Skip to content

Chapter 8: Summary of Discussions

Back to The Descent of Jesus

Summary of Discussions

In our academic tradition, the concept of the second coming of Prophet Jesus (PBUH) is referred to under the title of ‘Descent of Jesus.’ It signifies that he is alive in the heavens and will personally descend to Earth just before the Day of Judgment.

Scholars’ Reasoning

Scholars’ Reasoning

According to the scholars, this concept is supported by both the Qur’an and the prophetic Hadiths. The main points of reasoning are:

  1. It is deduced from verses 54-55 of Surah Aale Imran that Prophet Jesus (PBUH) was taken up alive by Allah, thus he has not yet died. The evidence lies in the words Innī mutawaffīka wa rafi’uka ilayya meaning “I have decided that you will die [or “I will take you”] and I will raise you to Myself.” The term Innī mutawaffīka (I will grant you death) does not mean to cause death but to take in possession, and rafi’uka ilayya (I will raise you to Myself) signifies the whole existence of Jesus (PBUH) including both his body and soul.
  2. From the words of Surah An-Nisa, verse 159 wa in min ahli al-kitābi illā layu’minanna bihī qabla mawtihī (“And there is none from the People of the Book but will surely believe in him (Jesus) before his (Jesus) death”), it is concluded that Jesus (PBUH) is alive with Allah and will descend to Earth before the Day of Judgment. This is possible only after his descent, that every person among the People of the Book will believe in him.
  3. The Descent of Jesus has been mentioned in several hadith reports. The narratives on this topic have been transmitted in most books of hadith with authentic and valid chains of narration. They report that Prophet Jesus (PBUH) will descend with angels at a minaret of a mosque in Damascus and will lead the army of Muslims. He will then slay the Dajjal and his Jewish followers. Through his prayers, Gog and Magog will also be destroyed. The world will become a cradle of peace and harmony, and no religion other than Islam will remain on Earth. He will rule the world for forty years as a just leader. After this, he will pass away; Muslims will perform his funeral prayers and bury him. Soon after his death, the Day of Judgment will occur.

Objections to the Concept of Descent of Jesus by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

Objections to the Concept of Descent by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi considers the concept of the Descent of Jesus as subject to review because of the objections that arise when examining this concept in light of the Qur’an and assessing the related hadith based on the principles of narration and understanding. These objections are as follows:

