Does the Quran describe the crucifixion and death
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=45488
Printed Date: 23 November 2024 at 4:14pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Does the Quran describe the crucifixion and death
Posted By: JOB the OLD
Subject: Does the Quran describe the crucifixion and death
Date Posted: 17 February 2022 at 12:28am
|
I see quite a few well educated Muslim scholars on this site and I myself read the quran in different translations numerous times. I also got hold of the Al Bukhari concise collection of authentic traditions, and summarised it, the Quran and the Bible.
As you can see, I am a Christian, denomination... Protestant.
In my studies of Islam since 2007, there is only one question I can not get answered from the Muslim scholars' side. On the contrary, when I asked this to quite a lot of Muslim scholars, they got very rude, and start to accuse me of being unable to unserstand Arabic, being st**id, and sooo much more bad stuff, that I realised that they were incapable to answer me. For a few years, I just let it simmer, but I need to get sone explanation, before I continue with my studies.
It concerns the crucifixion of Jesus.
Here is the verse from the English Quran.
The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab (4:157) and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.
The Study Quran and for their saying, “We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God”—though they did not slay him; nor did they crucify him, but it appeared so unto them. Those who differ concerning him are in doubt thereof. They have no knowledge of it, but follow only conjecture; they slew him not for certain
Muhammad Sarwar and their statement that they murdered Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of God, when, in fact, they could not have murdered him or crucified him. They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake. Even those who disputed (the question of whether or not Jesus was murdered) did not have a shred of evidence. All that they knew about it was mere conjecture. They certainly could not have murdered Jesus
Now, here is my question. - The Quran say that Jesus was not crucified or killed...period...
- it means the writers of the Gospels' recording of the Crucufixion is a false fabrication.
Now, if we accuse the witneses of being liars, we will have to present evidence, else it is only an accusation. - However, If the witnesses in the Gospels saw Jesus die on the Cross, then they are not liars, but witnesses to the event.
In such a case we will have to rely on their historical recolection and presume they spoke the truth. - But, If the Quran demands that they were wrong, we will have to look at the evidence and explanation from the Quran on why these witnesses were lying.
- Therefore, looking at the explanation from the Quran on why there is this historical description of Jesus who died on the cross, we find the following.
"but it appeared so unto them."; "They, in fact, murdered someone else by mistake"; "it was only made to appear so"
And this is the nail in the coffin of the Islamic claim that Jesus was not killed on the cross!
What the Quran tells us is: - Jesus did not die on the cross.
- People who say He did is only confused or liars.
- because they saw some Holographic movie of Jesus dying on the Cross.
- But the Quran assures us it was not Jesus who they say died on the cross!
- 600 Years before Muhammad, somehow Allah made a representation of Jesus dying on the cross,
- and 600 years later Allah decided to change the historical description written down as remembered by the witnesses to the Crucifixion.
The only conclusion any sane person can make about the Quranic description, is that the Quran testifies that Jesus was crucified, and died on the cross, but Allah actually deceived those people to believe in the crucifixion for 600 years.
Please take some patients and try to explain to me why Allah deceived the world for 600 years?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 06 March 2022 at 3:13am
You refer to the following Sūrah:
‘And so for breaking their pledge, for rejecting Allāh’s revelations, for unjustly killing their prophets, for saying: “Our minds are closed” – Nay! Allāh has sealed them in their disbelief, so they believe only a little – and because they disbelieved and uttered a terrible slander against Mary, and said “We have killed (‘qatalnā’) the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allāh.” They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā alabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’ (Al-Nisa: 155-158).
There are tafâsîr (interpretations of the Qur’an) by Wahb Ibn Munabbih; Ṭabarî; Makkî Ibn Abi Ṭâlib; Qurṭubî; Ibn Kathîr; Suyûṭî; Ṭabâṭabâ’î ; and Jazâ’irî. All of them (apart from Ṭabâṭabâ’î) claim that Yeshua was not crucified, but that another was made to resemble him – and to take his place. The text provides no justification for this claim.
Muhammad Asad writes:
‘There exist, among Muslims, many fanciful legends telling us that at the last moment God substituted for Jesus a person closely resembling him (according to some accounts, that person was Judas), who was subsequently crucified in his place. However, none of these legends finds the slightest support in the Qur’ān or in authentic Traditions, and the stories produced in this connection by the classical commentators must be summarily rejected. They represent no more than confused attempts at “harmonizing” the Qur’anic statement that Jesus was not crucified with the graphic description, in the Gospels, of his crucifixion.
