Exactly, sir, Quran is unambiguous, but when we are here arguing on its interpretation, it means that we are considering it to be ambiguous. If we consider that there is only one interpretation of Quran, than its simple than 2+2=4, because the following verse makes it as clear as “saint-gobain”:
And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way. (43:61)
You are using nothing but Maududi’s explanation to refute your point, and in response to ONE Maududi, I am giving you a reference of so many Ahadis and other Mufassireen. Now it is upto you to decide whether Maududi is a better interpretter of Quranic verses, or the Holy Prophet S.A.W.
Answer
I mentioned Maulana Maududi not because I am his blind follower. I disagree with him on many issues. In fact, like you, he too believes in Jesus’s return. But he has offered an explanation of the verse under discussion which, contrary to your understanding, makes it absolutely clear that it was not referring to the alleged return of Jesus.
The translator you have quoted already had the return of Jesus in mind when he mentioned “And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment). The actual Arabic wording in the Quran “wa innahu la’ilmullissa’ah” is a tense-neutral expression. It can be translated for past, present, or future tenses. The translator preferred the future tense because he had already decided from sources outside the Quran that the verse must be translated for that tense. And if my criticism is correct, then you can appreciate why I believe it is such a big offence to insert meanings into the Quranic text which was never the intent of the Almighty, simply because of the decision of allowing outside sources the right to decide what the Quran was saying. It is an offence that causes a reader not to understand what the Almighty was actually saying.
Look at what has happened because of your preferred translation: The disbelievers of Makkah were denying the hereafter; the Quran presented Jesus, alaihissalam, as the sign of the hour of the judgment day and affirmed on the basis if it: “therefore have no doubt about the (Hour).” How could the rejecters of the Hour at the time of prophet, alaihissalam, be convinced about it by the mention of Jesus’s return? Were those who denied the Hour likely to accept it if they were informed that Jesus would also come close to the hour? While they denied the happening of one future event how could they be convinced of it by a reference to another future event about which they had no clue? Did they believe that Jesus was going to return or was his return so obvious that they couldn’t have denied it? These are some of the questions the complete absence of whose answers makes the translation of the verse in the future tense a non-serious exercise. And yet many translators did it because they gave an outside source more importance for understanding the Quran compared to the text of the book of God itself. You too are so influenced by it that you believe that the translation has made the concept of return of Jesus and the verse “as clear as ‘saint-gobain.'”
The simple translation of the verse is this: “He was the sign of the hour of judgment” and it is followed by “therefore have no doubt about it (the Hour).” The Qur’aish were criticising the repeated mention of the miraculous birth of Jesus and his other miracles because they claimed that their false deities were superior to Jesus. The Quran responded to their criticism by saying that his miracles didn’t make him a god; he was simply “the sign of the hour of judgment.” In other words, the fact that he was born without a father and that he was given miracles like bringing back to life some of the dead and causing hand-made birds of clay to fly were signs of “the Hour”. Like God caused such miraculous things to happen through Jesus, He is going to cause the judgment day to arrive as well.