  1. The personality of Jesus (PBUH) has been discussed in the Qur’an from multiple angles. The Qur’an has commented on his message and personality at various places. The commotion of the Day of Judgment is also a special subject of the Qur’an. The event of a revered Messenger descending alive from the heavens is not of minor significance. Despite the context that demands explanation, there is not even a slight hint to this event anywhere in the plain text of the Qur’an. Can reason and knowledge be satisfied with this silence? It is not easy to accept this.
  2. Verses 116-119 of Surah Al-Maidah narrate a dialogue that Allah will have with Jesus (PBUH) on the Day of Judgment. Allah will ask him about the primary cause of the Christians’ misguidance, whether he instructed them to take him and his mother as gods besides Allah. In response, among other things, he will say that he only said to them what Allah had commanded, and as long as he was among them, he observed what they were doing. But when Allah took him up, he did not know how they followed or abandoned his teachings, and after his ascension, Allah was their overseer. In this context, the last sentence does not warrant Jesus’s descent to the world before the Day of Judgment. Had he returned, he ought to say that he witnessed their ignorance and warned them recently.
  3. Verse 55 of Surah Aale Imran outlines the plan of action for Jesus (PBUH) until the Day of Judgment. While describing the plan for Jesus and his followers until the Day of Judgment, Allah could have stated explicitly that He would send Jesus (PBUH) to the world again before the Day of Judgement. However, the Almighty did not do so. If Jesus (PBUH) were to return, why is there silence on this issue? There is no reasonable explanation.
  4. The earliest available book of hadith is Sahifah Hammam ibn Munabbih, compiled around 58 AH. It does not include the narrative of the Descent of Jesus. It contains 138 hadiths in total, all narrated by Abu Huraira (RA), an important narrator of the hadiths concerning the descent of Jesus. It is surprising that when he dictated hadith to his direct student, Hammam ibn Munabbih, he did not include the narrative of the Descent, though he has narrated it elsewhere. Moreover, this Sahifah includes some other hadith reports relating to Jesus (PBUH) and the Dajjal but not the more significant narration about the Descent of Jesus and the killing of Dajjal. It also mentions five narratives about the signs of the approaching Day of Judgment, but the prominent sign of the Descent of Jesus is not mentioned in them.
  5. The Muwatta is the first formal compilation of hadith. It also does not include the narrative of the Descent of Jesus. Compiled by Imam Malik after 40 years of effort and completed in 140 AH, it was compiled in Medina – the city of the Prophet. Imam Malik lived for about 40 years after its compilation – teaching and reviewing it. If no record as extraordinary as the narration of the Descent of Jesus reached him during the lengthy period of compilation and review, and given such proximity to the original narrators, the Companions, it raises questions. If it did reach him and he chose not to accept it, that too is problematic. It is even more surprising that a dedicated chapter related to Jesus (PBUH) and Dajjal was recorded in Muwatta, titled ‘Chapter on the Description of Jesus son of Mary, and Dajjal.’ In that chapter, only one narrative is included that describes a dream of the Prophet in which he saw Jesus and Dajjal.
  6. The number of Marfu hadiths (a hadith that goes back to the Prophet) about the Descent of Jesus exceeds 80, which have been narrated by roughly 30 Honored Companions. Imam Bukhari has selected only three narrations from among these, all of which are reported from the same companion, Abu Huraira (RA). Of these three narrations, two are such that they are two different chains of the same narration. Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri is the primary narrator in these hadiths. This means that he has relied on the narrations of al-Zuhri in this context. Imam Bukhari’s approach highlights his hesitation regarding all the narrations about Jesus’s descent.
  7. In Muslim, No. 7460, the event of Jesus’s descent is described in detail. It is clear that Jesus will descend at the exact moment when, after conquering Constantinople, the Muslim army turns back towards Medina upon hearing the news of the appearance of the Dajjal. However, the reality is that Constantinople was conquered on May 29, 1453 corresponding to 20 Jumada al-Awwal 857 AH. Since then, it has remained in the possession of Muslims; in fact, it is Istanbul, the capital of the Islamic state of Turkey. This means that the time determined by the hadith of Muslim for the Descent of Jesus is immediately after the conquest of Constantinople. This time has already passed in June/July 1453. Constantinople has been conquered, but neither has the Dajjal appeared, nor has Jesus (PBUH) descended. Following this account, one of the two points must be deemed correct and the other assigned to be an error or an addition of the narrator: either one has to accept that the narrative regarding the Descent of Jesus is correct but the mention of the conquest of Constantinople and its victorious army is an addition or admit that the mention of the conquest of Constantinople and its victorious army is correct but the detail regarding the Descent of Jesus is an addition. Both these interconnected events cannot be accepted simultaneously because one of them has already occurred 570 years ago.

If one of these two events is accepted and the other rejected, the entire narration becomes ambiguous because, if the prophecy of the Prophet (PBUH) has been transmitted correctly, then it cannot have the slightest change or alteration. His word is a decree of destiny, unfolding exactly as it has been pronounced by his blessed tongue. It should be noted that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, has given glad tidings of Paradise to the Muslims who would undertake the campaign against Constantinople.

To resolve this issue, our scholars, instead of preferring one of the two aforementioned possibilities or delaying judgment on the narration, have presented an interpretation. According to that interpretation, the conquest of Constantinople that took place in 1453 is not the one mentioned in the narration. According to them, the event of the conquest of Constantinople will happen again. At that time, Jesus (PBUH) will descend, and the events mentioned in the said narration will transpire.

