascension since it is a deviation from normal. Everyone dies either naturally or unnaturally. Ascension to heavens is an extraordinary and unique case so needs clear proof. We have been providing you with proofs with examples but your stance is based on a literal meaning but no example of it. Please provide us with examples (other than that which pertain to Isa (as)) from Quran or authentic hadiths or sayings of sahabas or tabaeen etc. that could show us that:

  1. Tawaffe of a named person by Allah/Malaikah means other than death
  2. Tawaffe of a person by Allah/Malaikah without an additional supporting word means other than death. (I will find the actual wording of the challenge that is still there for 100+ years. Use of Tawaffe and its derivatives. NOT the one that translates to fully giving. that is a different case altogether)

Meanings adopted for Isa (as) are unique and are solely adopted for him (as). If in Quran, same words would have been used for another person, it would not have been even a matter worth debating and 'death' would have been the obvious meaning.

[QUOTE]

Other places in the Qur'an clarify he Isa (AS) was not killed nor crucified ... and since Allah (SWT) instigates death even when people are being killed then to say - "we caused him to die" is a refutation that is redundant ... and since we cannot apply redundancy on the Qur'an since it is the Word of God we can only render the refutation of being killed as one of being saved ... saved completely ... not even touching the crucifix ... taken away in full - i.e. no harm came to him (AS).

[/QUOTE]

That is quite a novel but lame idea. If I have understood correctly, you are saying that certain matter can only be mentioned once in Quran? That doesn't hold true. Does it? And I will not call it redundancy.
Verse 3:55, there is a promise of ‘tawaffe’ , ‘Rafa ill Allah’ and others at the time when his enemies were planning against him. Verse 4:157 states vigorously that he was not killed (MA QATALUHU YAQEENAN). So this explains ‘Tawaffe’ quite well if there was any doubt regarding the meanings of ‘Tawaffe’ i.e., nobody will be able to kill him (as) and he will live to a natural age and die naturally. This explains translation ‘I will cause you to die a natural death’ as sometimes people argue that how do you come to conclusion about ‘natural death’.
Talking about redundancy and verbosity and being away from eloquence,
If you look at the famous verses i.e., 3:55 and 4:157-158:

  • In 3:55, no explicit mention of killing attempt but 'tawaffee' and 'Rafa' are mentioned
  • In 4:157-158, failed attempt to kill has been mentioned and no mention of 'tawaffe' just 'rafa' has been mentioned so certainly no redundancy within these verses if we consider ‘tawaffe’ as ‘natural death’

But if we take meanings adopted by you then there is redundancy and verbosity within verse 3:55
I will take thee fully and rise thee to myself …

82

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace kchughtai

I agree I cannot dwell on this word ... I don't ... I'm merely answering you on your dwelling on this word ... My position on the ascension of Isa (AS) comes from various sources - namely the aqeedahs of Ahl-us-Sunnah ... and clear references from hadith and I even use older scriptures as well as the ambiguous meaning of this word to support my argument.

In terms of where the examples of where tawaffee is used for body and soul - well the references are present in the Qur'an talking about Isa (AS) ... that itself is the example ... but because it is probably the only example - most notably because no other person in history was taken that way ... Look I'll show you another example of where that word has been used to mean "take in full" if you can show me a place where it is commonly understood that such an event of being taken in full occurred ... if you cannot then how can you expect me to provide another example? I mean first we need to establish whether it is possible for someone to be taken in full and agree that it applies to Isa (AS) before we analyse the word and see if means that or something else.

It is a catch 22 situation ... since there is only example of tawaffee used according to me that means "take in full" literally then that is the only example I can give ... and according to you if there is no other example present of that use then you are unwilling to accept it 's literal meaning. So we are forced to discuss the literal meaning of that word ... I say it does not mean literally "death" ... it is interpreted to mean death by way of association - common in language. Since ascension only happened to Isa (AS) and will not happen again ... why would you ask me to give you another example of where this word is used literally elsewhere I can't fathom that ... but perhaps you are rigging the question to give you a negative response which will falsely confirm to you the stance that you have taken ...

83

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

[QUOTE]

and clear references from hadith and I even use older scriptures as well as the ambiguous meaning of this word to support my argument.

[/QUOTE]

pls be specific. Pls quote 2-3 references that you think establishes the fact of ascension of Isa (as)

84

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

peace psyah,

It is evident from your above post that when you read verses from Quran, you are already preoccupied with the thoughts of ascension of Jesus (as) and interpret the verses accordingly.

