Q. I have the following questions:
a)
The Lahori Ahmadis prove in their writings that the birth, death, and
ascension of Jesus is as normal as all other human beings, and they are labeled
kafirs for their views. Should imams, shaykhs, mullas, and
scholars be calling other Muslims "kafirs" regardless of their
understanding of the Qur'an? Did the Prophet Muhammad and Qur'an condemn this
type of hate?
b)
Did the Prophet ascend to heaven physically or spiritually? Does the Qur'an
support the physical ascension view? Is the ahadith in accordance with
the Prophet being physically taken up? Did this event happen in a flash or
days? What was the purpose of the miraj? What was the status of the
Prophet when he saw Jesus in the heavens?
The Status of Jesus
A. We do share the same frustration regarding
many of the views given regarding Jesus, and do believe that some of the finest
Christological research has indeed been done by the Lahori Ahmadis.
However, the usage of the word "prove" is problematic when stating
that the Lahoris have proven their views in their writings on the birth,
death, and ascension of Jesus. In the first place, the Qur'an contains a great
deal of lacunae on the issue of Jesus, especially after the attempt at
crucifixion, and therefore nothing can be said to have been proven except what
is obvious in the Qur'an, which we shall deal with shortly.
As
far as Jesus' birth is concerned, certainly the Lahori position, as
explained by the Maulana of revered memory, Muhammad Ali, in his translation
of the Qur'an (note 422) is a strong one. Please note too that Maulana
Muhammad Ali was not the only Muslim to attribute Jesus' birth to totally
normal procedures, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan also did that. But despite the Maulana's
brilliant exegesis of verse 3:43 and note 422 in his translation of the Qur'an,
we take issue on certain minor points. It is true that Mary's mother did pray
for her and her children. But according to Sura 19, the angel's
visitation occurred when she was still a nazir -- i.e. still dedicated
to the service of the temple, therefore she could not
have been married at the time. We cannot assume that being a nazir was a
permanent thing, for Samson (according to the Bible) was one too, and we see
him later indulging in sexual activity. Note that verse 19:20 does not allow us
to assume any elliptical projection and surmise that the conception may have
occurred long after the angel's visit. Note too the angel's answer to Mary in
19:21 is the Lord saying that "It is easy to Me."
Would it not have set her heart at ease to hear from the angel that the boy
would come after her marriage? Also her reaction in 19:23,
"Would that I had died before this, and had been a thing quite
forgotten!" Why would she be so perturbed if the child were from Joseph?
And why, if she were married, would the people react as shown in 19:27?
In
verse 19:29 and Muhammad Ali's footnote 1543, he mentions that it was absurd
for Jesus to speak in the cradle, and that the older Jewish folk were inclined
to disparagingly refer to young men as "in the cradle." I contacted
Ira Robinson, Chief of the Jewish Historical Society of Canada, a Harvard
Graduate and Professor of Jewish Studies at Concordia University, and he
euphemistically states that he does not recall any such Jewish expression. In
light that this comes from one of the world's foremost experts of medieval
Jewish thought, and since Muhammad Ali provides no reference, we have to assume
that his "evidence" was wrong, and that the ayah must be taken
at face value. Regarding Muhammad Ali's argument about Jesus not being
commissioned to pray while still in the cradle (verse 19:31, note 1545), this
is obvious, and the meaning is that as soon as he is able to do so. Therefore,
it does not present any alleged absurdity at taking the ayah at its
literal value. This is quite in accordance with the rule regarding speech,
which states that "Speech is taken at its apparent meaning unless some
compelling factor precludes this." There is no compelling factor, and
to accept Muhammad Ali's exegesis would make the ayah in question
senseless. How could Mary, when questioned by her people about the child, point
to him, and then his answer was only much later at the age of maturity? Surely
we do not -- we cannot assume that the All-Wise Lord will ask us to believe
this, or otherwise construct the speech so unclear as to mislead us?
If
Jesus were of natural birth, why would Allah have to state what He did in v3:59
-- "That the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam,
whom Allah created from clay." Certainly here
Allah is dealing with the issue of birth, i.e. the creation of life, without
the normal agency of a mother and a father, otherwise
the reference would be meaningless. And the meaning is evident: as much as
Adam's creation, without parents, was simple for Allah, so too was that of
Jesus -- indeed simpler, for at least in Jesus' case, one parent was already
there. For Allah to not mention at this time that Jesus had a human father
would be a mistake on the part of the Divine One, a deliberate mistake that
would entail misguiding the entire Muslim umma for several centuries
until certain minds came about, minds which could not defend themselves with
any measure of success. And it goes without saying that such thoughts about Allah
are absurd.