Several logical objections arise regarding this interpretation. Firstly, considering the extraordinary historical context of Constantinople and how Muslims strived for centuries to conquer it, keeping in mind the prophecy and glad tidings of the Messenger of Allah, it is evident that if Constantinople is to be conquered again, the second conquest will not be as remarkable and extraordinary as the first.

Secondly, to adopt this interpretation, we would have to turn back the wheel of civilization and culture; one would have to assume that the era will return when wars will be fought with lances and swords instead of gunpowder, atomic, and chemical weapons, and the structured order of modern armies, where soldiers are salaried employees of the state, will be abandoned. The old practice will return when the spoils of war were distributed among soldiers after victory.

Thirdly, it must be assumed that Istanbul (Constantinople), the capital of Turkey, will once again fall into the hands of the Romans and regain the same extraordinary religious and political significance it held in the fifteenth century CE or before.

Fourthly, adopting this interpretation implies nullifying the status of the prophecy for the aforementioned narrative or collection of narratives. This is because a prophecy is only deemed a prophecy when it informs about a specific and timed future event. If we cannot determine the number of times the Muslims will conquer Constantinople, and which conquest will be followed by Jesus’s descent – it is not decided which conquest of Constantinople has been referred to in the prophecy – then how can this narration be characterized as a prophecy?

Lastly, if the meaning and reference to one event in the narration, i.e., the conquest of Constantinople, is ambiguous, then how can the meanings and references to the other events, i.e., the Descent of Jesus and the emergence of the Dajjal, be deemed free from ambiguity?

  1. It is clear from the hadith narrations that the Descent of Jesus is one of the signs of the nearness of the Day of Judgment. Among the hadith reports that mention the signs of the approach of the Day of Judgment, some count and list these signs. Some of them mention three signs, some four, some six, and some ten signs. When all of these are combined, a total of fifteen to twenty signs emerge: the Descent of Jesus, the Dajjal, Gog and Magog, smoke, the beast of the earth, the sun rising from the West, the sinking of the earth in the East, the sinking of the earth in the West, the sinking of the land in the Arabian Peninsula, a slave girl giving birth to her mistress, a fire that will emerge from Yemen and drive people out, a wind that will lift people and throw them into the sea, death, the emergence of 30 Dajjals, Christian majority ruling Rome, the competition in constructing tall buildings, etc. Among these, the most extraordinary sign is the Descent of Jesus. Compared to the other signs, it is also the most prominent, extremely supernatural, and its meaning and application are crystal clear. Therefore, it is naturally expected that if any tradition counts the signs of the nearness of the Day of Judgment, the sign of the Descent of Jesus should certainly be included. It is against human reason and experience to omit the most prominent matter and instead mention comparatively less important things. Now the reality is that in many narrations mentioning the signs of the Day of Judgment, the Descent of Jesus is not mentioned. In a narration recorded in Sahih Muslim, No. 7584, six signs of the Day of Judgment are mentioned, but the Descent of Jesus is not included. Similarly, in a narration recorded in Sahih Bukhari, No. 7121, 11 signs of the Day of Judgment are detailed, including the sign of the Dajjal, but the sign of the Descent of Jesus is not included. The narration in Sunan al-Tirmidhi, No. 3072, mentions three signs but does not include the Descent of Jesus. The narration in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, No. 23996, lists six signs of the Day of Judgement but does not include the Descent of Jesus. There are other such examples in the books of hadith.
  2. The statements of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, cannot contain contradiction or inconsistency. Whatever he conveyed about religion is from Allah, and therefore it is free from errors like forgetfulness, contradictions, and inconsistencies. This is both a factual reality and an established principle of hadith sciences. Thus, when any such situation arises within our scholarly tradition, preference is given to hadiths more aligned with the Qur’an and the Sunnah, as well as with knowledge and reason. If this preference is not possible, then an explanation is sought considering the circumstances, time, and audience. If the ambiguity persists, such hadiths are left aside, and cannot be used as a basis for argument or evidence. Some internal and external aspects in the narratives concerning the Descent of Jesus carry contradictions and inconsistencies. One significant example of this contradiction is that, according to traditions about the Descent of Jesus, Jesus (PBUH) will eliminate all Christians and Jews from the world. Consequently, the Day of Judgment will occur when only Muslims remain in the world, with no existence of Christians. However, a tradition in Sahih Muslim, No. 2898, presents a different report, stating that the Day of Judgment will occur when there is a majority of Christians in the world.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Stance Resulting from These Objections