85

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Evidence for the use of Tawafee not being exclusive to the meaning for “death” …

In this verse a derivative word from the masdar above is tuwaffa - it means “to be given full compensation” … or to account for fully. This indicates clearly that there are other uses of the term outside the meaning of death. There are other places too …

The argument that will stem from this is when the word is applied to a soul does it mean other than death, but this in my understanding is hair splitting, because my point for raising these derivatives is not to PROVE that tawaffee means other than “death” but to prove rather that it does not literally mean “death” going by it’s various uses when a soul or other than a soul is being talked about. More emphatically I ask how can word be used for anything that is not alive (has a soul) when it only means “death” …??? Since it has been used for things that are not alive therefore it can take meanings other than “death” …

These are two references both about Isa (AS) that according to the orthodox opinion literally mean “take in full” … there are plenty of references about the return of Isa (AS) in the person obviously after being taken in person he will return in person … but we have said this all before … nothing has changed.

But here is the REAL argument hidden within both of these verses and contrasted with verse Surah An-Nisa - 158 - Quran.com … in 3:55 - the verb of “mutawaffeeka” is in future tense … so there is no indication that if it did mean death that it has taken place … it is merely a promise for a future time. Also, in 5:117 is in past tense but about a future event namely at the Day of Judgement when Isa (AS) will say “Fa lamma Tawaffaitani …” which if it meant death we cannot say for sure that it has happened yet because the Day of Judgement has not occurred. Now in contrast in verse 4:158 the words raf’ahu are used and there is no mention of tawaffee … now this verse is time restricted which is around about the time of the crucifixion … in wisdom this word tawaffee since it can create alternative meanings is not being used in time bound verses around the crucifixion and it is used in verses where it cannot be established whether it has happened yet … hence … even IF TAWAFFEE means DEATH - the verses do not allow us to conclude that Isa (AS) HAS died … merely that he will die at some point in time. The only place where a time limited verse occurs this word tawaffee is absent …

But that is not my argument - my argument is that tawaffee is not restricted to mean “death” any way …

86

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace kchughtai

Yes that may be true, but please don't hamper me with breaking free of my preoccupations when you yourself are prey to the same ... Essentially you are arguing from your perspective and I from mine ... we are both using the same verses to argue our positions ... this discourse should decide who is better at arguing their case ... but the truth is established not by who is best at arguing their corner ... Either you or I could be deficient in defending our own biased positions ... the fact is I have the advantage because you are trying to limit the use for a word where I am not ... Also, my position is the one of the majority of Muslims.

To back up the rest of what I said ... I was only 14 years old when I realised that Allah (SWT) would not say "They did not kill not crucify him, but I raised him in rank" that is a redundant argument because Allah (SWT) raises ranks by protecting or honouring His slaves and when rafa' is used as a refutation to the killing and harming on the cross then it has to mean something else happened to Isa (AS) other than being harmed ... there is nothing special about it otherwise... The reason why that event is so profound is so Isa (AS) can prove in a later time that he was and is Al-Masih and that they Bani Israel wa Nasara were totally wrong in that belief of his crucifixion ... even after they know and believe that The Messiah cannot be harmed physically ... that was and is his (AS) sign !!!

87

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

I beg to differ. It is the example of ‘waffa/waffi’ ( (باب تفعیل not ‘tawaffa/tawaffi’. ‘Waffa’ for giving and ‘Tawaffa’ for taking.
Other examples on the same lines are 2:281, 3:185 (Tuwaffauna), 39:10 (yuwaffa).
I have already stated that in my earlier post in which I asked you to produce example. There is difference. It confuses me too but there is difference. I have Al-Munjad before me and difference is clear.

you have stated about 3:55 that ‘Mutawafeeqa’ is in future tense. Of course, it had to be in future tense since that describes the promises of Allah (swt) to Isa (as) . In 5:116-117, a future (on the judgment day of course) dialogue between Allah and hazrat Isa (as) is mentioned.
5:117) I said nothing to them except that which Thou didst command me — ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou gave me ‘tawaffe’, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things.

