Meaning of Tawaffā
The word tawaffā is derived from the root (و ف ي) in the verb form of tafa‘u’. In its essential meaning, the verb is used in the sense of akhdhu ash-shay’i wafiyyan, ‘,’اخذ الشيء وافيا which means to take something entirely and completely in possession. Additionally, it is metaphorically used to signify death.
According to exegetes, in this context, the word tawaffā is not used in its metaphorical sense but rather in its fundamental sense. Therefore, it does not mean to cause the death of Jesus but instead to take him entirely and intact into custody. This interpretation is supported by the continuation of the sentence beyond Innī mutawaffīka, as it is followed by the words rāfi‘uka ilayya (رَافِعُكَ اِلَيَّ). These additional words prevent tawaffā from being understood in the sense of death.
The reasoning is that, in the case of death, the embodied existence consisting of both the soul and body ceases to remain intact, making the act of raising meaningless. If tawaffā were to imply death, the object pronoun كَ(ka, referring to Jesus) would lose its referent, as Jesus’s personal identity would no longer remain unified. Instead, his soul and body would separate into two distinct components. Additionally, in verse 159 of Surah An-Nisa, the words wa mā qatalūhu wa mā salabuhu (neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him) clearly refute the occurrence of death, affirming that the Israelites neither killed nor crucified him. This denial of Jesus’s (PBUH) killing and crucifixion inherently negates his death. Given the Qur’an’s emphatic and unequivocal denial of Jesus’s death, it is not appropriate to impose the metaphorical meaning of death on the word tawaffā in this context.
This is a summary of the reasoning of scholars in determining the meaning of tawaffā.
According to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, tawaffā here is explicitly used in the sense of death, and it is not correct to construe it in the sense of taking something in its entirety. His arguments are as follows:
Firstly, the established rule of language is that the meanings of words and expressions are determined by their conventional and commonly used meanings. The determination of the meanings of words used in a sentence does not depend on our personal preferences—where we pick a preferred meaning from a dictionary’s multiple definitions and apply it arbitrarily to a word. Rather, it is governed entirely by how the word is conventionally used in the language. Similarly, deciding whether a word is used in its literal or figurative sense in a particular context is not within our discretion. This determination is also guided by the common usage of the language.
For example, the verb “to pass” can mean different things depending on context. Consider the sentences:
‘She passed the exam.’
‘She passed away last night.’
Although both use the same verb, the first sentence clearly means that she successfully completed a test. The second, however, is a conventional euphemism for death. One cannot interpret ‘passed away’ to mean exam success, nor can ‘passed the exam’ imply death. Despite sharing the same root, these expressions have developed distinct, fixed meanings based on usage and context.
While both sentences might appear similar, their conventional usage dictates distinct meanings. The first sentence unequivocally conveys the idea of death and cannot imply a physical relocation to another place in this world. On the other hand, the second sentence explicitly conveys a worldly transition, such as relocating to a new residence, and cannot be interpreted as a reference to death. These are established meanings rooted in convention.
If one were to arbitrarily assign a different meaning without clear context or justification, it would violate the norms of the language and misrepresent the speaker’s intent.
Therefore, the meaning of tawaffā must not be determined merely by exploring its various dictionary meanings but by analyzing its usage in the specific sentence and context. The decision should align with the conventional usage of the language. Specifically, when this verb has Allah as the subject and a human as the object, the question arises: should it be interpreted in its literal sense (to take in full) or in a figurative sense (to cause death)? The answer lies in how the language conventionally employs this structure. That conventional usage will dictate the interpretation, and it is that interpretation which should be accepted.
Secondly, the meaning of a verb in a sentence is determined in relation to its affiliated subject and object. A verb always establishes a relationship between a subject (the doer of the action) and an object (the receiver of the action). Therefore, the meaning of the verb is inherently shaped by the entities to which it is ascribed.
Subjects and objects are diverse, and their variations can influence the interpretation of the verb. In this context, the critical question arises: does a change in the subject or object of a verb alter its meaning? The answer is unequivocally yes. This demonstrates that the meaning of a verb in a sentence cannot be deduced solely from the verb itself. Instead, it must be interpreted in conjunction with the specific affiliations to which it is connected, as these affiliations are integral to defining the action described.
For understanding, a common verb used in everyday Urdu language, uthana (to lift), is presented as an example. You will see that the verb is the same, but with the change of its subject or object—the affiliate—the meaning of the verb has changed.
In these examples, the same verb uthana (to lift) is used with the same corresponding preposition lena (to take). However, by simply changing the subject or object, the meanings are entirely transformed. This highlights that the meaning of a verb cannot be inferred in isolation or by comparing it directly to other uses of the same verb, even with similar prepositions.
