In a well-known narration, the Prophet (upon whom be peace) said, “Allah does not take away knowledge by removing it from the hearts of people, but He takes it away by the death of the scholars until no scholar remains. Then people will turn to the ignorant who, when asked for religious opinions, will issue decrees without knowledge. They will be misguided and will misguide others” (Sahih al-Bukhari, 100; Sahih Muslim, 2673). In truth, therefore, the rise of ignorance is predicated on the demise of scholars.

Hocaefendi, Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, a visionary scholar and spiritual leader, dedicated much of his life to promoting knowledge, understanding, and unity among people of all faiths. In a few decades, Gülen grew from a local educator and preacher in Turkey into a global advocate for peace and interfaith dialogue, inspiring millions worldwide with his message of respect, tolerance, and service to humanity. His teachings were grounded in a deep Islamic spirituality, yet his outlook remained inclusive, advocating for harmony across religious and cultural divides. His work found resonance not only among Muslims but also among people of various faiths, who saw in him a man committed to bridging the divides that often fragment communities.

Gülen’s philosophy emphasized that true faith is a source of empathetic engagement and understanding. He believed that love for one’s own beliefs does not diminish the capacity to respect and appreciate the beliefs of others. This conviction led him to establish dialogue initiatives across the world, seeking common ground between Muslims, Christians, Jews, and followers of other religions. Through platforms such as the Hizmet Movement, Gülen fostered a global community committed to education, social development, and peacebuilding. In his view, service to humanity was the highest form of devotion to God, and he encouraged his followers to embrace education as a tool for enlightenment and societal advancement.

His approach to interfaith dialogue was not just intellectual but deeply heartfelt, driven by the cognizance that the human composite consists of the spirit, the intellect, and the heart. Gülen’s words carried a rare poetic depth, often touching on the shared values of love, kindness, and compassion that underpin all major religious traditions. He saw these qualities as essential threads in the fabric of human connection. Gülen likened interfaith efforts to the nurturing of a garden, where every flower represents a different tradition, each contributing to the beauty of the whole. Gülen embodied the paradigmatic Hadith of Mercy: “Those who are merciful are treated with mercy by the Most Merciful. Bestow mercy onto those on Earth, and He who is in Heaven will bestow mercy onto you” (al-Tirmidhi, 1924).

In his passing, the world has lost a scholar who embodied the timeless values of compassion and unity. Yet, his teachings and the movement he inspired live on, continuing to illuminate paths toward understanding and cooperation. Fethullah Gülen’s legacy reminds us that even in a divided world, there are bridges to be built and that peace begins with the simple act of seeing ourselves in each other.

In a saying attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, the Hanafi School’s foremost reference among the Sahaba, the company of scholars was likened to the beneficent rain through which the barren land blossoms: “Sit with the scholars and listen to the speech of the wise, for indeed Allah gives life to the dead heart through their light of wisdom, just as He revives the dead earth with rain.”

Across faith divides, Gülen rejuvenated countless hearts with his wisdom, much like rain, which when it revives barren land, does not discriminate upon where it falls. His wisdom, preserved in his works and carried by his students, will continue to shower upon whoever seeks it, for just as not all those who traverse the world are truly alive, not all those buried in the soil are truly dead.

A scholar buried is a treasure entrusted to the earth. The treasure is buried, but also waiting to be discovered by those who seek it.

My regret doesn’t stem from scholarly reasons. I had worked in the primary sources, including reading his nearly sixty books of Qur’anic exegesis, theology, cultural commentary, and spirituality. I had scoured the manifold secondary sources about him and the Hizmet (Service) community he inspired. I did dozens of interviews with friends and critics. And then I wrote the book that was published as Fethullah Gülen: A Life of Hizmet—Why a Muslim Scholar in Pennsylvania Matters to the World, now translated into a dozen languages. My regret stems from the fact that I won’t have the chance, this side of heaven, to be in the presence of his thoughtful, warm, generous, compassionate, indeed grace-filled presence.

The night before I met with him for two ninety-minute interviews in 2018, I didn’t sleep well. What I had discovered in my research was that Gülen was a scholar who intentionally combined deep spirituality with scientific knowledge. He had initiated a global movement of Muslims committed to both Islam and the modern world—prayer and pluralism, pilgrimage and education, fasting and planetary flourishing, traditional wisdom and women’s rights. I worried that the person might not match the paper trail. What if he was a jerk?

He wasn’t. I asked him very focused questions about his family, about his philosophy of education, about the Hizmet movement, about politics, and about theology. He answered them all with careful and detailed replies.

He quoted for me the child’s “Song of the Foods” that he sang as a boy with his sister, Nurhayat, and he smiled when he recalled how his brother, Sıbgatullah, tried to sing along “but couldn’t really harmonize very well.”

He denied ever supporting the current President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: “Of course we attended some of the same events,” he said. But Gülen reiterated what I already knew: he never joined a political party, and he never endorsed any candidate.

Slandered as a scapegoat to solidify Erdoğan’s base across Turkey’s fractious politics, he cried. His tears were not because of the damage to his reputation, which was established securely in his sermons and essays, for anyone who wanted to read them, but he cried because his students and associates had been fired from their jobs as teachers, judges, police, bankers, bakers, builders, and more. They were arrested, imprisoned, exiled on the thinnest of charges. They were his friends, his brothers, his sisters. He cried.

That empathy was one of his most notable, and noble, characteristics. I cried with him.

But we smiled, and even laughed, more. He had a wonderful, dry sense of humor, laced with gentle sarcasm. We recalled how he was blamed for everything bad in Turkey—even soccer matches; conspiracy-thinking run wild.

And we met on the common ground of God—a Christian and a Muslim coming together across our differences. He sought, and forged, good relationships with Jewish, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Kurdish, and Armenian individuals and communities.