Here ‘tawaffe’ has been used in past. Certainly, since the dialogue will be on the judgment day but please take a closer look at the answer of Isa (as). He has shown obliviousness of the fact that his (as) nation did shirk by making him a son of God.
Only two eras has been mentioned

  1. Before ‘tawaffe’ when Isa (as) was responsible for his people
  2. After ‘tawaffe’ when Allah was watcher over them.

Not a remote mention, not even a hint about the third era when he once again became a witness over them.
What Isa (as) will say clearly shows that his followers deviated from the right path after his ‘tawaffe’. As his followers are already considering him son of God and even God so his (as) ‘tawaffe’ has certainly already happened. No doubt about it.
As I mentioned earlier that in a hadith mentioned by Bukhari, our holy prophet (pbuh) has used the same words for himself and referred to this saying of Isa (as). Certainly when he said ‘Tawaffaitani’ for himself (pbuh), he meant his death. No doubt about it. Right? So we can safely deduce that ‘Tawaffaitani’ for Isa (as) also meant death.

88

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

[quote]

Peace kchughtai

Yes that may be true, but please don't hamper me with breaking free of my preoccupations when you yourself are prey to the same ... Essentially you are arguing from your perspective and I from mine ... we are both using the same verses to argue our positions ... this discourse should decide who is better at arguing their case ... but the truth is established not by who is best at arguing their corner ... Either you or I could be deficient in defending our own biased positions ... the fact is I have the advantage because you are trying to limit the use for a word where I am not ... Also, my position is the one of the majority of Muslims.

[/quote]

I am not preoccupied this way. For me, all prophets were born, lived and died in this earth like other human beings and with that in mind, I approach Quran to see if there are any exceptions mentioned that people talk about and I found none.

I am not trying to limit the use of word; I am following the way its use has been known to man. How can I take a unique meaning that cannot be attributed to anyone else?
You said the case of Isa (as) is unique. LKK said that wrt birth, Isa (as) is like Adam (as) and in ascension, his case can be compared with the holy prophet (pbuh)’s Isra and Miraj. So can you find any verse in Quran or in hadith where ‘Tawaffi’ has been used for ascension of the holy prophet (pbuh).

[quote]

To back up the rest of what I said ... I was only 14 years old when I realised that Allah (SWT) would not say "They did not kill not crucify him, but I raised him in rank" that is a redundant argument because Allah (SWT) raises ranks by protecting or honouring His slaves and when rafa' is used as a refutation to the killing and harming on the cross then it has to mean something else happened to Isa (AS) other than being harmed ... there is nothing special about it otherwise... The reason why that event is so profound is so Isa (AS) can prove in a later time that he was and is Al-Masih and that they Bani Israel wa Nasara were totally wrong in that belief of his crucifixion ... even after they know and believe that The Messiah cannot be harmed physically ... that was and is his (AS) sign !!!

[/quote]

Allah has rejected both claims of the Jews i.e.,

  1. False and grievous charge against mariam (as)
  2. That they killed Isa (as) on the cross as they mockingly claimed “We have killed Isa ibn mariam (AS), messenger of Allah”. They didn’t consider him a messenger and here ‘messenger of Allah’ has been used as a sign of jest that look we have killed the one who claimed to be the messenger of God.

And thus cleared him (as) of the charges of his enemies by saying that he was raised unto Allah.
‘Rafa’ is not the refutation of being killed. The point that is overlooked is that he was considered accursed of God and those two allegations were to support their stance. A person who dies on cross is accursed and accursed is the one away from the grace of God. Jews claim was that they have killed jesus (as) on cross so as per their scripture, he is accursed and thus cannot be a true prophet of God. Even Christians admitted that he (as) died the death of an accursed but they invented a new theory that he (as) took curse on himself for the sake of humanity and was resurrected again. So ‘rafa’ is clearly a refutation of his being an accursed. ‘RAFEH’ is the attribute of Allah. You can consider it to fully understand the meaning of ‘RAFA ill ALLAH’. ‘RAFEH’ certainly doesn’t mean one who takes people away.
Questions: What is your basis of the belief that Isa (as) was not supposed to be harmed. I know you presented a quote from the New Testament. Can you relate it to the Old Testament as where it was written that he (as) will not be harmed at all? And is there any other basis for such a claim?

89

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace kchughtai

I wrote this:

"In this verse a derivative word **from the masdar above is tuwaffa - it means "to be given full compensation" ... or to account for fully. This **indicates clearly that there are other uses of the term outside the meaning of death. There are other places too ..."

I don't know why you are differing with me when *I am agreeing that they are two different words *... I stated that the use of the derivate words suggest that the literal meaning of "tuwaffee" is not death ... and demonstrated this by the use of the derivative words also the word itself has been used for sleep state as well ... for the last time I am not trying to prove that tuwaffe is not used for death, but I am saying it does not literally mean death and hence other options are possible and that much you have to accept - or of course continue to argue against.

