“Behold! Allah said: “O Jesus! I will take thee AND raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.” (Qur’an 3:55 Yusuf Ali translation)
“Never said I to them aught except what You did command me to say,’worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among them; when You did take me up You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all things.” (Qur’an 5:117 Yusuf Ali translation)
Now if we only had Qur’an 5:117 and didn’t have Qur’an 3;55 and only IF we were feeling really charitable (despite the fact the word is translated as death every where else)- we could say o.k maybe you have a point.
However, Q 5:117 has to also be in harmony with Q 3:55 doesn’t it?
This is where our opponents are in a most difficult situation. Why are they in a most difficult situation? Q 3:55 says, “mutawaffīka WA rāfiʿuka.”
Thus, their arguments make the Qur’an a redundant revelation. It would have been sufficient to just say that Allah (swt) ‘took him up’.
However, we have this slight problem. We have this very troublesome conjunction called ‘WA‘ -AND.
Respected Shaykh, Saleh bin Siddina al-Maliki (may Allah continue to benefit many by his knowledge)
In fact one of the Mauritanian Shaykhs -Shaykh Salek bin Siddina āl-Māliki who was called upon to correct brother Naheim Ajmal who goes by the pseudonym of “Mufti Abu Layth” doesn’t buy into the argument of redundancy either.
This Shaykh knows full well what the text says and so he uses a different strategy -to save the hadith traditions-of course!
See for yourself!
Here are some notes I took of the video.
I thought it was interesting the translator said: @ 0:55 “Isa alayi salam has died a complete death” -what other kind of death is there?
@ 3:30 minutes the translator addresses what the Shaykh says.
“mutawafikka a word that can be translated to ‘I will cause you to die‘ It is mentioned in a way that it is not indicating any particular order”
“Allah says I will cause you to die and I will raise you to me it doesn’t it is used…”
@5:11 minutes the translator addresses what the Shaykh says.
“So this ‘And’ the type of WA that is being used that are both things that are being done, not necessarily in a particular order.”
“In the statement that Zayd and Umar came it doesn’t mean that Zayd came first. Not in any way does it indicate an order of those things.”
The respected Shaykh knows full well the obvious that ‘mutawafikka‘ means ‘I will cause you to die‘.
Secondly, he definitely is not on board with the interpretation: “No he raises him up first and than will put him to sleep in the future!“
Third, the Shaykh being influenced by the traditions has to make the Qur’an confirm to his presuppositions. As I said before if it were not for the traditions (which the Shaykh brought up quite often) you would wonder if he would have felt the need to use this literary device. In English we call this hysteron proteron.
For example you could say I put on my shoes and socks. No one understands that you put the shoes on and than the socks.
So what is important that we take away from this is that.
- The Shaykh understands the word means death
- A cursory reading of the text would be ‘I will cause you to to die and than elevate you.’
- The obvious understanding of the text is made to conform to a literary device. This is obviously based upon the presupposition the Shaykh holds to the ahadith.