I asked him about his motivation—what kept him going throughout the recent struggles? He spoke not of himself, but of seeking God’s pleasure through “müspet hareket,” positive, non-reactive engagement to improve the world. Selfless action was his aim and deepest truth, akin to Gandhi’s satyagraha or truth-force. He lived to please God.

“Power resides in truth,” he often said. And the truth about Fethullah Gülen is that he was a humble and faithful man of God, now embraced in the loving arms of the Eternal.

When we last met, about a year ago, he was very frail, but still mentally sharp. He shared with me a copy of the Albanian translation of my biography of him. And he paid me a compliment I’ll never forget: “Jon, you’ve done more than a thousand Muslims.” We embraced as I left. I suspected I would not seem him again: and I felt a void that has now grown into regret and enduring absence.

May he rest in his well-earned peace—a goal he sought through the practiced, nonviolent means at the heart of Islam, throughout his generative and fruitful life.

Once there was a man, a long time before, who killed ninety-nine people. One day he began to feel remorse for his actions, and he began to search for the most renowned scholar of the area. He was told that he should go to see a certain priest. When he went to the priest, he told him that he had killed ninety-nine people and asked whether his repentance would be accepted. When the priest said “No,” he killed the priest too. In this way, the number of murders he had committed increased to a hundred.

After this, he was again full of remorse and inquired who the greatest scholar of the time was. A prominent scholar was recommended to him. The man told the scholar that he had killed a hundred people and asked whether his repentance would be accepted. The scholar told him that (of course) he could repent, that no one had the right to stand between a person and his repentance, and told him to go to a certain place where people who worshipped God were living. He told him; “Worship God along with them. Don’t return to your village, because it is an evil place.”

The man set forth, yet he died halfway (through his journey). Upon his death, the angels of punishment and the angels of mercy disagreed about (what to do with) the man. The angels of mercy said: “this man has come here as penitent and has turned to God with his heart,” while the angels of punishment said: “He did not perform any good deeds.”

Meanwhile, an angel in human form appeared. The angels of mercy and the angels of punishment agreed that this angel should judge the disagreement.

The angel in human form said: “Measure the distance from both sides, and compare them. He will belong to whichever side he is closer to.” When they measured the distances and compared them, they saw that he was closer to his destination by the length of a hand, and the angels of mercy took him away.

According to another report, the last part of the hadith is as follows: “After God ordered the former village to recede, and the latter to come nearer, the angel in human form told them to measure the distance from both sides. When they did as they were told, they saw that he was closer to the village of good people by the length of a hand. In this way he was forgiven.

This Word presents a brief comparison between the Qur’an’s sacred wisdom and human philosophy, a concise summary of the Qur’anic instruction and training for humanity’s personal and social life. 

First fundamental

Differences between the Qur’anic wisdom and human philosophy: A religious, skillful, and renowned ruler wanted to make a copy of the Qur’an as beautifully as required by its sacred meanings and miraculous wording in order to adorn its wonderful words in a worthy fashion. So, he wrote it in a truly wonderful fashion with all kinds of precious jewels. To point out the variety of its truths, he wrote some of its letters in diamonds and emeralds, others in pearls and agate, brilliants and coral, and gold and silver. He adorned and decorated it in such a way that everyone was full of admiration and astonishment. That Qur’an became a most precious artwork for the people of truth, for its outer beauty indicated its brilliant inner beauty and striking adornment.

The ruler showed this Qur’an to a foreign [non-Muslim] philosopher and a Muslim scholar. Seeking to test and reward them, he told each one to write about it. The two men complied. The philosopher discussed the letters’ shapes, decorations, and interrelationships, and the jewels’ properties and methods of use. He said nothing of its meaning, for he saw only an ornamented object and was unaware that it was an invaluable book with depths of meaning. As he was well-informed about engineering and chemistry, could describe things, and knew a great deal about jewelry but nothing about Arabic, he wrote his book accordingly. But the truth-loving Muslim scholar, understanding that it was the Clear Book (the Wise Qur’an), ignored its outward ornamentation and the letters’ decorations and described the sacred truths and secret lights behind the veil of decorations, for they are far more valuable and worthy of respect, more useful and comprehensive.

Both men presented their books to the ruler, who began with the philosopher’s book. Seeing that he had worked very hard, the ruler nevertheless refused his book and expelled him from his presence. Why? Because he had written nothing of the bejeweled Qur’an’s true wisdom, understood none of its meanings, and showed his disrespect for it by thinking that this source of truths consists of meaningless decoration. Looking through second book, and seeing that the truth-loving scholar had written a very beautiful and useful interpretation, a wise and illuminating composition, he congratulated him. It was pure wisdom, and its author was a true scholar, a genuine sage. As a reward, the scholar was given 10 gold coins from the ruler’s inexhaustible treasury for each letter of his book.

The meaning is as follows: The embellished Qur’an is this artistically fashioned universe; the ruler is the Eternal Sovereign. The first man represents the line of philosophy and philosophers; the second man represents the way of the Qur’an and its students. Indeed, the wise Qur’an is the most exalted expounder and a most eloquent translator of this universe (a macro-Qur’an). It is the Criterion that instructs jinn and humanity in the signs of creation”Divine laws regarding creation and the universe’s operation”inscribed by the Pen of Power on the sheets of the universe and pages of time. It looks upon creatures, each a meaningful letter, as bearing the meaning of another (on account of their Maker) and says: How beautifully they have been made, how meaningfully they point to the Maker’s beauty and grace. Thus it shows the universe’s real beauty.

Philosophy, focused on the design and decorations of creation’s letters, has lost its way. While it ought to look upon this macro-book’s letters as bearing the meaning of another (on account of God), it looks upon them as signifying themselves (on account of themselves) and says: How beautiful they are, not How beautifully they have been made. Thus philosophers insult creation and cause it to complain. In truth, materialistic philosophy is a falsehood having no truth, an insult to creation.