‘The story of the crucifixion as such has been succinctly explained in the Qur’anic phrase wa-lākin shubbiha lahum – implying that in the course of time, long after the time of Jesus, a legend had somehow grown up (possibly under the then-powerful influence of Mithraistic beliefs) to the effect that he had died on the cross in order to atone for the “original sin” with which mankind is allegedly burdened; among the latter-day followers of Jesus that even his enemies, the Jews, began to believe it – albeit in a derogatory sense (for crucifixion was, in those times, a heinous form of death-penalty reserved for the lowest of criminals). (‘The Message of the Qur'an).
I opine that these ʾāyāt are a rejection of narratives found in the ‘Talmud Bavli’ (‘Babylonian Talmud’), rather than those of the Gospels.
Here’s why:
Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) does not identify those Jews who ‘uttered a terrible slander against Mary’; nor the period in which they lived. However, there are clues to their identity in the writings of Origen, and in the Talmud.
Celsus, a polemic writer against Christians, produced his ‘Logos Alēthēs’ (‘The True Word’) between the years 175 and 180 CE. Around 240 CE, a copy was given to Origen of Alexandria, one of the most influential scholars in the early Church.
The original text of ‘Logos Alēthēs’ has been lost, but scholars have been able to reconstruct much of it, thanks to Origen’s many citations.
Origen writes:
‘He (Celsus) also introduces an imaginary character (a Jew) who addresses childish remarks to Jesus and says nothing worthy of a philosopher’s grey hairs…..After this he represents the Jew as having a conversation with Jesus himself and refuting him on many charges, as he thinks: first, because he (Jesus) fabricated the story of his birth from a virgin; and he reproaches him because he came from a Jewish village and from a poor country woman who earned her living by spinning. He (Celsus) says that she was driven out by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, as she was convicted of adultery.’ (‘Contra Celsus – Book 1; Chapter 28’).
In Chapter 32 of his work, Origen writes:
‘Let us return, however, to the words put into the mouth of the Jew, where the mother of Jesus is described as having been turned out by the carpenter who was betrothed to her, "as she had been convicted of adultery and had a child by a certain soldier named Panthera”’.
Henry Chadwick, in his translation of the ‘Contra Celsus, writes:
‘The title Jesus ben Panthera is not uncommon in the Talmud……. Eusebius, commenting on Hos. v. 14 (‘Return, Israel, to the Lord your God. Your sins have been your downfall!’) says: ‘The text may be quoted against those of the circumcision who slanderously and abusively assert that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was born of Panthera Epiphanius’
When preparing his book ‘Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schäfer – a noted scholar in the field of ancient Judaism and early Christianity, and one-time Ronald O. Perelman Professor of Judaic Studies at Princeton University – drew on fourteen Talmud manuscripts (both censored and uncensored); along with two printed versions; the Soncino (1484-1519) and the Vilna (1880-1886).
For our purposes, the uncensored tracts are of particular relevance. The oldest used by Schäfer are the Firenze II-I-7-9; an Ashkenazi manuscript of 1177 CE; and the Herzog 1; a Yemeni manuscript of c1565 CE.
He writes:
‘The (Babylonian) Talmud seems to be convinced that (Yeshua’s) true father was Pandera, his mother’s lover, and that he was a b*****d in the full sense of the word.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’).
Could this be the ‘terrible slander against Mary’ that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) refers to? I know of no other.
Referring to the tractate ‘Sanhedrin 43’, Schäfer continues:
‘With the sixth chapter (“Jesus’ Execution”) we return to the fate of Jesus himself. Here, a quite elaborate story – again only in the Babylonian Talmud – details the halakhic procedure of Jesus’ trial and execution: Jesus was not crucified but, according to Jewish law, stoned to death and then, as the ultimate post-mortem punishment reserved for the worst criminals, hanged on a tree. This took place on the eve of Passover, which happened to be Sabbath eve (Friday). The reason for his execution was because he was convicted of sorcery and of enticing Israel into idolatry.’ (‘Jesus in the Talmud’).
Continued:
-------------
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib)
|
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 06 March 2022 at 3:14am
Dr. David Instone-Brewer, of the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, writes:
‘The Talmud is an edited and severely abbreviated record of discussions by rabbis over a period of 300 years, starting in about AD 200 when the document they were discussing was edited.
‘The traditions about the trials of Jesus and his disciples which were censored from b.San.43a were brought into the Talmudic discussions early in the Third Century and removed in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries.
‘External evidence gives independent witness that the earliest core in this tradition was: ‘On the Eve of Passover, they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and enticing Israel (to idolatry).’ (‘Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in the Uncensored Talmud’).
The Qur’an denies the Talmud Bavli narratives:
They did not kill him (wamā qatalūhu), nor did they crucify him (wamā alabūhu), though it was made to appear like that to them (wa-lākin shubbiha lahum); those that disagreed about him are full of doubt, with no knowledge to follow, only supposition: they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’), Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself. Allāh is almighty and wise.’
