Some Thoughts On S 4:159

Muslims will argue from this verse that Isa didn't die.

S 4:159 And there is none of the People of the Book but shall believe in him before his death. And on the day of resurrection he is a witness against them.

It's an unclear verse in the 'clear' book but there are scholars who are clear that the clear book is clear when it says that he died.

'People of the Book' in the passage is probably referring to the Jews alone. If so, the author might have made it clear. Now, the Christians of course did believe in the historical Jesus and in him as God and in the historicity of the Crucifixion and continue to do so, and the Jews of course believe that he was a historical character and in the historicity of the Crucifixion.

Whoever is being referred to would believe in him (or it. See below) before his death. Before whose death? Islamites generally take it to mean Isa's at some point in the future. But although this verse is unclear, it is clear in other passages that he did already die. There is no explicit verse that contradicts the idea that he did. The death being referred to in the verse is surely that of a Jew, that when he died he would believe in him. And on resurrection day Isa would act as a witness against him. We can hardly take the clause to mean that Isa would do so against the Christian. From an article:

Yusuf Ali gives this interpretation in his commentary note 665:

Before his death: Interpreters are not agreed as to the exact meaning. Those who hold that Jesus did not die refer the pronoun "his" to Jesus. They say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, after the coming of the Mahdi, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief. There will be a final death before the final Resurrection, but all will have believed before that final death. Others think that "his" is better referred to "none of the People of the Book", and that the emphatic form "must believe" (la-yu` minanna) denotes more a question of duty than of fact.

Note 664 on Surah 4:158 is maybe a helpful background to the above note, since in 665 he only talks on the basis of what he just stated is the generally accepted Muslim view:

There is difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are: The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafa`u) to Himself. One school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view.

In a mailing list discussion, one Muslim claimed this clearly states that all People of the Book will believe in Jesus before his (future) death. This seems to be grammatically possible. Several translators seem to follow this understanding and their translations say something to the effect that "everyone from the People of the Book will (certainly) believe in him ...". However, why would Jesus be a "witness against them" when they believe in him? Should he not be a witness against those who do NOT believe in him?

Rashad Khalifa is the odd one out who transfers this into the past tense (was required to believe), while all others see this either present or future. Khalifa circumvents the problem by inserting the word "required" which is not in the Arabic.

The main question so far seems to be whether the emphatic form means "certainty of fact in the future" (will believe) or "duty for everyone" (required, must believe). But there are more opinions on the meaning of this verse...

In response to Yusuf Ali's translation of this verse, an Ahmadiyya gave me the following explanation regarding their interpretation of this verse:

Everybody will believe in whom? The verse you quoted does not give a name anyway. Why not? And whose death is being referred to? I mean, many *People of the Book* die everyday without believing in Jesus a.s. anyway. i.e. the Jews, whilst the Christians already believe in him as the Messiah anyway. And if you mean to say that they will all believe in him as a Prophet of God after his hypothetical return to earth and subsequent death, then there would be no need for Jesus a.s. to be a witness against them on the Day of Judgement anyway. So, your proposed construction of the verse becomes untenable.

Besides the Arabic pronoun used does not here mean *him* but *it*, because the incident being referred to in the preceeding verse is to Jesus's a.s. alleged death on the cross, so the correct translation (with my explanation in brackets) will be:

"And there is none among the People of the Book but will (continue to) believe in IT (i.e. the death of Jesus a.s. on the cross) before his (own) death (i.e. the death of the Jew or Christian himself); and on the Day of Judgement he (Jesus a.s.) will be a witness against them ... [4:159].

This Ahmadiyya interpretation gets rid of some problems but substitutes it for others.

The way this is now translated and interpreted by the Ahmadiyya, it says that ALL the people of the Book, Jews and Christians, will continue to believe the death of Jesus on the Cross. But Muslims tell us that there have been thousands (or even millions) of Jews and Christians who converted to Islam, and consequently they do no longer believe in this death on the Cross. Does that not mean the Qur'an is wrong, according to the interpretation given above? Isn't the Ahmadiyya translation only removing one problem by substituting it with another interpretation, equally wrong on the factual level?

Is there any interpretation of this verse that is consistent with the rest of Islamic theology (whether the Sunni or the Ahmadiyya version) and the facts of life that some Christians and Christians do convert to orthodox Islam, some to Ahmadiyya Islam and believe exactly as these movments tell, and most of them continue to believe in the revelation given by God in the Bible?

Whatever this verse means, the facts will contradict any theory which understands it in a way such that all of them will continue not to believe, or all of them will believe. This is certainly a challenge to the "none ... but" construction in the aya which makes a statement that supposedly holds without exception.

At the following link you will find a number of further articles examining the Qur'anic passage and Muslim traditions on the Crucifixion which we would like to recommend reading as well. Based on the above and those further articles...

Conclusion: The one and only passage in the Qur'an dealing with the issue of the Crucifixion is extremely vague and riddled with problems of its own. How then can it be the bases for rejection of the very clear meaning of the passion narratives in the Gospels? Observations on Surah an-Nisa' 4:159

Further reading:

Isa's Death

Tawaffa (Cause To Die)

Crucifixion in the Quran