In
verse 19:32, Jesus clearly mentions Allah's direction to be good to his mother,
and makes no mention of a father. Certainly this is strange, unless the matter
is as believed by the Christians and overwhelming majority of Muslims, i.e. the
virgin birth? Note too the angel's answer in 3:46, "When He decrees a
matter, He only says to it 'Be' and it is." For this reason, Jesus was
called "Kalimat Allah -- the Word of Allah." For it was by a
single word that he came into being. This debate about God's speech took a
similar shape, with different results, in Christian and Islamic theology. Since
the Christians also call Christ "the Word of God," they were faced
with an issue. The word is obviously speech, and to assume that it came about
in time would mean that at some point in time, God was without speech, an
incomprehensible thing. So they took the position that the Logos (word)
was in the beginning with God, and since this Logos is Christ, then he
too was in the beginning, and the word, part of the faculty of the Divine
Being, became a human, i.e. incarnation.
The
Muslims in debating about the Qur'an being the speech of God and thinking the
same way, decided that the Qur'an was uncreated. So
for the Christians, Christ was in the beginning, and for the Muslims, the
Qur'an was in the beginning, i.e., the word became the Qur'an. The Muslim
position is known by some as "inlibration." Both positions are
obviously the result of limited analysis. Allah does instruct by miracles, and
the Bani Israil were specifically targeted for
miracles. It would seem that the Lahori position on this matter is based
on certain suppositions, which while applicable to the Prophet's period, are
not applicable to that which was before. Miracles were not a trademark of the Prophet's
time, as evidenced by the Qur'anic verses on the issue. But they were, as
already stated, a part of the aid to the message of the Jews and Christians at
the time of their Prophets. It may also be on the supposition that the nature
of Jesus' birth makes him superior to the Prophet Muhammad. In answer to this,
please note that as Muslims, we do not differentiate between the Prophets in
terms of elevation, and this is by Qur'anic order. We accept them all, and to
say one is better than the other in terms of completeness is outside of our
jurisdiction.
All
of the foregoing evidence -- and we have by no means dealt with all -- indicate
that Jesus' birth was a miracle. It is illogical that any Muslim can adopt a
natural father theory on Jesus, since the Qur'an is quite explicit in its
methodology. Note that it came with the presupposition about the Jesus story
being known to a certain extent, and that all it fights against is the divinity
ascribed to Jesus and his mother. Were the virgin birth theory a fallacy,
certainly the Qur'an would have railed against it. To the best of our
knowledge, no debate ever occurred between the Muslims and the Christians on
the issue, and had this happened, certainly it would have been reported in the
history books and the hadith collections, which proves that this theory
was a much later development. The human father theory was started by Sir Sayyid
Ahmad, a natural thing since he was against miracles. Now a Muslim cannot go
against miracles, since it was a trademark of the Prophets before Muhammad. The
Qur'an confirms this in the answer that the Prophet Muhammad is commanded to
give: "…that Prophets came with miracles before and yet that did not
suffice." Also the Qur'an lets Jesus say that he cures the blind and
the leprous, brings the dead back to life, etc. all by Allah's will. Now if a
man can do this, why can God not bring him into being without the agency of a
man? And as Muslims, when we examine the virgin birth agency, we see the most
wonderful rhetoric of feminist ideology coming forth, meaning it shows that men
are not inherently superior. Here Allah shows that man is but a servant, and
can be disposed of in what he terms an essential role.
As
already stated, Sir Sayyid Ahmad came with the "normal procedures"
theory, and it is possible that there were others before him who came with
similar ideas, although I ascribe the theory to him. This is because the other mufassirs,
experts at Arabic, could not deny certain Qur'anic indicators, so they came up
with the theory that Mary was a hermaphrodite, a senseless one in view of the
fact that she asks: "How can I have a child when no man has touched
me." The whole problem seems to stem from the exegetes' need to
explain away three areas which seem problematic to them:
1)
That Allah should take a Jewish woman to be the "best woman" of all
time.
2)
That she should have a miracle of this sort wrought upon her.