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Stance Resulting from These Objections

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi believes that the issues identified above prevent the narratives about the Descent of Jesus and the related events from being accepted as defined, tangible, and observed incidents. It is not permissible to attribute such a concept to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, with its current understanding because attributing an unreliable and dubious matter to the noble person of the Prophet is contrary to religion and faith.

The question then arises, if Javed Ahmed Ghamidi does not consider the well-known concept of the Descent of Jesus attributable to the Prophet (PBUH), does he reject all the numerous narratives on this topic? The answer is negative. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi indeed accepts all the narratives on this subject; however, he interprets them in the light of the narrative attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (RA) No. 4081 in Sunan Ibn Majah. From this narrative, it is clear that the matter of the Descent of Jesus and the killing of the Dajjal was discussed by Jesus (PBUH) himself in the presence of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) during the event of Prophet Muhammad’s ascension (Isra). According to the narration, when the Prophet (PBUH) met the various prophets during the dream of the Isra and Mi‘raj, the issue of the Day of Judgment was also discussed. Jesus (PBUH) informed them that he would descend before the Day of Judgment and kill the Dajjal.

According to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, the words fa’anzala and faqtulahu in this narration (I will descend and I will kill him) cannot be interpreted literally to accept that Jesus (PBUH) will personally descend from the heavens. There are two fundamental reasons for this:

Firstly, the Holy Qur’an rejects this interpretation.

Secondly, the specific time mentioned in the narrations for the Descent of Jesus has already passed, and the event of the Descent of Jesus has not occurred. This predetermined time was the year 857 Hijri, corresponding to 1453 AD, which passed 570 years ago. If the words about the Descent of Jesus were to be taken literally, then the Dajjal would have appeared at that time, and Jesus (PBUH) would have descended and killed him. However, historical evidence carries no hint to any such incident.

The only way to accept the Descent of Jesus now is to interpret it allegorically and metaphorically. The reason is that sometimes Allah shows realities to His Prophets through true dreams. Some of those dreams need interpretation as they may not always correspond directly with reality. Typically, the future circumstances and events shown in the world of dreams employ allegory and metaphor. The nature of these dreams is such that forthcoming events appear as examples. Thus, an example takes on a physical form, sometimes representing the event and sometimes narrated as the event’s story. In both cases, the relationship between the event and the example is metaphorical.

Some of the interpretive realities of different types of dreams narrated in the Qur’an and hadith have been described in the Qur’an itself. Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) saw in a dream that he was sacrificing his son, Prophet Ismail (PBUH). Obviously, the interpretation was that he had to dedicate his son to the service of the sanctuary for Allah. Prophet Joseph (PBUH) saw the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrating before him in a dream. The interpretation was not that these celestial bodies would physically prostrate before him, but rather that his parents and eleven brothers would bow down to him out of respect.

Based on this reasoning, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has deemed the statement of the Descent (second coming) of Jesus to be symbolic and has identified its interpretative reality in the light of parallels from the Qur’an, the Bible, and Hadiths. Thus, his stance is that the mention of the Descent of Jesus does not refer to his personal return, but a metaphoric descent. Meaning, when Jesus (PBUH) said that he would descend, it did not mean that he would return in person but rather indicated the re-emergence of his guidance – which Christians have completely eliminated.

