The Reality of Khilafah — Page 157
An Announcement for Public Awareness 157 a different connotation, but when it applied to Jesus it had the meaning originally intended by God? If this were true, it would entail the manifest error that it is beyond the status of a Prophet to change the established meaning of a word in a way that can only be described as distortion. It would also nullify the similitude that the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, intended to portray by citing the verse 1 فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّیۡتَنِیۡ , for, the similarity would only stand if the true meanings of the word tawaff i applied equally to him and to Jesus. In the absence of such application, where would the similarity be? Could the Holy Prophet s as not have found another word instead of sharing one to which he was not even entitled? Can one who is buried in the earth and one who has been raised to heaven be equally described by a word that could mean either to die or to be raised to heaven alive? Can two opposites be the same? If the meaning of tawaff i mentioned in the verse ۡ فَلَمَّا تَوَفَّیۡتَنِی was not to ‘cause to die’, then had Imam Bukh a r i lost his mind when he picked another verse from another place and cited it in support of this meaning in S a hih Bukh a r i ? Not only that, but he also brought in the saying of Ibn Abbas ra: َ مُمِیْتُك َ یْك ِّ مُتَوَف ‘I will tawaff i you means “I will cause you to die. ”’ If Bukh a r i did not mean to elaborate upon the allegorical meaning of the Holy Prophet’s s as words through the clear definition given by Ibn Abb a s, then what was the purpose of bringing together the two verses and mentioning Ibn Abb a s as well, and what was the need 1. S u rah al-M a ’idah, 5:118 [Publisher]