3)
That it would seem as if Jesus were better than Muhammad if the virgin birth
were admitted. As I have stated before, apart from certain apparently logical
deductions, the Qur'an does not make any claim for Muhammad being better. In
fact, if one were to use internal evidence, one could make an argument (albeit
a specious one) for the preferred status of Jesus.
One
may say that Muhammad, being the final Prophet with a message to all humankind,
was entrusted with a more responsible task. Again, this is a deduction based on
our own perception and not the text of the Qur'an. This being said, let us hasten to draw attention to our position that
the finer details about Jesus' birth are overwhelmed by the Qur'anic focus on
what he did. The minutiae about his birth are for the Christians to debate
about, and it is not within the Qur'anic mandate to do this as he was a Prophet
of Israel, and they ought to focus on their Prophets more. It would seem that
the Qur'anic position is that of the Christian one. The only reason why certain
details are repeated is because by the time of the Prophet Muhammad, the name
of Mary had been maligned and slandered, and the Bani Israil who
rejected Jesus had accused her of whoredom with a Roman centurion. The Qur'an
therefore clears her of this charge, and takes the Christians to task for
ascribing divinity to her and her son. There is also a theory that if Jesus did
not have a human father, then Mary would have been stoned to death for zina
(adultery) according to Mosaic / Jewish law. Our response is that there is no
evidence that Mary was married. The Mosaic law is also
that a person shall not be put to death on the testimony of one (to the best of
our knowledge), and there was no eyewitness to any act of sexual impropriety.
Besides, the Qur'an provides the answer why: Jesus addressed his people when
his mother appeared with him as a newborn, so the people must have been
convinced with his miraculous explanation.
As
far as the death of Jesus goes, we feel that the Lahori position about a
natural death is the correct one, even though it may not be the accepted
position of the so-called "orthodoxy." As far as Jesus' journey to
Kashmir, we do not believe that there is evidence from the Qur'an to rule
categorically that he did or did not. Remember that in the Qur'an (3:48), Jesus
is designated as a Messenger to the children of Israel. One of the necessary qualifications
for a Prophet is that he be fluent in the language of his people, for in
delivering a divine message, there must be no room for error due to language.
Therefore, we do not see a reason as to why Jesus would have traveled to
Kashmir. To this position of ours, one may however raise some questions, such
as stating that Jesus may have taken his followers there. Again, people are
wont to accept their own, not a foreigner teaching them about God. So the best
position we may take about the Lahori view is what is known as "tawaqquf"
-- we do not issue a categorical verdict. This is because our position is based
on deductions, which, while to our judgment seem indubitable, are nonetheless
based on deduction, and we have already referred to the Qur'anic lacunae on the
post-attempted crucifixion phase of Jesus' life. There are some other arguments
that can be adduced from the Qur'an, and for these we suggest reading the
wonderful article at this web site about Jesus being with Allah by clicking here.
The Isra and Miraj
As
for the ascension of the Prophet Muhammad, our position is that it was
non-physical. The Qur'an does not in anyway support the bodily ascent for
several reasons. The Qur'an does not speak of the miraj as such, even
though we do not doubt it. But this is the precise reason why it was not
physical. When the Prophet was transported to the site of Solomon's temple, it
was to bring him into the highest stratum of prophethood as understood by the
Semitic religions. It was what is known in Jewish tradition as "maaseh
merkavah" -- the chariot ascent. Elijah did it, and even Paul claimed
it in the Bible. For this reason, the People of the Book were skeptical of the
Prophet's miraj, since they thought it was not for gentiles. And thus,
it was Allah's answer to them, and the Prophet Muhammad's sign of prophethood
with Allah and entry into the brotherhood. It proved that prophecy was not a
"Jewish" monopoly, and further underlined the Qur'anic view of
Prophets being sent to all nations.
Sura 17 speaks of the taking from Makkah to Al-Masjid
al-Aqsa. There was no Masjid al-Aqsa as such at the time, and if we
believe the traditions, then the temple of Solomon to which the Prophet was
transported was in a vision. If we take the ayah literally, it simply
means the site of the temple. In verse 60, it speaks of "ru'yaa,"
which is not in the sense of optical reality, but can only mean vision. Now
some commentators in referring to the second verse of Sura 17 wherein
Allah says "asraa bi abdihi" -- carried His servant --
interpret that "abdihi" meant physical, since "abd"
is an expression meaning the physical body. Our response to this is that by
using "abd" in this sentence, Allah is conferring the greatest
of honors on Muhammad, acknowledging him not as a mere astral voyager, but
indicating that Muhammad's merkavah ascent was the pinnacle of his "ubudiya."