Second fundamental

Moral training in one’s personal life: Sincere students of philosophy are Pharaoh-like tyrants. They abuse themselves by bowing in worship before the meanest thing, if they perceive it to be in their interest to do so. These materialist students are stubborn, misleading, and unyielding, but so wretched that they accept endless degradation for one pleasure; unbending but so mean as to kiss the feet of devilish people for a base advantage. They are conceited and domineering, but, unable to find any point of support in their hearts, are utterly impotent and vainglorious tyrants. Such people are no more than self-centered egoists striving to gratify their material and carnal desires, pursuers of personal interests and certain national interests.

Sincere students of the Qur’an are worshipping servants of God. They do not degrade themselves by bowing in worship before even the greatest of the created. They are dignified servants who do not worship in order to obtain a benefit, even Paradise. They are modest students, mild and gentle, who only lower themselves voluntarily to their Creator, never exceeding what He has permitted. They are aware of their weakness and need, but are independent because the Munificent Owner provides them with spiritual wealth. Relying on their Master’s infinite Power, they are powerful. They act and strive purely for God’s sake and pleasure, and to be equipped with virtue. The training given by philosophy and the Qur’an may be understood through the above comparison.

Third fundamental

Moral training in human social life: Philosophy considers force to be the point of support in social life, and life as the realization of self-interest (its goal) and conflict (its principle). A community’s unifying bonds are race and aggressive nationalism, and its fruits are the gratification of carnal desires and increased need. Force calls for aggression, seeking self-interest causes battles over material resources, and conflict brings strife. Racism feeds by swallowing others, thereby paving the way for aggression. This is why humanity is not happy.

The Qur’an accepts right as the point of support in social life. The aim is virtue and God’s approval, and its principle is mutual assistance. The only community bonds it accepts are those of religion, profession, and country. Its aim is to control and thus weaken carnal desires by urging the soul to sublime matters, satisfying our exalted feelings so that we will strive for human perfection and true humanity. Right calls for unity, virtues bring solidarity, and mutual assistance means helping each other. Religion secures brotherhood, sisterhood, and cohesion. Restraining our desires and urging the soul to perfection brings happiness in both worlds.

According to Islam, the eschatological descent of Jesus is one such manifestation. Jesus, along with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David, John, and Muhammad, is considered one of the elite Prophets. Muslims believe that Jesus received a Divinely revealed book (the Injil [Gospel]), was born of a virgin, had no human father, and was sinless. He is given titles of honor, and pictured as a wandering preacher who performed miracles and spoke beautiful words. Many Sufis use his words in their prayers. The Qur’an states that Jesus’ people did not crucify him, for someone took His place on the cross. He then ascended to the heavens, after promising to send a comforter (Muhammad).

Muslims have surrounded Jesus with many pious legends. Some believe he will return and marry in the distant future. A grave site has been reserved for him. Others say he will judge the world at the end of time, help Muhammad rule, be Muhammad’s last Companion, or that he will appear at the eastern white minaret of the Damascus mosque or in Jerusalem. He will pursue the Antichrist (Dajjal) and, overtaking him at the gate of Lydda (a town near Jerusalem), will slay him.

Islamic scholars interpret some Qur’anic verses and hadith pointing to the second coming as a significant pre-Day of Judgment event.(2) The earliest Muslim scholars believed this so strongly that they attached it to the eminence of the Day of Judgment. At times, .expectations ran so high that commoners prepared a white horse and brought it to the white minaret in Damascus where they believed Jesus would reappear. Reputable texts give no credence to such details, although they have been dramatized by interpreters of lesser reputation. Jesus appears in the horizon at dawn and leads the people against the Antichrist who, helpless before such power, dissolves into nothingness.

Will this eschatological event occur? Is there any truth to this belief? How has the subject been treated in kalam (Islamic theology) literature? The starting point in seeking answers is the Qur’an.

Much of what the Qur’an teaches about Jesus is acceptable to Christians: the virgin birth, his sinlessness and ascension, and his miracles. The Qur’anic evidence for Jesus’ descent is somewhat obscure and ambigious, but later Muslim traditions took up the idea eagerly. According to them, Jesus is still alive in the heavens and will return to signal the Last Days.(3) The Qur’an, which considers Jesus a great Prophet, mentions him as ‘Isa (25 places),(4) al-Masih (Annointed One, Messiah), al-Nabi (Prophet), al-Rasul (Messenger), Min al-Muqarrabin (of those close to God), Mubarak (Sacred One), Qawl al-Haq (True Word), ‘Abd Allah (Servant of God), and in 33 places as Ibn Maryam (Son of Mary).

Before delving into this subject further, we will examine the events leading up to it. For example, his second coming necessarily implies his ascension to the heavens alive. This begs the question: Did Jesus die on the cross?

THE QUESTION OF JESUS’ DEATH

This very contentious question has engendered several schools of thought. Some claim that Roman soldiers charged into a cottage where Jesus was believed to be with twelve of his disciples. During the attack, one person disappeared. Soldiers took one of the twelve remaining men and crucified him. Others believe that when the soldiers entered the cottage, they could not identify him, as everyone had taken on his physical attributes, and so picked and crucified someone at random.(5)

While the Qur’an offers no details on this point, it clearly states that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified. Moreover, his ‘killers’ were never sure if they had killed him or not (4:157-58). We know that someone-but not who-was crucified. Jewish and Christian sources say it was Jesus, an assertion rejected outright by the Qur’an.

THE QUR’ANIC ACCOUNT

And remember when Allah said: “0 Jesus. I will take you and raise you to Myself and clear you of those who disbelieve” (3:55). In other words, Jesus was not executed. A perusal of the classical and more modern literature on this verse will clarify matters.

According to Ragheb al-Isphahani (d. 1696), mutawaffika (I will take you) here does not mean death in the sense we understand it, even though he mentions that the noted Companion Ibn ‘Abbas understood this literal meaning.(6) Al-Tabari (d. 922), a well-known Qur’anic scholar, states that mutawaffika means “to take and raise him to the heavens.” After offering several interpretations, he expresses his own preference: “In my opinion, a healthier view on the meaning of mutawaffika is ‘to take from earth and raise to the heavens.'”(7) Moreover, the verse as a whole points to Jesus’ eschatological descent and a war against the nonbelievers that ends in a great victory for the believers.