Regarding the dictionary you keep refering to in Arabic ... as Al-Munjad ... is a book made up common understandings of the day ... linguistically and to demonstrate the point by use of logic in more scientific terms the term "maut" in Arabic is predicated of the term "tuwaffee" but the term "tuwaffee" is not predicated of the term "maut" - Maut is a class of the object tuwaffee ... which means everything that can be said about death is contained in the meaning of the word tuwaffee but since tuwaffee means more than this the reverse cannot be said as true ... which means the two words are not technically synoymous, but they are commonly understood to mean the same thing ..

My simple answer to this is that your point 1. takes place in the first and second coming and your point 2. takes place between the first and second coming ...

My more detailed response will include that I disagree he (AS) shows obliviousness - rather it is a phrase used to show that he was not responsible for what they did when he (AS) was not around ...

90

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace kchughtai

The Sunnah has two elements: Documented ahadith and Traditions passed down, which may or may not get documented through time … It has always been “understood” since the earliest of times that Isa (AS) is alive and shall return as he was when he rose. It is indeed part of the Ahl-us-Sunnah-wal-Jamma’ 'aqeedah in At-Tahawiyya - this was written and documented centuries before the arrival of certain claimants of Isa (AS) - so we cannot be accused of changing our beliefs after the advent of such people. To be honest a clear perspective is written here:

http://www.central-mosque.com/aqeedah/descentisa.pdf

It describes the whole issue you are having with the terminology … There are many references in hadith regarding the “son of Maryam (AS)” will descend - people did not ask if it is the “same” or a different person … they knew who was being talked about …

If a descent is due it sort of demonstrates that an ascent took place in the past … Some scholars namely a certain Pakistani scholar argued that the Qur’an talked about the ascension and the hadith talk about the descension (although there are hints in the Qur’an regarding the descent and hints in hadith regarding ascent) …

At the end of the day if we are serious about this topic we will realise that picking holes can be done on both sides - it is one of those wisdoms - how can 40 imposters come and how can the age of Dajjal be one of confusion and deception if certain accounts of future events are direct, unambiguous … it is part of the Divine Wisdom that there will be controversy in this matter … the clue to finding the truth is to stick to the main body … the same goes for the sects formed from other differences as well as this one … To me it makes more sense in my way of understanding … We can for sure create a chart of concepts and tick off the possible understandings, but I believe the one that will result in the most coherent cross-networked consistent understanding is the one that the main body of Muslims is already on …

91

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

[quote]

My simple answer to this is that your point 1. Takes place in the first and second coming and your point 2. Takes place between the first and second coming ...

[/quote]

In the subject verse, there are two parts separated by ‘FALAMA TAWAFFAITANI’. So irrespective of the interpretation of this term, it is clear that part 1 happened during his first coming before his tawaffi happened so your point 1 is invalid as it cannot be applied to 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] coming which of course is after ‘tawaffi’ and descent.

[quote]

My more detailed response will include that I disagree he (AS) shows obliviousness - rather it is a phrase used to show that he was not responsible for what they did when he (AS) was not around ...

[/quote]

Whether Isa (as) shown his obliviousness of the deviation:
Pls take a look at the preceding verse i.e., 5:116

PICKTHAL: And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

In the above verse, the blue part is the one where Jesus (as) is saying that I didn’t give them such teachings. If I had done this, Allah certainly would have knowledge of this act (This is what you referred to).
Then in the underlined part he (as) stated that You (Allah(swt)) knows what is in my heart (What I know) but I don’t know what Allah knows as only He has the knowledge of hidden things.
You are the philosophy guy and I think it would not be difficult for you to understand what is stated here.

92

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

To make things easy to understand that perhaps, I have not explained well enough, I am posting a video (in urdu) and it discusses the topic at hand.

Please watch it
from 0 - 4.19 min for general guideline in the matters of conflict
from 4.21 -10.2 min for discussion on 5:117
and 10.2 - for discussion on ‘Tawaffi’ in context to 5:117

93

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace kchughtai

What are you talking about? Please explain what you mean by the text I highlighted in blue ...

94

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace kchughtai

Isa (AS) made mention of the fact that he (AS) is not worthy of worship by stating his inability to know to the ghaib from what Allah (SWT) had not revealed to him (AS).

