-
Year Of Death Of Prophet Jesus (sws) & Its Implications On Divine Punishment
Am I correct in understanding that Ustadh Gamidi sb has said that Eesa A.S. passed away around 14/15 years before the 70 CE Siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple (itmam-e-hujjat).
Has he ever discussed the historicity of it anywhere? It is generally assumed to be circa 33 CE. Do our sources have any evidences of it being later?
Also, if it were the earlier 33 CE, does it have any implications on Ustadh’s explanation about the azaab of the kuffar w.r.t. Eesa A.S.? Does 70 CE make the azaab late by at least a generation?
-
6 Replies
-
Year Of Death Of Prophet Jesus (sws) & Its Implications On Divine Punishment
updated 1 year, 1 month ago
2 Members
·
6
Replies
-
Historical accounts do not provide the confirmed date of Jesus’ departure. It is the hint in the Quran and the Bible that tells that he was above 40 when he departed.
It has no effect on the Azab which befell the deniers of Jesus in 70 CE. The azab started soon after his departure. The Romans had started treating the Jews very badly with humiliated them so much that they rebelled against them. In 70CE it was the culmination of this Azab.
-
Jazak Allaah khair for taking the time out to respond.
From what I have read, historians generally do take 36 CE as an upper bound for Eesa A.S. (St Stephen and Paul are afterwards and are more historical than Eesa A.S.) That should be consistent with him having lived at least 40 years. I have little expertise about the historicity, but I want to wrap by head around any implications on the azab and qanoon-e-itmam-e-hujjat.
If we take 36 CE, to when itmam-e-hujjat is complete, then the ruswai sould begin around that time. However, whereas the 70 CE siege is YUUUGE and is cataclysmic, the years preceding them are par for the course. What I mean to say that nothing special is happening to the bani-israel. One might argue that Herod’s rule at the beginning of the century was more adverse. Also, other roman provinces and territories were subject to similar Roman tyranny (IMHO — i’m just trying to articulate what’s in my head). So if my understanding is correct, nothing spectacular happens to the generation of the munkireen such that they know that Allaah SWT has قُضِيَ بَيْنَهُمْ.
At the time of the destruction of the second temple, the bani-israel would certainly have known what hit them and that they have earned the wrath of Allaah SWT, but that’s a generation or two after the generation of the munkireen of the Rasool. Also, when Allaah SWT mentions it in surah Isra He doesn’t explicitly spell out that their fault was the takfir of the Rasool. One needs to deduct the meaning from لَتُفْسِدُنَّ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ and وَلَتَعْلُنَّ عُلُوًّۭا كَبِيرًۭ. It does lend itself to that deduction but would the lack of an explicit charge be an argument against this being an azab for the specific crime of takfir of the Rasool?
-
-
“lack of an explicit charge”. Do you mean that Jesus’ itmam ul Hujjah was not explicit enough? It is not the case. Jesus was being awaited by Jews. He came with all the pieces of evidence which left no excuses for them to deny his being the messenger of Allah.
The torture and humiliation they started receiving soon after the departure of Jesus were horrible which eventually led them to rebel against the Romans in face of all odds and a definite defeat. The details you can find in the books of history. The destruction of the temple and the massacre were just two great events and the last episodes of the Azab of the direct deniers.
-
Jazak Allaah Khair Dr.sb. for taking the time to respond.
I agree that Eesa A.S. bayyinah was as tamaam as can be. By “lack of an explicit charge” is that Isra does not explicitly describe kufr of their rasool (which it certainly was) to be the crime for which bani-israel were punished.
From what I am able to gather from your response is that the historical evidence will be “torture and humiliation” that the bani-israel received “soon after the departure of Jesus”. This will need to stand out from any “torture and humiliation” that might have existed before that. So being a conquered people or having had taxes imposed on them wouldn’t prima facie be the azab if it were the same before and after. The azab has to be:
1) a marked escalation in the how the Romans treated the Jews, and
2) this escalation has to be very “soon after the departure of Jesus”.
Does that properly represent your POV?
Also, Dr. sb. do you count Calligula’s treatment of the Jews as part of the azab period. If yes, then does the period of his reign put an upper bound on the wafat of Eesa A.S.?
-
I think an important point is being missed here which the special status of bani Israel. The form of azab for them prescribed by God is humiliation and not annihilation as the azab of annihilation id exclusive to the crime of shirk and bani isarel were not Mushrik but denied the prophet. The same punishment of humiliation they received when once again they did the same in the case of prophet Muhammad.
I hope it makes the point clear. However you can ask your follow up questions. .for details you can read my book on such question
قانون اتمام حجت اور اس کے اطلاقات
Published by Al Mawrid.
-
I understand that the punishment was one of humiliation and not annihilation. I am trying to understand the nature and the timeline of the humiliation, and how such humiliation stands out from bani Israel’s prior condition. Thanks for pointing out your book. Just ordered my copy 😀
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