The noted Islamic theologian al-Maturidi (d. 944) mentions several views, one of which is that even though the verse first mentions Jesus’ death and then his ascension, his death is postponed until after the second coming. God says: “I will take you and raise you to myself … to the day of resurrection: Then shall you all return unto me…” However, the probable meaning of literal death cannot be dismissed.(8) Al-Maturidi does not state his own view. If, however, mentioning one view before another amounts to a personal preference, one can argue that he believes Jesus was not killed before his ascension. This uncertainty, however, does not apply to his second coming, as al-Maturidi cites several relevant hadiths and the subsequent slaying of the Antichrist.(9)

Al-Zamakhshari (d. 1143), a Mu’tazilite scholar and Arabic linguist, argues that Jesus “will die a natural death after his victory over the Antichrist, not at the hands of the nonbelievers.”(10) The famous Qur’anic interpreter Ibn ‘Atiyya (d. 1152) writes that Jesus “will die a second time after descending to the Earth and slaying the Antichrist.”(11) Based on this, he seems to accept that Jesus ascended after his death, whereas he claims that Jesus is still alive.

Abu al-Faraj al-Jawzi (d. 1200), who defines mutawaffika as “to take something completely,” writes that Jesus was raised to the heavens by God. And he does not rule out a normal death: “Jesus’ real death shall occur after his second coming.”(12) The noted Muslim theologian al-Razi (d. 1209) gives what he calls a “sensible” interpretation: “I will complete your life and then take your soul. I shall not leave you in their hands to kill you. I will raise you to My heavens and place you next to my angels. They will not have the chance to kill you, for I will protect you.(13)

Ibn Kathir (d. 1372), a prominent Qur’anic interpreter offering the same explanation, interprets mutawaffika as “sleep” and provides several supporting verses.(14) A similar explanation, that Jesus ascended and will return before the Day of Judgment, is held by many people, among them Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti, who uses the pertinent hadith literature to verify the meaning mutawaffa as “sleep.”(15)

Other respected Qur’anic scholars interpret tawaffa as “death as applied to Jesus.” However, as this death will occur after the second coming and the Antichrist’s subsequent defeat, Jesus is currently alive. Upon his second coming, Jesus will effect various social reforms and refute some established Christian beliefs.(16)

The Ottoman mystic scholar Bursevi accepts the traditional explanation and gives additional details: “When Jesus witnessed the virtuosity of the Prophet Muhammad’s community in the Preserved Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfuz), he asked God to count him as one of Ummah of Muhammad. God accepted this sincere supplication….”(17) The Qur’anic scholar al-Alusi (d. 1854) offers a different hypothesis: Jesus ascended alive and awake, stripped of all human needs and attributes.(18) In fact, he now lives in a world unknown to us.

Some contemporary Turkish and Egyptian scholars hold different views. Omer Riza Dogrul asserts that as Jesus could not have been killed, he must have died naturally.(19) According to the Egyptian Islamic scholar al-Qasimi, both literal and metaphorical interpretations are possible, although he appears to favor an idiomatic meaning for tawaffa.(20) The Pakistani scholar Abul Ala Maududi writes: “Mutawaffika in the Arabic text is from tawaffa, which literally means ‘to take and to receive,’ and ‘to seize the soul’ is not its lexical but rather its metaphorical meaning. Here it means ‘to recall from mission.'”(21) He castigates those who adopt the literal meaning (death) for tawaffa, accusing them of saying God cannot express Himself clearly.

Kawthari, who lived during the last phase of the Ottoman Empire, also emphasizes a metaphorical meaning based on historical analysis of the word’s meaning and more Qur’anic examples. During the Qur’an’s revelation, its audience would not necessarily have understood this word to mean “death,” for then the Qur’anic usage of mawt elsewhere would lose its significance as “death.” The Qur’an contains several words whose true meanings would be distorted if their contemporary meanings were ascribed to them. For example, today risalah means “letter,” while its original Qur’anic meaning is “Prophethood.”(22)

The Egyptian reformers Muhammad ‘Abduh and Rashid Rida accept the lexical meaning of “death.” Rida says Jesus literally died and his soul ascended. In conversation, it is not unusual to signify “soul” when a person’s name is mentioned, for the soul is the individual’s essence. Therefore when the Qur’an talks about Jesus in this verse, it means his soul.(23)

Mahmood Shaltut, a more contemporary Egyptian scholar, is certain of Jesus’ literal death. He cites two verses that mention Jesus’ forthcoming death and report his death (4:157 and 3:5, respectively). Several contemporary interpreters posit an energy-matter relationship, but provide no supporting evidence. According to them, Jesus had such a strong spiritual stature that his physical body became energy (spirit) and ascended to the heavens, similar to Muhammad’s Ascension. Mutawaffika naturally would refer to his death as tawaffa, “to call in a loan at the end of its term,” and is commonly used in that sense. But the verb also is used for nightly slumber. Therefore we cannot be certain that actual death is implied here.

QUR’ANIC VERSES and CRUCIFIXION

And because of their saying: We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah,’ but they hilled him not nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto himself And Allah is ever AU-Powerful, All-Wise (4:157-58).

These verses have been interpreted in two ways: Jesus did not die but ascended, or he really died. Early Qur’anic scholars offered various interpretations. The scholar Mujahid ibn Jabr (d.0722) claimed “they crucified someone other than Jesus, whom they mistook for Jesus,” and “Jesus ascended to the heavens alive.”24 According to Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), a famous Muslim theologian, Jesus did not die and is alive in the heavens, as the above verses clearly indicate.25 Once again, these verses remind us that Jesus has not died, will return before the Day of Judgment, and eventually will die a natural death. In fact, Jesus is known to have said: So peace is upon me the day I was born, the day that I die… (19 which shows that he is still alive. It mus remembered, however, that since he said this while still in his cradle, this verse does not prove that he is still alive.

