Javed Ahmed Ghamidi believes that the issues identified above prevent the narratives about the Descent of Jesus and the related events from being accepted as defined, tangible, and observed incidents. It is not permissible to attribute such a concept to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, with its current understanding because attributing an unreliable and dubious matter to the noble person of the Prophet is contrary to religion and faith.
The question then arises, if Javed Ahmed Ghamidi does not consider the well-known concept of the Descent of Jesus attributable to the Prophet (PBUH), does he reject all the numerous narratives on this topic? The answer is negative. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi indeed accepts all the narratives on this subject; however, he interprets them in the light of the narrative attributed to Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud (RA) No. 4081 in Sunan Ibn Majah. From this narrative, it is clear that the matter of the Descent of Jesus and the killing of the Dajjal was discussed by Jesus (PBUH) himself in the presence of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) during the event of Prophet Muhammad’s ascension (Isra). According to the narration, when the Prophet (PBUH) met the various prophets during the dream of the Isra and Mi‘raj, the issue of the Day of Judgment was also discussed. Jesus (PBUH) informed them that he would descend before the Day of Judgment and kill the Dajjal.
According to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, the words fa’anzala and faqtulahu in this narration (I will descend and I will kill him) cannot be interpreted literally to accept that Jesus (PBUH) will personally descend from the heavens. There are two fundamental reasons for this:
Firstly, the Holy Qur’an rejects this interpretation.
Secondly, the specific time mentioned in the narrations for the Descent of Jesus has already passed, and the event of the Descent of Jesus has not occurred. This predetermined time was the year 857 Hijri, corresponding to 1453 AD, which passed 570 years ago. If the words about the Descent of Jesus were to be taken literally, then the Dajjal would have appeared at that time, and Jesus (PBUH) would have descended and killed him. However, historical evidence carries no hint to any such incident.
The only way to accept the Descent of Jesus now is to interpret it allegorically and metaphorically. The reason is that sometimes Allah shows realities to His Prophets through true dreams. Some of those dreams need interpretation as they may not always correspond directly with reality. Typically, the future circumstances and events shown in the world of dreams employ allegory and metaphor. The nature of these dreams is such that forthcoming events appear as examples. Thus, an example takes on a physical form, sometimes representing the event and sometimes narrated as the event’s story. In both cases, the relationship between the event and the example is metaphorical.
Some of the interpretive realities of different types of dreams narrated in the Qur’an and hadith have been described in the Qur’an itself. Prophet Ibrahim (PBUH) saw in a dream that he was sacrificing his son, Prophet Ismail (PBUH). Obviously, the interpretation was that he had to dedicate his son to the service of the sanctuary for Allah. Prophet Joseph (PBUH) saw the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrating before him in a dream. The interpretation was not that these celestial bodies would physically prostrate before him, but rather that his parents and eleven brothers would bow down to him out of respect.
Based on this reasoning, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi has deemed the statement of the Descent (second coming) of Jesus to be symbolic and has identified its interpretative reality in the light of parallels from the Qur’an, the Bible, and Hadiths. Thus, his stance is that the mention of the Descent of Jesus does not refer to his personal return, but a metaphoric descent. Meaning, when Jesus (PBUH) said that he would descend, it did not mean that he would return in person but rather indicated the re-emergence of his guidance – which Christians have completely eliminated.
In his view, this metaphor is the same as the one Jesus (PBUH) mentioned concerning his judgment. As it is clear from the Gospel of Matthew that he, as a messenger, likened the establishment of his judgment to his coming and stated, ‘As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man (Jesus). For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up till the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.’ (Matthew 24:37-39)
It is evident that Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s position on the matter of Jesus’s descent is an analogy based on the words and applications of hadith and the identified excerpt from the Gospel. That is, he has drawn a parallel between the words of hadith, ‘I (Jesus, son of Mary) will descend,’ with the words of the Gospel, ‘the Son of Man (Jesus, son of Mary) will come,’ and interpreted both in the same manner as a metaphorical coming, just as the metaphorical reality of the Gospel's prophecy is established in the pages of history. So, just as there, his ‘coming’ refers to the ‘coming of his judgment,’ similarly in the hadith, his ‘coming’ refers to the ‘coming of his guidance.’
The question then arises that if Jesus’s guidance had already arrived two thousand years ago, what is the nature of its re-emergence and why is it necessary?
The answer is that this refers to the revival and renewal of his guidance - the second appearance of his guidance. This recurrence is necessary because his original guidance has completely vanished from the thoughts and practices of his followers. Instead, they have adopted a religion which is the opposite of his original guidance. Such an extraordinary event has not occurred with the guidance of any other Messenger. There are three extraordinary aspects of this event: Firstly, the guidance of Jesus (PBUH) was deprived of the foundation of monotheism. Secondly, the Sharia given by him was entirely abrogated. And thirdly, it has been accepted that Jesus (PBUH) by crucifixion has paid the atonement for the sins of all humans.
In this context, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi’s analogy is that before the Day of Judgment, the guidance of Jesus (PBUH) will be restored in its original form. The likely scenario is that a movement for religious renewal and revival will arise among the Christians, which will terminate the religion established by Saint Paul and re-establish the original religion of Jesus (PBUH). As a result, the cross will be broken, meaning it will be utterly destroyed along with all its associated concepts. The pig will be killed, implying the law prohibiting pork consumption will be restored. Animosity between Muslims and Christians will cease, meaning when Christians return to the original guidance and abandon the doctrine of Trinity and accept monotheism, the foundation for war and argument between the Christians and Muslims will no longer exist.