Jesus Will Return - Site

Salam Ahmet,

I would like those verses from the Quran which indicates Jesus's return.There is an understanding that this is  false coz wouldnt that make him the last prophet??????!!

Peace!

The important point  being missed here is that Jesus will return as a follower of Muhammad and will uphold the Sharia.  Therefore, he will not be bringing something new. 

Haris, there is plenty in the Quran to indicate that Jesus (pbuh) will return.  It does not say "Jesus will return" but it alludes to his return.  For instance, the Quran says that Jesus did not die on the cross and that he was raised up to Allah (4:157), but verse 159 says the following:

"And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- "

How will Jesus die if he will not return?  It is very clear that he was not killed on the cross and was raised to Allah alive.  Therefore, unless he will return a second time and then die, verse 159 would not make any sense.  A second coming is the only explanation.  That is why the majority of scholars have accepted the validity of the second coming. 

Consider also 43:61 which states:

"And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way."

This cannot refer to his first coming as that was 2,000 years ago. 

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was the last prophet.  I agree.  But wait...don't you believe that Rashid Khalifa was a prophet?  So, first of all, what makes you discount the second coming of Jesus on the ground that the Quran says there will be no more prophets after Muhammad, yet you believe that RK was a prophet? 

Like I said, when Jesus returns, he will not return as a prophet but as a deliverer.  He will return as a follower of Muhammad (pbuh), and will not bring anything new, whether laws, teachings or prophecies.  All of that was covered by prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  Therefore, Jesus is not the last prophet, even though he will return for a second time.  If it was stated that Jesus would return to replace the Shariah, the Quran and Islam, then you would have a valid argument.  But since that is not the case, your argument is mute.       

this part of the verse is clearly in the past tense and not the future or present tense,u can examine the arabic text using an Arabic to English Translator available online).

Clearly, you are incorrect because every reputable translation contradicts RK's translation (which is what you are clearly using):

Yusuf Ali: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

Pickthall: There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them -

Shakir: And there is not one of the followers of the Book but most certainly believes in this before his death, and on the day of resurrection he (Isa) shall be a witness against them.

Arberry: There is not one of the People of the Book but will assuredly believe in him before his death, and on the Resurrection Day he will be a witness against them.

Bewley: There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in him before he dies; and on the Day of Rising he will be a witness against them.

Palmer: And there shall not be one of the people of the Book but shall believe in him before his death; and on the day of judgment he shall be a witness against them.

Sale: And there shall not be one of those who have received the scriptures, who shall not believe in him, before his death; and on the day of resurrection he shall be a witness against them.

Asad: Yet there is not one of the followers of earlier revelation who does not, at the moment of his death, grasp the truth about Jesus; and on the Day of Resurrection he [himself] shall bear witness to the truth against them.

Aziz: And there shall not be one of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he shall be a witness against them.

In light of all these translations, along comes Mr. Khalifa and decides he knows better.  The evidence contradicts Khalifa's claims.

From the above verses it is clear that GOD didnt say that Jesus never died.The righteous do not really die ,they are simply raised to GOD.As far as this world is concerned, he did die and this is why the Jews claimed that they killed him.The people of the book in this verse are the Jews during  Jesus's time.They were supposed to believe in him but they disbeleived.And Yes it is true that GOD raised his soul to him.

This is nothing more than a revisionist interpretation.  It has been the overwhelming majority opinion in the 1400+ years of Islamic history that Jesus did not die.  There would have been no reason for God to say that Jesus did not die but it was made to appear to them, but that he really did die but is not really dead because "the righteous do not die".  One can see the nonsense in such reasoning. 

The term "people of the book" was used only when referring to both Christians and Jews and you know it.  It would again not make sense for God to use the title "people of the book" to refer to just the Jews when throughout the Quran God referred to them as the "Children of Israel". 

So why didnt GOD say in the Quran that Jesus DIED??The below verse answers the question.[2:154] Do not say of those who are killed in the cause of GOD, "They are dead." They are alive at their Lord, but you do not perceive.*  [3:169] Do not think that those who are killed in the cause of GOD are dead; they are alive at their Lord, enjoying His provisions.

 

The Quran also refers to the previous prophets who were killed:

(2:61)And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.

(3:21) As to those who deny the Signs of Allah and in defiance of right, slay the prophets, and slay those who teach just dealing with mankind, announce to them a grievous penalty.

Why didn't Allah (swt) make the same distinction here when referring to the messengers and prophets who were killed by the wicked among the Jews?

Well well.... i beg to differ brother.Jesus is certainly a sign of the last hour no doubt but it was his birth and not the second coming as u claim.Proof???Look at the below verse.[47:18] Are they waiting until the Hour comes to them suddenly? All the signs thereof have already come.* Once the Hour comes to them, how will they benefit from their message?

It was not referring to his birth.  It says that Jesus "shall be" a sign of the last hour.  This was after he was born.

Why wud GOD say that the signs have already come when the Quran was revealed if Jesus's second coming  which is yet to come is a sign of the hour ???!!!

  

That is because most translations say that "some" of the signs have already come, not all of them.  If all the signs have already come, don't you think that the last hour would have come already?  What would be the point of all the signs when, 1,500 years later, the hour still hasn't come yet?

This is a diversion from the subject of discussion here.However since you brought it up i wud like to clarify that RK was not a prophet.He was a messenger of GOD and there is a difference.Since that is not the topic of discussion here i wouldnt want to elaborate this here.If u need more info u can check it up online or we will discuss this elsewhere inshallah.

 

This is another one of Khalifa's own made-up ideas.  It is true that there is a distinction between a prophet and a messenger, but what is clear is that every messenger was also a prophet (while every prophet was not necessarily a messenger).  Take the examples of Hud, Salih and Shuaib.  All three are mentioned as making prophecies (so they were nabis) but also were referred to as "rasuls" (messengers).  Therefore, by claiming that he was a messenger, you are also claiming that he was a prophet, and a prophet make prophecies. 

What proof did RK bring that he was a messenger of God?  His discovery of a mathematical code?  How is that proof?  He couldn't have done it without the use of computers in the first place.  How does that make him a messenger of God?  

Edited by islamispeace - 11 April 2010 at 11:19am