The Qur’an tells us that faith always triumphs over evil. If Jesus’ enemies crucified him, evil would be triumphant, It also states clearly that God defends the faithful (22:38). Therefore, Jesus could not have been crucified.26

Arguments against Jesus’ crucifixion are considerably more convincing than those favoring it. But both groups have asked: If he is not dead, why is his second coming delayed until soon before Day of Judgment? Those v ‘ say he has died already dt^-y the second coming.

Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, the best-known Turkish interpreter of the Qur’an, concurs with the majority view, basing himself on the hadith: “Jesus has not died and will reappear shortly before the Day of Judgment.”‘7 Most Muslims believe that as Jesus has not yet completed his appointed task, he this verse, it means his soul.23

Mahmood Shaltut, a more contemporary Egyptian scholar, is certain of Jesus’ literal death. He cites two verses that mention Jesus’ forthcoming death and report his death (4:157 and 3:5, respectively). Several contemporary interpreters posit an energy-matter relationship, but provide no supporting evidence. According to them, Jesus had such a strong spiritual stature that his physical body became energy [spirit) and ascended to the heavens, similar to Muhammad’s Ascension. Mutawaffika naturally would refer to his death as tawaffa, “to call in a loan at the end of its term,” and is commonly used in that sense. But the verb also is used for nightly slumber. Therefore we cannot be certain that actual death is implied here.

QUR’ANIC VERSES AND CRUCIFIXION

And because of their saying: ‘We killed the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah,’ but they killed him not nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Jesus was put over another man, and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. But Allah raised him up unto himself. And Allah is ever All-Powerful, All-Wise (4:157-58).

These verses have been interpreted in two ways; Jesus did not die but ascended, or he really died. Early Qur’anic scholars offered various interpretations. The scholar Mujahid ibn Jabr (d.722) claimed “they crucified someone other than Jesus, whom they mistook for Jesus,” and “Jesus ascended to the heavens alive.”(24) According to Ibn Hazm (d. 1064), a famous Muslim theologian, Jesus did not die and is alive in the heavens, as the above verses clearly indicate.(25) Once again, these verses remind us that Jesus has not died, will return before the Day of Judgment, and eventually will die a natural death. In fact, Jesus is known to have said: So peace is upon me the day I was born, the day that I die… (19:33), which shows that he is still alive. It must be remembered, however, that since he said this while still in his cradle, this verse does not prove that he is still alive.

The Qur’an tells us that faith always triumphs over evil. If Jesus’ enemies crucified him, evil would be triumphant. It also states clearly that God defends the faithful (22:38). Therefore, Jesus could not have been crucified.(26)

Arguments against Jesus’ crucifixion are considerably more convincing than those favoring it. But both groups have asked: If he is not dead, why is his second coming delayed until soon before the Day of Judgment? Those who say he has died already deny the second coming.

Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, the best-known Turkish interpreter of the Qur’an, concurs with the majority view, basing himself on the hadith: “Jesus has not died and will reappear shortly before the Day of Judgment.”(27) Most Muslims believe that as Jesus has not yet completed his appointed task, he will return to complete it and then die.(28) Relying on: Every soul shall taste death (3:185) and We granted not to any man before the permanent life (21:34), Ismail Fenni Ertugrul, a contemporary Turkish scholar, accuses Elmalili of hiding his real opinion. According to him, the above verses clearly presuppose Jesus’ death.(29) But such criticism is groundless; Elmalili does not contradict these verses, as all Islamic scholars agree that Jesus eventually will die and be resurrected.

Bediuzzaman Said Nursi (d. 1960), the most influential twentieth-century Muslim scholar, has defined five distinct levels of life, and places Jesus in the third level (along with the angels). The first level, that of humanity, is very restricted. The second level, that of Khidi and Ilyas (Elias), is free to some extent and allows its inhabitants to be present in numerous places at once. The third level is that of Idris (Enoch) and Jesus who, removed from human requirements, enter an angelic life and acquire a luminous fineness. Quite simply, they are in the heavens with their earthly bodies. In this life, Jesus is more like an angel than a man. The fourth level is for martyrs, and the fifth level is for the spirits of the dead in their graves.(30)

QURANIC VERSES INFERRING THE ESCHATOLOGICAL DESCENT OF JESUS

Whether the Qur’an addresses Jesus’ second coming has been a matter of contention.

Three Qur’anic verses have been advanced as evidence. The first refers to what Jesus said. Some classical interpreters, with the exception of the Mu’tazilite al-Zamakhshari, based themselves on hadith literature and inferred the second coming from: He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity… (3:45). According to them, the verb’s future tense implies the unfinished nature of Jesus’ mission. So, he will have to speak to people after his second coming.(31) Some contemporary scholars agree, notably al-Ghumari, who says that this verse refers to an extraordinary event, as he spoke while still in his crib. Before his ascension, Jesus preached among his kinsmen. However, the verse contains the word al-nas, indicating that he will speak to humanity. This necessitates his second coming. (32)

What is actually emphasized here, and in 19:29-31, is the miracle of Jesus speaking when still an infant. The verse also suggests that Jesus will speak to people. Of course he spoke to people as an adult before his ascension. So we cannot infer from the verse’s context that such an event will occur after his second coming. Those who assert this offer no concrete supporting evidence. The verse’s implied meaning of the second coming, I believe, appears at best to be forced, probably to provide additional support for hadith dealing with the subject.

