Jesus, Islam, and Crucifixion


#1

We know, of course, that in the Koran Jesus was not crucified, that a double was substituted for him. This is based on an immense respect for God: it would be impossible and unworthy for God to allow his Messiah, his Servant, to be killed. This is the difference between two apophatic approaches. For Islam, all theology is negative; beyond the ninety-nine divine names (symbolic of their infinite number), the hundredth is silence. “He is Huwa,” cry the mystics, and it is indeed a cry of silence. Christian apophaticism, on the other hand, is beyond all negation and all affirmation, maintaining an indispensable antinomy. God is so transcendent that he transcends his own transcendence to come to us in the tragedy of death, and, already now, to raise us up. Today, it is history itself, the suffering of the Palestinian and Iraqi people, the crisis in Algeria, which allows some Moslems to sense the mystery of the Cross. In the Middle East, the theme of the Passion often appears in the great Arab poets.

– Clement, Oliver. Conversations with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. 207.

It should be noted that there are Islamic traditions in which God is believed to have incarnated. Those traditions, of course, are considered heretical by mainstream Muslims.


#2

Well since Muhammed (pbuh) was exiled from Mecca in the beginning, which Mecca being ripe in the Arian Heresy that denounced the divinity of Jesus Christ, it really comes to no surprise he’d form a religion that denounces it also.

Though I am glad that some Muslims are opening their eyes to The Passion, even if they are denounced as heretics of their own religion.


#3

I should clarify that Muslims who write about the Passion, in poetic form, are not necessarily heretics, since they are not making any theological conclusions necessarily.


#4

We know, of course, that in the Koran Jesus was not crucified, that a double was substituted for him. This is based on an immense respect for God…

Non-sense; This is not based on respect, but rather complete disrespect; Moslems choose to deny the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as atonement for our sins. There is plenty of historical and scientific evidence to teach us that Jesus Christ was sacrificed on Friday 3rd April 33AD. They just refuse to search.

Today, it is history itself, the suffering of the Palestinian and Iraqi people, the crisis in Algeria, which allows some Moslems to sense the mystery of the Cross.

Maybe then they’ll stop creating crosses for themselves to carry, and start to appreciate the Cross that Jesus had to endure. Maybe they’ll become peacemakers. But when there are radical sheiks who preach otherwise, it may be a while before they start “to sense the mystery of the Cross”.


#5

Historical writings which state Christ was never crucified are non-existant! No one ever claimed he was “substituted” on the cross and lived and died an old man until the Koran.

The fact that a monumental historical fact is disputed by a guy who had no historical evidence to back his claim is ridiculous and insulting.

If Christ lived until an old age and during that time saw a group of people start believing he was the Mesiah and rose from the dead, doesn’t it makes sense that he would have corrected them? It also makes sense to think that the Jews and Romans would attempt to make good on their mistake and find Jesus and finish what they attempted. I am just guessing that people didnt all look alike back then and someone would have noticed it wasnt Christ.

Blatant disregard for historical evidence is negligent.


#6

Immense respect for God? God would not allow His Messiah, one of His messengers to be humiliated in the hands of a bunch of unbelievers & be murdered by them. This is why the same God in the Quran took over Himself the duty of killing His servant to take him from this world of sinners! :stuck_out_tongue:

The same God in Mohammed’s fantasies who did not allow Jews to kill His holy prophet convinced the same Jews - through a miracle - that they persecuted & killed the true Messiah! :smiley: A sinful traitor was substituted for the Messiah & all of the Jews were miraculously prevented from knowing the fact that the person they insulted, scourged, and nailed to the cross was someone else than the true Messiah. What kind of respect is this? The Messiah’s appearance could not be saved from humiliation & defeat due to his equation with a sinful man being punished by Allah. More, Allah’s holy prophet was saved by a miracle, but the very miracle compelled the enemy to believe otherwise! LOL

Conclusion: The real reason underlying the Islamic denial of Jesus’ Passion is not the love Allah had for His Messiah & holy servant, but the hatred He had for Jews! The miracle of substitution thus aimed to deceive Jews rather than save Jesus! Politics instead of theology in Mohammed’s Scripture…

Peace & blessings to you,
ANgelos N.


#7

While I have a lot of respect for orthodox Islam and its adherents whom I have met. They are truely men of goodwill and peace.

But I must take issue with the Qu-ran denial in the crucifixtion of Christ. It alleges that when the police of the temple went to arrest Him, they did not know who He was in the dark, arrested charged and crucified the wrong man!

They conveniently ignore the evidence from Scripture that the police were led by one who knew and could identify HIm: Judas Iscariot who greeted Him with a kiss to show whom He was Mk 14: 44-46 ‘he stepped forward at once and greeted Him saying Rabbi and kissed Him, they immediately siezed Him’. Why do do the apologists for Islam chose to ignore this verse [also repeated in Mat, Luke and John]?

There have been other errors refuted by Christianities Sacred Scripture


#8

Orthodox Islam proscribes that the ideal society is one where non-Muslims are classified as second-class citizens, and leaving Islam is punishable by death, among other things.

Can you really live with the notion that these are “respectable” beliefs?


#9

the substitution theory was created before Muhammad.He plagiarized Basilides the heretic. The Islamic tradition is Basilidian, as simple as this.