It has nothing to do with an alleged obliviousness to what happened on the Earth after he (AS) left. Rather in verse 117 he clearly states that he was witness over them i.e. responsible for them when he was amongst them - meaning both times for the second and first coming.

I mean let's entertain the alternative ... so this will be mentioned by Isa (AS) on the Day of Judgement ... let consider Isa (AS) did not come again then and therefore any claimants to the second coming are fake. However if we then say that Masih will come again in the guise of another person then we need to ask which statements we have about Isa (AS) are applicable to the other claimants and which are only applicable to the first one Ibn Maryam (AS).

Also in the second coming he Isa (AS) according to hadith will unify the people on tawheed, break the cross and kill the swine - whatever that means ... by doing these things his life in the second coming becomes a clear refutation of the previous beliefs about him ... about the original Isa (AS) ... but if we assume therefore that the second coming was not him but someone else then we are left in a dilemma because he is not recognised as being that Isa (AS) by the Jews, Christians and the majority of Muslims so what was the purpose of the second coming?

To maintain the balance of ideas that surround this whole topic it is essential we maintain the orthodox perspective otherwise we throw fundamental factors out of the window.

Linguisitcally in verse 117 taken that it is going to be a future event - then when Isa (AS) says "I was a witness over them whist I was among them" is not limited necessarily to a single visit ...

On the flip side Isa (AS) did not make mention here that he did not know what happened - but rather when he was there he was witness to how he himself preached which means he was responsible for the their understandings when he was still there to confirm or reject them ... and when he was gone ... that Allah (SWT) would know full well who created the changes ... Isa (AS) forewarned his nation to beware of wolves clad in sheep's clothing and he gave them signs how to recognise the false prophets - i.e. Paul ... in how he would preach a gospel other than the one Jesus (AS) brought ... so he was not necessarily saying he did not know what they were doing, but he was saying that he was not in a position to do anything about what they were doing ... and even if he (AS) did not know what they were doing during his time in the other world ... then this is not evidence for or against the second coming.

95

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

5:117) ..... And I was a witness over them as long as I remained among them, but since Thou didst cause me to die, Thou hast been the Watcher over them; and Thou art Witness over all things.

The underlined part corresponds to 'FALAMA TAWAFFAITANI'
Two parts of the verse I was referring to are
Part1 - Red
Part2 - Green

Is it clearer now?

96

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

[QUOTE]

Linguisitcally in verse 117 taken that it is going to be a future event - then when Isa (AS) says "I was a witness over them whist I was among them" is not limited necessarily to a single visit ...

[/QUOTE]

I answered that earlier. did you read my answer to your logic.
I was responsible when I was among them but when you took me in full, only you were watcher over them.
It is so clear. 'I was a witness over them whist I was among them' is clearly happened before 'Tawaffe'. How can it pertain to two eras is simply beyond me.

I request you to watch first 20 mins of the video I posted. I hope things will be clearer

97

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

Peace kchughtai

I watched the video for the first 11 mins and nothing new is being said that you have not already said ... the verse to me does not restrict stages of his life to being on the Earth and then death ... the verse i.e. the Arabic words do not prevent the understanding that first and second coming are both encapsulated in the first part of him (AS) bearing witness to the fact that he (AS) preached no wrong. To say that it is ... is wishful thinking ...

To say "And then when" indicates some sort of chronology but the translations are all either "and when" or "but when" ... for the word falamma ...

and you have the "but when" in your post above as well ... true enough in the times between the two comings and after his death will be applicable to the underlined and green parts ... and the two phases of his life (AS) are in the red ... there is nothing concrete you have against the orthodoxy of Islam ... Why you are dwelling on this anyway is beyond me?

We either believe in the second coming or not ... there are plenty of hadith that reached us at the same time as these verses regarding descent ... it is our responsibility to reconcile them with the holy Qur'an. It is not suitable for us to ignore them. Since the Qur'an does not conflict with them then we should accept them ... we have the chain of authentic scholarly teachings there may be some stray opinions, but the reason why the ummah believes that Isa (AS) will come again is because this was the belief of the early Muslims.

98

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

(By He in Whose Hand is my soul! Not much of this world is left compared to what has already passed of it, except as much as what is left in this day of yours compared to what has already passed of it.)