The second relevant verse is: And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in Him before his death (4:159). Again, their argument is weak. Al-Zamakhshari assigns the pronoun bihi (in him) to Jesus, and infers the second coming in the verse’s context. Al-Suyuti and al-Qari (d. 1605) infer a similar meaning.(33) According to al-Baydawi, if both bihi and mawtihi refer to Jesus, his death can be considered real only after his second coming.(34) ‘Abd al-Hamid, an al-Azhar scholar, puts forward this verse to those who claim that the Qur’an does not mention clearly or even hint about the second coming.(35) The best interpreters of the verse are the Prophet’s Companions. Al-Ghumari points out that Ibn ‘Abbas and Abu Hurayra, two Companions with an outstanding command of Arabic grammar and knowledge of the Qur’anic mission, interpreted it in a way that infers the descent of Jesus.(36) The Prophet’s grandson Hasan agrees with this interpretation.(37) Therefore the majority of Muslim scholars believe that Jesus will return.

The verse: And he (Jesus) shall be a sign of the Judgment Day… (43:61), according to various classical and contemporary Qur’anic scholars, refers to his eschatological descent.(38) In this verse, la ‘ilmun can be recited in three variations: la ‘ilmun, refers to knowledge of the Day of Judgment; la ‘alamun, points to a sign of the Day of Judgment; and la dhikr, as a warning of the Day of Judgment.(39) Al-Azhar’s official fatwa on the second coming offers this verse as evidence.(40) There will be a second coming, because it has been foretold to be a sign of the Hour of Resurrection. Moreover, such Western scholars as Parrinder, also point to this verse as evidence when speaking of the second coming.(41)

Shaltut does not accept the second and third verses as indisputable evidence, but rather prefers al-Tabari’s interpretation that Jesus’ virgin birth is itself a sign of the Hour of Judgment.(42) This verse addresses those who deny the Hereafter. This miraculous birth is offered to provide evidence of the Hereafter to unbelievers. According to al-Kawthari, who diametrically opposes Shaltut, pertinent Qur’anic verses and traditions necessitate a belief in the second coming. He does not respond directly to Shaltut’s views; rather, he accepts the majority view by faith without insisting on concrete evidence. The contemporary scholar Ibn ‘Ashur, who also opposes the majority view, fails to offer any convincing supporting evidence.(43)

In the context, the pronoun hu naturally refers to Jesus, meaning that Jesus is a sign of the coming of the Hour. Then the return of Jesus is, of course, one of the signs of the only Qur’anic passage supporting this view. But others say this pronoun refers to the Qur’an, or to Muhammad. In my opinion, these two latter interpretations are not credible, for these verses are generally about Jesus. Therefore the meaning would be “Jesus is the sign of the Day of Judgment.” As the exact aspect of Jesus that supposedly is a sign of the Day of Judgment is not mentioned, many interpretations are possible.

For example, some scholars imply that Jesus’ virgin birth is a sign: God is showing us His power. Therefore, the All-Powerful God Who created Jesus without a father can create the Hereafter and the Day of Judgment. The verse compares Jesus’ creation with, that of Adam, presenting both as evidence of God’s infinite power. When God mentions Jesus as a sign of the Hour, the first meaning that logically comes to mind is his miraculous birth. According to others, the verse indicates the second coming because there is a close relation between Jesus and the Hour. Therefore, as Jesus is mentioned as a sign of the Hour, his descent must be meant.

The fourth verse cited as evidence is: And ice be upon me the day I was born and the day 1die and the day I shall be raised alive (19:33). The resurrection mentioned here signifies his second coming, according to those who claim it proves this event. They base this on the fact that the same verse also mentions his future death. In other words, Jesus did not die on the cross.(44)

Another indirect proof is: He (Muhammad) does not speak of his own desire. It is only an inspiration that is inspired (53:3-4). This verse literally explains that whatever Prophet Muhammad says is an inspiration from God. It is narrated, with a strong chain of transmitters, that the Prophet was talking to his Companions about the second coming. Therefore this verse is a proof that Prophet Muhammad was inspired about the second coming.(45)

Unlike most interpreters, Shaltut opines that all such proofs violate the verses’ literal meaning, and that interpreters devised such meanings to avoid conflict with some second-coming traditions narrated by such famous Companions as Abu Hurayra. Therefore, he believes that the Qur’an and the Sunnah provide no trustworthy evidence for this event. The Syrian scholar al-Buty claims that Shaltut changed his view, adopted the majority view during his last illness, and then buried all documents connected with his old views.(46)

But why did Shaltut deny the second coming despite all the proofs mentioned above? It seems to me that he viewed the majority interpretation as unreasonable and against general Islamic principles. He thinks that a person cannot come from heaven, and therefore denies such statements. They based their evidence on God’s power, saying: He is able to do all things (67:1) and therefore He can bring Jesus. They think of bodily descent. Is the descent of Jesus from heaven to be considered materially? 

In semantic terms, nuzul (descending) does not necessitate a material descent, for other verses treat this descent as a manifestation of God’s bounty. For example: He sent down for you eight pairs of cattle (39:6}.(47) We cannot say that the animals descended from the heavens, but we can say that they descended to us from God’s Mercy. Moreover, in some hadiths nuzul is used in relation to God: “God descends every night to the first heaven, the heaven of the world…”(48) Of course it is not a physical descend. Therefore, in this sense, the descend of Jesus in his second coming can be spiritual, meaning that God will send him from His Mercy to be a mercy to humanity.

There is another, more spiritual approach: His descent means that Christian spiritual leaders will purify Christianity and return it to the original religion of Jesus. Meanwhile, they do not deny the possibility of Jesus’ physical descent. Because of his strong spirituality, Jesus can come and go and appear in different human forms. But the focal point, according to this opinion, is his spiritual domination of the Earth in alliance with Islam. The true religion, seen in the togetherness of Islam and Christianity, will defeat materialism, communism, and atheism. This view is shared by the prominent Turkish scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, the Indian scholar Siddik Hasan Khan, and partly by ‘Abduh. Therefore, the second coming can be a strong means for Muslim-Christians dialogue.

