More Regarding the Death of Jesus (pbuh)... In your reply you have asked me about the basis on which I am not taking the word " tawaffa " in its literal meaning. But before that I would like to add here that I don't think that Molana meant that the Al-Nisaa 4: 157 - 158 contain all the details of everything that had happened to Jesus at the time of his ascension but rather what he meant, I suppose, that these verses provide the most related information about this subject as these verses precisely answer the question how he was removed from the scene. While this is not the case in Aal Imraan 3: 55 or Al-Maaidah 5: 110 - 117. That is why I think that the opinion of Al-Islahi caries more weight. Now the hurdle I am facing, which you might remove, is that Allah used the words " Rafioo-ka Ilyya " in verse 55 of Aal Imraan 3. Similarly in the verses 157-158 of Al-Nisaa 4, the words used are " Rafa-Allahu Ilaih ". This style of language gives an impression that the speaker is talking about a living person not about a dead body. For example let's look at what you had written in you reply, explaining the verses 4: 157-158, "The verse declares that even though the Jews claim to have killed the messenger of God, yet in reality this is not what happened, they neither killed nor crucified him, but rather, the whole matter was made unclear upon them and one of the causes of this confusion was the fact that God lifted Jesus (pbuh) up and did not even leave a trace of him with them." The actual translation of related portion is as follows, "For sure they did not kill him but Allah raised him up to Him" Now just pay attention to underlined words. These wordings allow no possibility to raise any question weather Jesus was alive at the time of ascension or was dead. Since the pronoun "him" is speaking for itself that it refers to a living Jesus, not to a corpse. Now come to verse 3: 55. You have translated it as follows, "And recall when God said: O Jesus, I shall indeed cause you to die and raise you up to myself and purify you of those, who have rejected [you] and exalt your followers above those who have rejected [you] till the Day of Judgment." Here the word " Rafioo-ka Ilyya " is explaining the nature of this " tawaffa ". If the literal meaning of initial phrase " Mutawaffi-ka " is taken as "I will cause you to die" then a contradiction with the phrase " Rafioo-ka Ilyya " will take place because after this " tawaffa " there existed no Jesus. The very PERSON of Jesus; his soul, had already departed as a result of this " tawaffa " leaving behind only a dead body. In that case it is not at all suitable to say, "(I) raise you up". This is especially important with respect to your explanation of this incident. According to you the sole purpose of this whole exercise of ascension was to save the corpse of Jesus from any disrespectful handling by the Jews. This assumption requires that the phrase used here should be "I will raise your body up". (As we see in case of the body of Pharaoh in Surah Younus :10 92, where we find the phrase " badani-ka " is specifically used as it was the body of Pharaoh that was to be saved in order to make him an admonitory sign.) Instead of this God is using such words, which, under normal circumstances, don't give any idea that only a corpse was or will be ascended. It should also be noted that this incident of ascension of a person only took place once and only once. No human language has any word to exactly describe how this thing happened. God used the word " Tawaffa " to describe one aspect of this phenomenon, but the way the pronouns "him" and "you" are used with word " Rafa "- the second and most important and truly meant aspect of this incident - implies that the word "tawaffa" has been used in this verse in figurative sense. And does not imply the death as we understand it. Rehan Ahmad, Saudi Arabia Reply You write: Now the hurdle I am facing, which you might remove, is that Allah used the words " Rafioo-ka Ilyya " in verse 55 of Aal Imraan 3. Similarly in the verses 157-158 of Al-Nisaa 4, the words used are " Rafa-Allahu Ilaih ". This style of language gives an impression that the speaker is talking about a living person not about a dead body. Why does the referred style give the stated impression? Why can these words not be said about someone whom Allah has already caused to die, especially when at one instance, the words are explicitly preceded by ' inni mutawaffik ' (i.e. I shall cause you to die)? Regarding the translation of Al-Nisaa 4: 156, i.e. "For sure they did not kill him but Allah raised him up to Him", you write: These wordings allow no possibility to raise any question weather Jesus was alive at the time of ascension or was dead. Since the pronoun "him" is speaking for itself that it refers to a living Jesus, not to a corpse. Why can the word 'him' only refer to a 'living Jesus'? As far as the usage of normal pronouns for the corpse is concerned, there is more than one instance in the Qur'an to substantiate it. Nooh 71: 17 - 18 reads as: And God brought you forth [like plantation] from the earth, then He returns you into it and then shall He bring you forth from it once more. `Abas 80: 21 reads as: Then he causes him to die and secures him in a grave. In both the above-cited examples, normal pronouns have been used for corpses. Countless examples of this style of speech can also be provided from Hadith as well as Arabic literature and usages of other languages. Why could such usage not be allowed in the verse under consideration (i.e. 3: 55)? Regarding Aal Imraan 3: 55 you write: Here the word " Rafioo-ka Ilyya " is explaining the nature of this " tawaffa ". If the literal meaning of initial phrase " Mutawaffi-ka " is taken as "I will cause you to die" then a contradiction with the phrase " Rafioo-ka Ilyya " will take place because after this " tawaffa " there existed no Jesus. The very PERSON of Jesus; his soul, had already departed as a result of this " tawaffa " leaving behind only a dead body. In that case it is not at all suitable to say, "(I) raise you up". I have already given my point of view regarding the usage of normal pronouns for a dead body. It is for you to establish that normal pronouns cannot be used for corpses. Your opinion that the word " Rafioo-ka Ilyya " is explaining the nature of this " tawaffa ", is actually dependent on the substantiation of the fact that normal pronouns cannot be used for a corpse. As far as the explicit reference to Pharaoh' s body is concerned, although in my opinion, there is a reason for that, yet even if we disregard that reason, I am sure you would agree that it does not automatically negate the style used in the cited verses of Surah Nooh and Surah `Abas . You write: Instead of this God is using such words, which, under normal circumstances, don't give any idea that only a corpse was or will be ascended. I agree with you that the words, under normal circumstances, don't give any idea that only a corpse will be ascended. Nevertheless, the word ' mutawaffik ' preceding these words have provided adequate basis to give the idea that would otherwise have been missing. You write: God used the word " Tawaffa " to describe one aspect of this phenomenon Please keep in mind that my basic argument, which you have missed is that the word ' Tawaffa ', which God has used in the verse under consideration, was (and still is) normally used in the Arabic language to imply 'cause to die', as is evidenced by the Qur'an itself. I think it would be pertinent for you to answer, why, in your opinion, has the Qur'an used this word, if it wanted to give any other impression? I would once again request you to kindly concentrate on the sole argument that I have based my opinion upon, which I have explained and substantiated in my last letter. All you need to answer is one simple question: Is there any basis, within the words of Aal Imraan 3: 55, to construe the word ' Tawaffa ' in a meaning, which is different from its commonly known literal meaning? If the answer is 'yes', I would then like to know that basis. If the answer is 'no', then the other verses of the Qur'an like Al-Nisaa 4: 155 - 156 should be interpreted in the light of Aal Imraan 3: 55, which give a comparatively more complete scenario, rather than vice versa. I hope this helps. Regards and Salaam. The Learner