There was no deception of the part of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) – no ‘substitution’. The Bavli narrative is a lie; one that gained the appearance of truth through a process of repetition over time.
According to the Qur’an, Yeshua was not executed. The language of the Text reveals, beyond doubt, that he did not die:
‘Allāh raised him (‘rafaʿahu’) up to Himself.’
The word ‘raise’ renders ‘rafa‘a’ (‘to raise’) rather than ‘ba‘atha’, which is used elsewhere in the Qur’an to mean ‘to resurrect’ after death.
Commenting on this, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari writes:
‘There is a consensus among the community of the faithful that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised alive to the heavens.’ (‘al-Ibana 'an Usul al-Diyana’).
Hasan Basri Cantay writes: ‘Allah raised and lifted up the Prophet Jesus (as) in both body and soul.’ (‘Tafsir of the Qur'an’).
Imam ibn Taymiyya writes: ‘The verse "He raised him to His Presence" … explains that the Prophet Jesus (as) was raised in both body and soul.’ (‘Majmu' Fatawa’).
Zahid al-Kawthari affirms that the ascension of Yeshua is beyond doubt:
‘That is because the basic meaning of the word rafa'a in the verses is transportation from below to above. There is no element here that could be used to interpret the verses metaphorically. Therefore, there is no evidence for seeking to produce a meaning in the sense of ascension in honour and station.’ (Nazra 'Abira fi Maza'im’).
The argument that Yeshua was not killed is strengthen by the use of the word ‘bal’ in ʾāyah 158.
‘they certainly did not kill him – Nay! (‘bal’),
By way of explanation, Sheikh al-Islam Mustafa Sabri writes that if the term ‘bal’:
‘Comes after a sentence expressing a negativity, then, according to the rules of Arabic linguistics, the sentence following it must mean the exact opposite of the one preceding it. The opposite of death is life. This is a requirement of the rules of linguistics.’ (‘Position of Reason’).
Referring to this same verse, Said Ramadan al-Buti writes:
‘The mutual compatibility between the verses’ previous and later sections necessarily reveals a fact. For example, if an Arab says: "I am not hungry; on the contrary, I am lying on my side," this is not a correct sentence. In the same way, there is a discrepancy between the components in the sentence: "Khalid did not die; on the contrary, he is a good man." What would be correct is to say: "Khalid did not die; on the contrary, he is alive." …… The term bal expresses a contradiction between the preceding and the following words. In other words, bal cancels out a previous statement. (Islamic Catechism: page 338).
Continued:
-------------
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib)
|
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 06 March 2022 at 3:15am
The overwhelming majority of NT scholars are in agreement that the gospels were written by anonymous authors, decades after the events they portray. Most certainly, they are not eyewitness accounts.
The gospels were first mentioned – in Christian literature – sometime around 120 CE–150 CE. Justin Martyr – a Christian apologist – refers to them as ‘Memoirs of the Apostles.’ (‘First Apology’ – 155 CE; and ‘Dialogue With Trypho’ – 160 CE). It was not until 180 CE – or thereabouts – that names were attached to these works. The person responsible for this deception was Irenaeus, the Bishop of Lyon.
Dorothy Milne Murdock (Acharya S) writes:
‘Irenaeus is the first to name the canonical gospels and give reasons for their inclusion and number in the New Testament.
‘The remarks by Irenaeus represent the first mention of all four canonical gospels together. In fact, prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them. (‘Who Was Jesus? - Fingerprints of The Christ’).
The gospel attributed to Mark was the first to be written. This was sometime after 70 CE – and perhaps even later.
This gospel became the foundation of both Matthew (its author plagarised some 90% of Mark) and of Luke (its author plagarised around 50% of Mark).
The crucifixion narratives are not the result of eyewitness memories. They have been fabricated by the simple process of scriptural eisegesis – the process of introducing into a text one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases.
Let’s have a look at some examples:
First:
Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is nailed to a cross. This notion is based on a specific interpretation of Ps 22:16: ‘For dogs surround me; a band of evil men encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet.’
It is worth noting that the Masoretic text has Psalmist say: ‘For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evildoers have enclosed me; like a lion they are at my hands and my feet.’
The ‘New Jerusalem Bible (Standard Edition)’ has: ‘A pack of dogs surrounds me, a gang of villains closing in on me as if to hack off my hands and my feet.’).
An earlier version of the ‘Jerusalem Bible’ has: ‘A pack of dogs surrounds me, a gang of villains closes me in; they tie me hand and foot.’
The ‘Douay-Rheims Bible’ has: For many dogs have encompassed me: the council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet.