For instance, when we hear the phrase us ney aasman sar par utha liya hai (‘he has lifted the sky over his head’), we do not interpret it literally, as if someone is physically carrying the sky on their head. Instead, the conventional usage of this phrase conveys an exaggerated emotional or dramatic reaction. In contrast, the phrase samaan sar par utha liya (‘has lifted luggage on his head’) straightforwardly refers to the physical act of carrying luggage.
Similarly, when we hear Allah nay ladke ko utha liya (‘Allah has lifted up the boy’), we do not deduce that Allah has physically transferred the boy alive to the sky. The established usage of such expressions implies that Allah has caused the boy’s death. On the other hand, if someone points to the phrase maan nay ladke ko utha liya hai (‘the mother has lifted the boy’), which employs a similar structure, and asks why it is understood to mean the mother has physically picked up the boy in her arms, the response is clear: this distinction is rooted in the conventions of language and expression.
Thirdly, it is a fact that the verb tawaffā is interpreted differently when ascribed to different subjects and objects. The author of Aqrab al-Mawarid has described four prominent references to it:
1. When an object appears as the direct object of this verb, its meaning will be akhdh al-shay’a waafiyan or akhdh al-shay’a bi tamaamihi i.e., to take something in its entirety or completely:
توفى حقه توفياً: اخذه وافياً. ويقال توفيت من فلان ما لي عليه.
He has received all his rights: meaning that he has completely taken that thing (right). For example, it is said that I have taken everything from that person that he owed to me. (Aqrab al-Mawarid 1472)
2. If the word ‘duration’ (muddat) serves as its direct object, the meaning will be the completion or fulfillment of that duration.
وتوفيٰ المدة: بلغها واستكملها.
‘tawaffā al-muddah’ means that he has reached the age/time, or he has completed the period. (Aqrab al-Mawarid 1472)
3. If number of people (adad al-qawm) appears as its direct object, it will mean counting the people completely or fully.
توفي عدد القوم:عدهم كلهم.
‘tawaffā adad al-qawm’ meaning he has counted all the people. (Aqrab al-Mawarid 1472)
4. When the subject of the verb tawaffā is Allah and the object is a human, it will mean that Allah has seized that person’s soul, i.e., has given him death.
توفي اللّٰه زيدًا : قبض روحه (تُوُفّيِ) فلان مجهولاً: قبضت روحه ومات. فاللّٰه المتوفي والعبد المتوفي.
‘tawaffā Allāhu Zayd-an’ meaning Allah has seized Zaid's soul. ‘Tuwuffiya fulanun’, is used in the passive to mean: The person’s soul has been seized, that is, he has died. Allah will be the one seizing, and the person will be the one seized. (Aqrab al-Mawarid 1472)
The complete text from Aqrab al-Mawarid is as follows:
(توفى) حقه توفياً: اخذه وافياً، مطاوع وفى ويقال ’توفيت من فلان ما لي عليه‘ والمدة: بلغها واستكملها وعدد القوم: عدهم كلهم وفي التاج عدهم لهم و اللّٰه زيدًا: قبض روحه (تُوُفّيِ) فلان مجهولاً: قُبِضَت روحه ومات فاللّٰه المتوفي والعبد المتوفي.
‘Tawaffā haqqa hu tafaulan’: He received his full right. meaning he completely took that thing (right). In this example it is synonymous with the verb waffā. And it is said: tawaffāytu min fulanin mali ‘alayhi, that is, I took everything from someone that was my right upon them. ‘Tawaffā al-mudda’ means that he reached the end of the period or he completed the period. ‘Tawaffā ‘adada al-qawm’ means that he counted all the people. ‘Tawaffā Allah Zaidan’ means Allah took Zaid's soul, and he died. ‘Tuwuffiya fulanun’, is used in the passive to mean: The person’s soul has been seized, that is, he has died. Allah would be the taker, and the person would be the one whose soul is taken.
Fourthly, keeping this perspective, let us look at the words of the verse. It is declared:
... يٰعِيْسٰ٘ي اِنِّيْ مُتَوَفِّيْكَ وَرَافِعُكَ اِلَيَّ...
…Jesus, I have decided to give you death and lift you up to Myself… (3:55)
The phrase Innī mutawaffīka clearly shows that the verb tawaffā is used, with the subject being the pronoun ‘I’ (represented by Innī), which refers to Allah, and the object being the pronoun ‘you’ (represented by ka), which refers to Jesus, peace be upon him. This means that the action of tawaffā is emanating from Allah and is being applied to a human, Prophet Jesus. In this situation, the meaning must decisively be that of taking the soul, which necessarily results in death. Hence, considering the Arabic language and expression, no other meaning except the death of Jesus can be inferred here.
Fifthly, examples from the Qur’an and hadith also testify that when tawaffā is used in relation to Allah as a subject and a human as an object, it means to take life. Not a single example can be presented from the Qur’an and hadith that deviates from this rule of language and expression. These examples are listed on the following pages.