To clarify this matter, we cite Qur’an 30:1-5, which discusses the Muslims’ hope that the Roman Christians would defeat the pagan Persians. The Qur’an clearly mentions that Muslims shall rejoice over that victory. If we apply this historical event to today’s life, what can we say? In general, when one asks a Muslim about a possible war, for example, between the United States and China, Muslims must support the former, for it believes in God and religious values, and China does not. In fact, as far as I know, many Muslims are very upset over China’s persecution of its Muslims and Christians. Since Prophet Muhammad stated in many traditions that some Qur’anic verses hint of Jesus’ second coming, the concept of Muslim-Christian dialogue is readily understandable. To sum up, the huge restoration of the Last Days will witness true Christianity (the spirit of Jesus) working hand in hand with true Islam (the spirit of Muhammad) for the benefit of humanity. 

* Zeki Saritoprak is an Associate Faculty Member of the Department of Semitics at The Catholic University of America, and a Research Associate at Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding of Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. The author wishes to thank Seyyid Hussein Nasr, Sidney Griffith, Theresa Ann-Druart, and Monica Blanchard.

FOOTNOTES

1. See ‘Abd al-Baqi, Muhammad Fuad, Al-Mu’jam al-Mufahras li Alfazi’l-Qur’an al-Karim, (Istanbul: 1982), 370-1, 581-2, 775-80.
2. Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Husayn b. Hasan al-Halimi, Al-Minhaj fi Shu’ab al-Iman, (Cairo: 1979), 1:142; Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Abi Sahi al-Sarakhsi, Sifatu Ashrat al-Sa’ah (Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, n.d.), nr. 1800; ed. by Zeki Saritoprak, (Cairo: 1993), 35; Abu al-‘Abbas Ahmad b. Hajar al-Haythami, Al-Qawl al-Mukhtasar fi al-Mahdi al-Muntazar, ed. by Muhammad Zaynuhum-Muhammad ‘Azab (Cairo: 1986), 84; Abu al-Tayyib Muhammad Ashraf b. Amir b. ‘Ali al-Azemabadi, ‘Anmu’l-Ma’bud Sharhu Sunani Abi Dawud (Madina: 1989), 11:424-5; ‘Ali al-Maliki al-Manshalili, Risale fi ‘Ashrati’s-Sa’ah wa Ahvali Yawmi’l-Qiyama, nis. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, nr. B-19690) fol. la-3b; Ahmad ibn al-Faqih al-Shafi’i, ‘Ashratu’s-Sa’ah, ms. (Cairo: Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya, Tasawwuf, nr. 2191), fol. 3a-6b; ‘Ali b. Sultan al-Harawi al-Qari, Sharh al-Fiqhi’l-Akbar (Cairo: 1323 CE), 112; Al-Mashrab al-Wardifi Haqiqati’l-Mahdi, ms. (Istanbul: Koprulu, nr. 1509), fol. 200a-200b; Kamal al-Din Ahmad al-Bayadi, Isharat al-Maram min ‘Ibarati al-Imam, ed. by. Yusuf Abd al-Razzak (Cairo: 1949), 67; Kamal al-Din al-Tai, Risale fi al-Tawhid wa al-Firaq al-Mu’asira (Beirut: n.d), 106; Muhammad Anwar Shah al-Hindi al-Kash-miri, Al-Tasrih bima Tawatara fi Nuzul al-Masih, ed. by Abd al-Fattah ‘Abu Ghudda (Aleppo: 1965), 9-11.
3. See F. E. Peters, Allah’s Commomwealth: A Histoiy of Islam in the Near East (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1973), 51.
4. ‘Abd al-Baqi, Al-Mu’jam, 494-5.
5. See Muhammad b. Umar Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb (Beirut: n.d), 11:100.
6. Ragheb al-Isfahani, Al-Mufradat fi Alfaz al-Qur’an (Istanbul: 1986), 830.
7. Abu Ja’far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan an Ta’wili al-Qur’an (Beirut, 1984); ed. by Muhammad Mahmud Shakir (Cairo: n.d) 3:290-1.
8. Abu Mansur Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Mahmud al-Maturidi, Ta’wilat al-Qur’an, ms. Haci Selim Aga (Istanbul: n.d.) nr. 40 fol. 80 a-80b.
9. Ibid., fol. 239 a.
10. Abu al-Qasim Jarullah Mahmud ibn ‘Umar al-Zamakhshari, Al-Kashshaf ‘an Haqaiqi al-Tanzil wa Uyuni’l-Aqawil fi Wujuh al-Ta’wil, (Beirut: n.d.), 1:432-3.
11. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Khaliq b. Ghalib b. ‘Atiyya al-Andalusi Ibn ‘Atiyya, Al-Muharrar al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-‘Aziz, (Fez: 1977), 3:105,13:255.
12. ‘Abd al-Rahman b ‘Ali ibn Muhammad Ibn al-Jawzi, Zad al-Mathir fi ‘Ilm al-Tafsir (Beirut: 1964), 1:396-7.
13. Al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb, 2:100, 8:67.
14. ‘Imad al-Din Abu al-Fida ‘Ismail b. Umar Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Azim(Beirut: 1969),1:575.
15. Jalal al-Din ‘Abdarrahman al-Suyuti, Al-Durr al-Manthur fi al-Tafsir bi al-Ma’thur (Beirut: n.d.), 2:225-7.
16. Abu Hayyan Muhammad b.Yusuf al-Andalusi, Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit (Beirut: 1983), 2:473.
17. ‘Isma’il Haqqi Bursawi, Ruh al-Bayan (Istanbul: 1389), 2:41.
18. Abu al-Fadl Shihab al-Din Sayyid Mahmud al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al- ‘Azim wa Sab’i al-Mathani, (Beirut: n.d.), 3:179.
19. Omar Riza Dogrul, Tanri Buyrugu (Istanbul: 1980), 97.
20. Muhammad Jalal al-Din al-Qasimi, Mahasin al-Ta’wil, ed. by M. Fuad ‘Abd al-Baqi (Beirut: 1978), 4:107.
21. S. Abul A’la Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur’an (Lahore: Islamic Publications, 1985), 2:34.
22. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari, Nazra ‘Abire fi Maza’imi man Yunkir Nuzula ‘Isa qabla al-Akhira (Cairo: 1987), 99-100.
23. Rashid Rida, Tafsir al-Manar (Cairo: 1954), 3:169.
24. Ibn Jabr Abu al-Hajjaj Mujahid, Tafsiru Mujahid, ed. by ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Tahir (Qatar: 1976), 180-1.
25. Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad al-Zahiri Ibn Hazm, ‘Ilm al-Kalam ‘ala Mazhabi Ahli al-Sunna wa al-Jama’ah, ed. by Ahmad Hijazi al-Saqa (Cairo: 1989), 56-7.
26. See George Anawati, “Isa”, Encyclopedia of Islam, 2d ed. (Leiden: 1978), 4:84.
27. See Al-Bukhari, “Mazalim,” 31; “Buyu’,” 102; Muslim, “Iman,” 242; Ibn Maja, “Fitan,” 33.
28. Elmalili Hamdi Yazir, Hak Dini Kur’an Dili (Istanbul: 1992), 2:372-3.
29. Ismail Fenni Ertugrul, Hakikat Nurlari (Istanbul: 1949), 221-4.
30. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Letters, trans. by Þukran Vahide (Istanbul: Sozler, 1994), 22.
31. Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, 6:420; Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an, (Beirut: 1967), 6:11; Abu Sa’id ‘Abd Allah b. ‘Umar al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil (Cairo: n.d.), 2:19; Al-Alusi, Ruh al-Ma’ani, 6:13.
32. ‘Abd Allah b. Siddik al-Ghumari, Iqama al-Burhan ‘ala Nuzuli ‘Isa fi Akhir al-Zaman (Cairo:1974), 97.
33. Al-Suyuti, Al-Durr al-Manthur, 2:241-2; ‘Ali b. Sultan al-Harawi al-Qari, Mirqat al-Mafatih (Cairo: 1309), 5:221.
34. Al-Baydawi, Anwar al-Tanzil, 1:240.
35. Muhyi al-Din ‘Abd al-Hamid, “Bab al-Fatwa,” Majalla al-Azhar, vol. 48 (1972), 4:552.
36. Al-Ghumari, Iqama al-Burhan, 100-1.
37. Ibn ‘Atiyya, al-Muharrar, 4:305-6.
38. ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud, Tafsiru Ibn Mas’ud, ed. by Muhammad Ahmad Isawi (Riyadh: 1985), 560; Abu ‘Abd Allah Sufyan b. Masruq al-Thawri, Tafsir (Beirut: 1983), 273; Al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, 25:90-1; Al-Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb, 27:222; Al-Sayyid Muhammad Siddiq al-Qanuji Khan, Fath al-Bayan fi Maqasid al-Qur’an (Cairo: 1965) 8:428.
39. See Anawati, “Isa”, EI2, 4:84.
40. Mustafa al-Tair, “Nuzul al-Masih min ‘Alamat al-Sa’ah, ” Majalla al-Azhar, vol. 47 (1971), 6:515.
41. Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an (London: 1967), 124.
42. Shaltut, al-Fatawa, 74-5.
43. Muhammad Tahir Ibn Ashur, Tafsir al-Tahrir wa al-Tanwir (Tunisia: 1984), 25:243.
44. See Parrender, 122; Anawati, “Isa” EI2, 4:84.
45. Ibrahim al-Tuwijary, “Iqama al-Burhan,” Majalla al-Buhuth al-Islamiyya, vol. 13 (1985), 104-5.
46. Sa’id Ramadan al-Buty, Kubra al-Yaqiniyyat, (Beirut: 1994), 352.
47. Cf. sending down iron (57:25) and clothing ( 7:26).
48. Al-Bukhari, “Da’awat,” 14; “Tawhid,” 35.