In his view, this metaphor is the same as the one Jesus (PBUH) mentioned concerning his judgment. As it is clear from the Gospel of Matthew that he, as a messenger, likened the establishment of his judgment to his coming and stated, ‘As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man (Jesus). For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up till the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.’ (Matthew 24:37-39)

It is evident that Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s position on the matter of Jesus’s descent is an analogy based on the words and applications of hadith and the identified excerpt from the Gospel. That is, he has drawn a parallel between the words of hadith, ‘I (Jesus, son of Mary) will descend,’ with the words of the Gospel, ‘the Son of Man (Jesus, son of Mary) will come,’ and interpreted both in the same manner as a metaphorical coming, just as the metaphorical reality of the Gospel’s prophecy is established in the pages of history. So, just as there, his ‘coming’ refers to the ‘coming of his judgment,’ similarly in the hadith, his ‘coming’ refers to the ‘coming of his guidance.’

The question then arises that if Jesus’s guidance had already arrived two thousand years ago, what is the nature of its re-emergence and why is it necessary?

The answer is that this refers to the revival and renewal of his guidance – the second appearance of his guidance. This recurrence is necessary because his original guidance has completely vanished from the thoughts and practices of his followers. Instead, they have adopted a religion which is the opposite of his original guidance. Such an extraordinary event has not occurred with the guidance of any other Messenger. There are three extraordinary aspects of this event: Firstly, the guidance of Jesus (PBUH) was deprived of the foundation of monotheism. Secondly, the Sharia given by him was entirely abrogated. And thirdly, it has been accepted that Jesus (PBUH) by crucifixion has paid the atonement for the sins of all humans.

In this context, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s analogy is that before the Day of Judgment, the guidance of Jesus (PBUH) will be restored in its original form. The likely scenario is that a movement for religious renewal and revival will arise among the Christians, which will terminate the religion established by Saint Paul and re-establish the original religion of Jesus (PBUH). As a result, the cross will be broken, meaning it will be utterly destroyed along with all its associated concepts. The pig will be killed, implying the law prohibiting pork consumption will be restored. Animosity between Muslims and Christians will cease, meaning when Christians return to the original guidance and abandon the doctrine of Trinity and accept monotheism, the foundation for war and argument between the Christians and Muslims will no longer exist.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s position on the interpretation of Innī mutawaffīka wa rāfi‘uka ilayya

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Position on the Interpretation of Innī mutawaffīka wa rāfi‘uka ilayya

In the phrase of Surah Aale Imran (3:55), Innī mutawaffīka wa rāfi‘uka ilayya (I have decided to take your soul and lift you towards me), it is inferred that Allah Almighty had lifted Jesus (PBUH) alive, hence Jesus has not yet died and is still alive in the heavens. The argument is that in Innī mutawaffīka (I will take your soul), the meaning of death is not to cause death but to take into custody, and in rāfi‘uka ilayya (I will raise you towards me), the pronoun refers to the entire existence of Jesus, which includes both body and soul.

According to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, the word tawaffā clearly means death, and it is incorrect to interpret it as full possession. His arguments are as follows:

Firstly, the accepted convention of language is that the meaning of words and styles is determined by their known and commonly used meanings. Likewise, the decision as to whether a word is used in its literal or figurative meaning at a particular place is also made by common convention. Therefore, the meaning of tawaffā should not be determined by looking at its various meanings in the dictionary but by observing its use in the sentence. Whatever verdict the convention of language arrives at regarding its use will be accepted.

Secondly, it is an established fact in language that the meaning of a verb used in a sentence is not determined solely based on that verb, but rather it is determined based on the relations to which that verb is attributed. The verb tawaffā carries different meanings in diverse situations. The author of Aqrab al-Mawarid has described four prominent relations for it. If any object in the form of a matter accompanies it, it implies the completion of that matter. If the word ‘period’ is its object, it means reaching the completion of that period. If the object is ‘counting people’, it implies counting people thoroughly. If Allah is the subject and the object is a human, then it means the seizure of the soul, i.e., Allah has seized his soul and given him death. In the phrase Innī mutawaffīka, the subject of tawaffā is the pronoun ‘I’ referring to Allah, and the object is ‘you’ (ka) referring to Jesus (PBUH). Thus, the verb tawaffā is emanating from Allah and is applied to a human, Jesus. In this case, it definitively means the seizure of the soul, which necessarily results in death. Thus, considering the rules of the Arabic language, the phrase cannot imply anything other than the death of Jesus (PBUH). Examples from the Qur’an and hadith also testify that when tawaffā is used in the context of Allah and a human, it means the seizure of life. There is not a single example in the Qur’an and hadith that differs from this rule of language and expression.