Anas said, "We could only see a small part of the setting sun at the time.‘’ Another Hadith that supports and explains the above Hadith is recorded by Imam Ahmad that Abdullah bin Umar said, "We were sitting with the Prophet while the sun was rising above Quayqaan, after `Asr. He said,

(What remains of your time, compared to what has passed, is as long as what remains of this day compared to what has passed of it.)‘’

Imam Ahmad recorded that Sahl bin Sa`d said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say,
(I was sent like this with the Last Hour.) and he pointed with his middle and index finger. The Two Sahihs also recorded this Hadith. Imam Ahmad recorded that Wahb As-Suwa’i said that the Messenger of Allah said,

(I was sent just before the Last Hour, like the distance between this and this; the latter almost overtook the former.) Al-Amash joined between his index and middle fingers while narrating this Hadith. Imam Ahmad recorded that Al-Awzai said that Ismail bin Ubaydullah said, "Anas bin Malik went to Al-Walid bin Abdul-Malik who asked him about what he heard from the Messenger of Allah about the Last Hour. Anas said, I heard the Messenger of Allah say,

(You and the Last Hour are as close as these two (fingers).)‘’’ Only Imam Ahmad collected this Hadith. There is proof to support these Hadiths in the Sahih listing, Al-Hashir (literally the Gatherer), among the names of the Messenger of Allah ; he is the first to be gathered, and all people will be gathered thereafter (for the Day of Judgement).

[Surah Az-Zukhruf - 57-70 - Quran.com

S](Surah Az-Zukhruf - 57-70 - Quran.com)urah 43 verse 61

And indeed, Jesus will be [a sign for] knowledge of the Hour, so be not in doubt of it, and follow Me. This is a straight path.

These two (hadiths and ayat) demonstrate that Isa (AS) will come back the very one called Ibn Maryam (AS) …

99

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

^
First of all, I couldn’t understand the connection that you want to make between the quoted verse and the hadith. Secondly, why are you presenting a verse that doesn’t stand a chance to consolidate your stance by your own standards?

  1. Different people have interpreted it differently. For some people ‘INNA HU’ pertains to Quran and for others, it pertains to Isa (as).
  2. ‘SAA-AA’ may point to any time/moment as per literal meanings you are so much in love with, not necessarily to ‘Judgment day’.

To me, it pertains to Quran as it is the final code of life from Allah and valid till the Day of Judgment and it contains signs of judgment day.
As per the hadith you have mentioned, the sign of the Hour should be the holy prophet (pbuh) and the message he brought. ‘Don’t disbelieve in it and follow me. This is the right path’ also point in that direction.

100

Re: Return of Hazrat Isa A.S.

[quote]

I mean let's entertain the alternative ... so this will be mentioned by Isa (AS) on the Day of Judgment ... let consider Isa (AS) did not come again then and therefore any claimants to the second coming are fake. However if we then say that Masih will come again in the guise of another person then we need to ask which statements we have about Isa (AS) are applicable to the other claimants and which are only applicable to the first one Ibn Maryam (AS).

[/quote]

Why so much stress on ‘2[SUP]nd[/SUP] coming’. Who coined this term? Is it based in Quran or hadith or..? Nobody comes back for the 2nd time. Masih ibn mariam (as) has passed away. Quranic evidence has been presented to you. You cannot shy away from it. Those who stress on his ‘2[SUP]nd[/SUP] coming’ are destined to be like Jews who are wailing for his first coming for 2000+ years. The hadiths point to an ‘ummati’ (Imamikum minkum) who will come in later days for the revival of Islam.

[quote]

Also in the second coming he Isa (AS) according to hadith will unify the people on tawheed, break the cross and kill the swine - whatever that means ... by doing these things his life in the second coming becomes a clear refutation of the previous beliefs about him ... about the original Isa (AS) ... but if we assume therefore that the second coming was not him but someone else then we are left in a dilemma because he is not recognized as being that Isa (AS) by the Jews, Christians and the majority of Muslims so what was the purpose of the second coming?

[/quote]

What sort of logic is that? Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to the whole mankind. Even after 1400+ years, majority of the world hasn’t recognized him as a true messenger of Allah. Does that mean, he (pbuh) himself has to come again to make people believe in him? What are you talking about? After Jesus, world has moved on. Holy prophet (pbuh) has come and the religion of Allah has been perfected till the end of times and for all mankind. If anyone deserves to come back for the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] time, it is him (pbuh). Moreover, Jesus (as) was a messenger to bani-israel. His mandate was limited to bani-israel. So he certainly cannot lead and guide all as per Quran.