Together with Abu Jafar al-Mansur and Ma’mun, Harun al-Rashid was one of the most celebrated rulers of the ‘Abbasids. He ruled over a very vast land stretching from Morocco to China and from Abyssinia to the Caucuses. Although he was not as famous for justice and piety as Mahdi, he was also a just and upright man.

Once he visited the renowned scholars and saints among the people one by one. Dissatisfied with the advice and manners of welcome he received from some of the scholars, he finally knocked at the door of Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad.

Fudayl had lived on plundering. Since he had a powerful gang and himself was very good at fighting, travellers had been much afraid of him. However, he had later repented of what he had been doing and become a much renowned saint of the time.

Fudayl opened his door to the Caliph and without inviting him in, warned him severely. He reminded him of the Day of Judgement and gave him other advice. When one of the men escorting the Caliph attempted to stop Fudayl, the latter reprimanded him, saying: ‘It is you and those like you who seduce the rulers. You do whatever they wish and agree with whatever they order and decree.’ Harun al-Rashid was greatly moved by Fudayl’s warnings and wept for a long time.

Harun al-Rashid was once doing Hajj (pilgrimage) when a man from amongst the crowd called him, saying: ‘O Commander of the Believers! Would you please listen me for a short while? The man was ‘Abdullah a grandson of ‘Umar Bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. The Caliph took him aside and the following exchange ensued between them:

– O Commander of the Believers! How many people do you guess there are here doing pilgrimage?

– So many as only God knows their number.

– Now, beware O Commander of the Believers! All of those who are shedding tears are doing so out of the fear that they may be unable to account in the Hereafter, each for his own deeds. However, you will be called to account for both your own self and all of those people.

This led the Caliph to think deeply for a while. Then he requested the pious scholar to continue. The scholar added:

– By God, O Commander of the Believers! If a man neglects to do his own duty and wastes his own property, the Almighty will punish him. But, have you ever thought what will happen to him if he, as a ruler of innumerable people, neglects to do his duties with respect to the peopie and wastes public property?

This time the Caliph could not help but weep heartfelt tears.