I am referring to the verse which says: "And I have not created the
jinn and humankind except to worship me (li ya'budoon)."
When the Prophet was exalted to the position
where Allah could give him the favor of a maaseh merkavah, Allah used
the term "abdihi" to show Muhammad's perfection as a servant
of the Highest.
The term then has nothing to do with connotations of physicality. This
distinguishes between a dream and a vision. A dream may or may not be a figment
of the dreamer's imagination. A vision, in the Qur'anic context here -- is
something given to the Prophet by Allah. Now the umma
is in consensus that isra occurred in a single night, which, if it was
to a physical heaven, leaves us with certain improbabilities.
Considering that galaxies are light years away, and a trip to one of those
taken at the speed of light would take thousands of years or more to complete, one needs ask then: "Is heaven closer than
these galaxies that the Prophet could have completed the journey this
fast." The common answer is that it was a miracle and Allah can do what He
pleases. But that presents a problem, for even though we agree, as all Muslims
must, with the latter part of the foregoing statement, Muhammad never claimed
any miracles for himself, and would this not have been a miracle to let people
see and marvel?
Additionally,
one of the greatest proofs against the isra (and the miraj) being
physical is part of ayah 93 of sura 17, which in continuing the
discourse of the previous ayat, speaks of the people saying to Muhammad
that they will not believe in him until he ascends to heaven, and that they
would not believe in that ascension until he brought a book. Now certainly here
was a clear challenge placed by the people to the Prophet of Allah, and the
response is that he was but a mortal. Now if the ascension was physical, the
verse again becomes meaningless. For if it were before the isra, then
certainly the Prophet would have called them to witness, and not left any room
for doubt. An ascent in this case, if claimed by him to be physical, would have
been met with a totally logical retort: "O Muhammad, why did you not call
us to witness this miracle?" So that rules out a physical ascent if we
assume the verse was before the great happening.
If
the verse were after, again the scenario becomes illogical, for why are they
asking Muhammad to do something that has already been done, and why is he
giving this strange answer, i.e. that his mortality disallows it? This leads us
to several issues, many of them far beyond the apparent words of the question
addressed to us. Firstly, it answers the claims of the orientalists that
Muhammad's knowledge was gained from the Jews and Christians with whom he came
into contact. We have no evidence of a strong Jewish or Christian presence in
Makkah, and we know without a doubt that the verse was revealed in Makkah, with
the event supposedly occurring in the month of Rajab. This means that the
Prophet experienced something quite advanced -- the maaseh merkavah --
which is something very few Christians, if any, focused on, and which the Arab
Jews, if they were as uninformed about their own religion as claimed by the
orientalists, would not have enough knowledge to teach the Prophet about. And
such teaching would have occurred in their stronghold, Madina, not in Makkah,
since according to the (orientalist) theories, Muhammad's knowledge of Judaic
concepts, while he was in Makkah, was almost nothing.
So,
how can the Prophet experience this highest of elevations? As we have already
stated, it shows that he was in the brotherhood of those who are indeed close
to Allah, indeed in the vanguard. It also shows that Allah,
as if realizing the debates and lies that would arise afterward is creating
evidence for us to refute those who harbor hate and animosity towards our
glorious religion. If on the other hand, there are those who say that
the remainder of the ayah denotes some familiarity with the concept of
(spiritual) ascent, the words of the ayah also indicate that the people
are not willing that he should make a visionary ascent as did the other
Prophets. For now they tell him that they would not believe in this until he
brings a book (from that ascent). Now why would they challenge him and then
throw in this rider, as if to say: "And if you say that you made that
ascent, we will still not believe you." Note they are not challenging him
to do it physically so that they may witness it. They are asking for evidence
after it is done. Why would they not make the challenge of ocular witness -- because
they knew that ascents of the Prophets were always via vision, or as some say,
in spirit, not in body. And so, when they put
this business about a book in there, they were, to their own minds, creating an
impossible task. For if the Prophet did indeed bring a book to them, it would
have indicated that he was a liar. And so the answer, honest, simple, and divinely
inspired came: "He was but a man, and no such thing would happen, for by
Muhammad's time, the stage of miracles to support messengership had passed.