#10

No verse in the Quran supports the presumption that Roman soldiers mistakenly arrested someone else than Jesus. This is basically because Mohammed’s scripture does not relate the incident of crucifixion in the form of a narrative. The only verse denying Jesus’ passion in the Quran can do nothing than imply substitution & emphasize Jesus’ assumption to Allah’s presence. All the other things are ignored, which but motivates Muslim scholars to draw contradictory as well as fantastic stories from the incomplete & inadequate picture of the Passion :smiley:

Theos Mazi sas,
ANgelos N.


#11

No verse in the Quran supports the presumption that Roman soldiers mistakenly arrested someone else than Jesus. This is basically because Mohammed’s scripture does not relate the incident of crucifixion in the form of a narrative. The only verse denying Jesus’ passion in the Quran can do nothing than imply substitution & emphasize Jesus’ assumption to Allah’s presence. All the other things are ignored, which but motivates Muslim scholars to draw contradictory as well as fantastic stories from the incomplete & inadequate picture of the Passion

Theos Mazi sas,
ANgelos N.

My dear Kin in God/Allah

From the apologies that I have read ni the Quran, the copy that I saw definitely described the circumstances as I have described them above.

Now within Christianity there are often different versions of the Bible. I do not know if that is the case with the Quran but can assure you that what I have quoted is what I read.

God bless you


#12

You must have read a **personal interpretation **of the verse in the Quran, not the verse itself! Otherwise, we can easily say that the Quran was distorted. :smiley: Different versions of the Bible use different words/phrases to relate the same literary form, but the thing you are claiming now is beyond a variation stemming from translation. Above all, be sure that **not even **the *Gospel of Barnabas *supports the theory you quoted.

Theos Mazi sou,
ANgelos N.


#13

I have read sura 4:157 in the quran which states (in English) "4:157 That they said (in boast), "And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him. "

I would interpret this to mean that the people thought that Jesus had been crucified when in fact He had not. It does not necessarily mean that someone else was substituted in His place–although, I agree the implication is there. Pehaps there is another verse that plainly says another person was substituted, I don’t know of it.

A footnote appears at the bottom of this webpage that appears to be some commentary… it does not appear to support the substitution theory. It says " *4:157-158 Jesus, the real person, the soul, was raised in the same manner as in the death of any righteous person. Subsequently, his enemies arrested, tortured, and crucified his living, but empty, body. See Appendices 17 & 22, and the book “Jesus: Myths and Message” by Lisa Spray (Universal Unity, Fremont, California, 1990 ). " But it seems to me that most muslims I have talked to believe that Judas or someone else was put on the cross…


#14

**Quran 4: 156-157 **makes it plain that Jews did NOT kill or crucify Jesus! Thus, what that verse denies is actually the incident of Jesus’ passion. This is completely different from the NT interpretation of Jesus’ glorification through resurrection. None of the NT texts even implies that Jesus did NOT die. If there is no death, there is no resurrection. In short, saying that Jesus gave up His life only by God’s will is not the same as saying that God did NOT want Jesus to die. In the NT Jesus’ death was historically true & theologically crucial whereas in that Quran verse even the historic reality of the Passion is refuted.

More, another verse in the Quran makes the theory of substitution plausible:

003: 054. And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.

Divine intervention is signalled here, and that intervention was most likely meant to punish Jesus’ disbelieving enemies. Scheme to kill Jesus was retaliated by God, who deceived Jews through a miraculous substitution. It is not surprising that the following verse associates Jesus’ assumption to Allah with Allah’s will to save Him from the hands of unbelievers:

003: 055. (And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and **causing thee to ascend **unto Me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve and am setting those who follow thee above those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then unto Me ye will (all) return, and I shall judge between you as to that wherein ye used to differ.

Likewise, the verse repudiating Jesus’ death & crucifixion in chapter 4 is ensued with a verse indicating Jesus’ assumption as a means of His salvation from death:

004: 157 … they slew him not for certain.
158. But Allah **took him up **unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

Theos Mazi sas.

Angelos N.


#15

When Islam accepts Papal authority there will be much reqoicing :thumbsup:


#16

your info is taken from “submitters”. These are considered heretics by mainstrean Muslims. Besides, why would Allah refute the Jews if they can’t even see an “empty body”? Allah telling Jews hey you did not crucify Jesus because it was his empty body doesn’t make sense because Jews couldn’t have possibly seen an empty body but a normal body. None of the explanations given by the best scholars endorses this view which proves that the Basilidean Gnostic teachings were the only one known to Muslims and to Muhammad.


#17

Ok, that makes sense. I had only ever heard of the “substitution” theory, until I saw this website. Still, I believe that the text I quoted of the quran is correct–so far as it is translated into English. I still don’t feel that substitution is plainly worded in the text, only implied. I don’t know if there are other suras which would support the substitution theory.

Thanks for the info. Do you have any links to infor about the Basilidean Gnostic teachings? I would be interested in researching more. Thanks.


#18

no this is the only verse in the Quran about the crucifixion.

Regrding Basilides:

Irenaeus: Against Heresies book 1 chapter 24 paragraph 4 says:

Wherefore he (Jesus)did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error
newadvent.org/fathers/0103124.htm

the quran talks about “appearance”, “conjecture” and “ignorance”. All the tafasir (interpretations) as well. Muhmmad and his followers simply picked Basilidian Gnosticism regarding the crucifixion.


#19

Wow, very interesting. So is there any kind of record of Muhammad interacting with this group? Had they spread to his area? Thanks for the info.


#20

Why do you address him with (pbuh) after his name? This is a Moslem way of doing so.

Also, in relation to the OP, it shows that Moslems believe that their god is a deceiver for he tricked the people into believing Jesus had died.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.