A detailed examination of this particular text lies outside the scope of this thread; suffice it to say that the one word that matters is ‘ka'ari’; which means lion, like a lion, as a lion, and so on. In verses 12-13 and 20-21 the word is translated correctly. Had the Psalmist wished to declare that his hands and feet had been pierced he would not have used the word ‘ka'ari’ at all; rather, he would have used either ‘daqar’ or ‘ratza’. These are the Hebrew words used for pierce or pierced.
Second:
Yeshua’s garments are divided. This is taken directly from Ps 22:18: ‘They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.’
Third:
Yeshua is subjected to mockery. This is taken from Ps 22:7: ‘All who see me mock me; they sneer and shake their heads.’
Fourth:
Yeshua is then mocked by priests. They call on him to come down from the cross, so that they may see and believe (Mark 15:32). This is taken from Ps 22:8: ‘He trusts in the LORD, let the LORD deliver him; let the LORD rescue him, since He delights in him.’
Matthew adds to this mockery: ‘He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, `I am the son of God.’ (Matthew 27:43).
This wee snippet is taken – not from personal memory – but from a truncated interpretation of Wisdom 2:12-20:
‘……………………….For if the upright man is God's son, God will help him and rescue him from the clutches of his enemies. Let us test him with cruelty and with torture, and thus explore this gentleness of his and put his patience to the test. Let us condemn him to a shameful death since God will rescue him – or so he claims.'
Finally:
We have Yeshua’s alleged final words – a cry of dereliction, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ This, of course, is the opening line of Ps. 22; a fact that neither Mark nor Matthew acknowledge.
Both Mark and Matthew carefully avoid the remainder of that verse; and the one that follows after: ‘Why are You so far from saving me, so far from my words of groaning? I cry out by day, O my God, but You do not answer, and by night, but I have no rest.’
According to the gospels, Yeshua spent around six hours on the cross; and yet the Psalmist cries out by day and by night. How can this be the crucified Messiah?
Luke – for his own reasons – decides to change Yeshua’s final words, making him say: ‘Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.’ (Luke 23:46). This is taken from Ps. 31:5: ‘Into Your hands I commit my spirit.’
John – who portrays a far more robust Yeshua than does the Synoptists – has him say a simple ‘It is finished!’
It is claimed that Psalm 22 – and others – are Messianic prophecies.
Robert M. Price writes:
‘If you want to be convinced by “messianic prophecy,” it helps to be as ignorant as possible, and to be sure to read the passages with no reference to historical or literary context…….Strobel, like all apologists, cites “They have pierced my hands and feet” (22:16b) as a prediction of the nail-wounds of crucifixion, but the reference makes more sense in context as bite - and claw-wounds incurred by the sufferer as he tries to fend off the wild animals snapping at him (22:16a), the symbols of his real-life dilemmas.’ (‘The Case Against the Case For Christ: A New Testament Scholar Refutes the Reverend Lee Strobel’).
Continued:
-------------
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib)
|
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 06 March 2022 at 3:16am
Even before Paul – and certainly before the Gospels – there were Christian groups who believed that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) had nothing to do with dying on a cross, or being resurrected. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, makes no reference to either event.
The anonymous author of ‘John’ most certainly knew of these Thomasines, since he targets them with the following – very well known – ‘Doubting Thomas’ pericope:
‘Thomas, called the Twin, who was one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, 'We have seen the Lord,' but he answered, 'Unless I can see the holes that the nails made in his hands and can put my finger into the holes they made, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe.'
‘Eight days later the disciples were in the house again and Thomas was with them. The doors were closed, but Jesus came in and stood among them. 'Peace be with you,' he said. Then he spoke to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; look, here are my hands. Give me your hand; put it into my side. Do not be unbelieving any more but believe.' Thomas replied, 'My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him: You believe because you can see me. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’ (Jn: 20: 24-29).
This pericope, of course, is pure propaganda; a fiction, created for theological purposes.
And what of Barabbas?
As you know, Barabbas is said to have been freed – by Pilate – whose his custom (it is claimed) was to release – in honour of the Jewish Passover festival – a prisoner guilty of a capital crime.
This is risible nonsense!
There is no evidence – none at all – that the so-called ‘Privilegium Paschale’ was a custom for either the Jews or the Romans.
In conclusion:
Robert Price writes:
‘What are we to make of this very strange circumstance, that no memory of the central saving event of the Christian religion survived, that when someone first ventured to tell the story of the crucifixion of the Savior, the only building blocks available for the task were various Scripture texts?’ (‘The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man – How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?’).
-------------
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib)
|
Posted By: MIAW
Date Posted: 09 March 2022 at 12:36am
|
Nice to hear from you again Niblo. May Allah SWT shower you with his blessings.
|
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 09 March 2022 at 1:01am
Many thanks, brother. May Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) reward you for your kindness.
-------------
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib)
|
|