As
far as the prayer, etc. being legislated on that night, we think that all of
these ahadith are against the evidence of the Qur'an and indeed insult
Allah and His Prophets. They are representative in some cases of typical
Rabbinic imagery, wherein the Rabbis can and do argue with the Almighty Lord,
winning Him sometimes in debate. And so Allah, in not-so-divine wisdom, orders
Muhammad to have Muslims perform 50 prayers per day. But then, a mortal is
wiser than Allah and counsels Muhammad to go back several times and ask for a
reduction! In all truth, no one of sound mind can deny that in the foregoing scenario
-- that of the general ahadith presentation -- Moses is wiser and more
compassionate than Allah. How can a Muslim accept this? Did Muhammad in his
vision see the Prophets, including Jesus? We do not have any indubitable
evidence to accept or not accept this. The grades that were given to the
Prophets certainly do not go against the Qur'an, which tells us that Allah has
given higher grades to some Prophets than others. But the very Qur'an tells us
to declare that we do not differentiate between them.
We
feel that the whole discussion in the classical works about the ascension is
taken in a vacuum far removed from the environment familiar with the concept of
"maaseh merkavah." The ahadith all seem to serve a
tendentious function, which seems beyond the humility of the Prophet. Our
feeling is that many of the later ahadith were embellished with details
to make the ascension acceptable to the People of the Book. And there were yet
later additions when the Muslims began to lose sight of the time-space factor
of the verses, and placed the Qur'anic terminology in the quagmire of
literalness. It is our advice that Muslims who wish to understand the ascension
concept further read books written by some Jewish scholars on the issue. These
books should be available at any university library under the various headings
of "heavenly ascent," "chariot ascent," "maaseh
merkavah," "merkabah," "merkavah," and so on.
Kufr
As
far as the imprecations that are so notoriously present among our so-called
scholars, we do not feel that one should call another "kafir"
except when one clearly and indubitably rejects Allah. This means that the
person says it in clear language. Now if someone interprets the Qur'an a
certain way, no matter how farfetched it may seem to the catholic segment of
Islam, we do not feel that it warrants the term of kufr. At the same
time, however, we feel that some of our scholars use the term to indicate the
greatest disapproval. Remember the word is Arabic and originally means
"thankless, ungrateful," and only in later ayat came to mean
"rejectionist." It is possible that one could still use it in its
pristine linguistic sense, although the usage would be arcane. In Pakistan, the
term has only one meaning, which is why in that country the word is more
severe. That being said, let us point out that the word "kafir"
even if it is used, should not prevent the one to whom it is addressed from
observing Islamic adab. S/he should simply say that s/he believes in
Islam, and differs with the imprecators on certain issues.
On
the matter of debate about certain issues, the Qur'an asks that we produce "burhaan"
to prove our point. In the case of Jesus, as we have mentioned, in many cases
the lacunae prevent the providing of such burhaan (decisive proof), and
as such we feel that Muslims should avoid certain topics of debate regarding
him. What is interesting is that against the Jews and the Christians, the
Qur'an adopts a rather conciliatory tone, condemning them not to hell, but
asking us to work together for a better world (2:62; 3:64). They have to a
certain extent committed shirk, an unforgivable sin. Yet, because the shirk
is not extremely clear, since they claim the three in one concept, and the
Jewish Uzair controversy in unclear to us at this point in time, Allah still
keeps the gates of Paradise open to them.
Now,
a Muslim certainly should show more to his/her fellow Muslim in terms of
brotherhood and sisterhood, for whatever the differences, we are still within
the fold of Islam. Matters of dogma, unless clearly specified in the Qur'an,
are not enough to take one out of the fold of Islam,
therefore the charge of kufr cannot be launched on such matters. To the
best of our knowledge, the Lahori ostracism from mainstream Islam is
based on certain minor doctrinal issues. If the question was in reference to
those who call Maulana Muhammad Ali a kafir, it is our feeling
that they would come closer to the One True Allah if they contemplated the Maulana's
teachings. The learned Maulana was but a man, and if he made mistakes in
some things, then he did so in the genuine search for truth, and were he not to
make mistakes, he would not have been human. If the Prophet Muhammad were alive
today, it is quite possible that his interpretation of the Qur'an would not
have been good enough for many Muslims, and in all likelihood, the epithet of "kafir"
would have been leveled against him in some circles. May we become better
Muslims and establish the broad unity of "al ukhuwa al-Islamiyya."
And Allah knows best.
Posted November 9, 1999