As far as the interpretation of rāfi‘uka ilayya (I will raise you to Myself) with regard to the notion of Jesus (PBUH) being taken up alive is considered, it is against the principles of language and articulation. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s stance is that neither the meaning of ‘raising’ can be determined independently from the composition of the sentence, nor can the interpretation of the following and preceding parts be based on that isolated meaning. The meanings of the two parts Rāfi‘uka ilayya wa mutahhiruka mina alladhīna kafarū will be determined based on their coordination with Innī mutawaffīka. Hence, if the meaning of tawaffā definitively is the seizure of the soul, meaning death, there is no room to extract such a meaning from the subsequent words that contradict or differ from death. On this basis, the esteemed scholar has applied the pronoun of ‘raising you’ to the body of Jesus (PBUH), from which the soul was seized. According to him, this particular treatment with Jesus (PBUH) was done in order to protect his pure body from any tampering or desecration.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Interpretation of Layu’minanna bihi qabla mawtihī

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s Interpretation of layu’minanna bihī qabla mawtihī

In the interpretation of layu’minanna bihi qabla mawtihī most scholars and commentators believe that the words of Surah An-Nisa, verse 159, wa in min ahli al-kitābi illā layu’minanna bihī qabla mawtihī wa yawma al-qiyāmati yakūnu ‘alayhim shahīdan refer to Jesus (PBUH) and mean that ‘there will be none from the People of the Book who will not believe in him (Jesus) before his death and on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) will be a witness against them.’ The meaning is that every person from the People of the Book will necessarily believe in Jesus (PBUH) before his death. This interpretation is used to affirm the life of Jesus, and thus, according to some scholars, this verse corroborates the narrations about the second coming of Jesus. When the two prospects are combined, the idea of Jesus being alive and his descent is deemed correct.

However, according to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, Surah An-Nisa was revealed after the Hijra, at a time when a Muslim state had been established in Medina and the Prophet Muhammad was completing his argument of religion over the People of the Book and purifying the Muslims. This surah contains 176 verses, but its subject matter is completed at verse 126. From there on till the end, there is an appendix, which comments on the questions and objections of the addressees. Among these is the demand of the People of the Book included in verse 153, stated as Yas’aluka ahlu al-kitab an tunazzila ‘alayhim kitāban mina as-samāi meaning, ‘The People of the Book are demanding from you (Prophet Muhammad) to bring down a book other than the Qur’an directly from the heavens.’ Before addressing this demand, Allah in a very stern tone, listed the gravest crimes of the Jews, then while responding to the demand, He decreed wa in min ahli al-kitābi illā layu’minanna bihī qabla mawtihī wa yawma al-qiyāmati yakūnu ‘alayhim shahīdan meaning, ‘Every one of them is bound to believe in it (the Qur’an) before his own death, and on the Day of Resurrection, it (the Qur’an) will be a witness against them.’ Ghamidi sees the referent of layu’minanna bihi as the Holy Qur’an and the pronoun in qabla mawtihī as every individual from the People of the Book who was a direct addressee of the Prophet. He considers this the only acceptable interpretation given the theme of the discourse, the arrangement of sentences, and the context of the verse. In his view, the context of the discourse rejects the interpretation of the scholars. However, even if one were to accept the scholar’s interpretation for the sake of argument, there is no defined way to apply or realize it. As a result, it leads to a situation of impossibility, and the contents of the verse no longer remain relevant or plausible.