Muslim idea of no crucifixion


#1

I understand that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was actually crucified–that some other prisoner took his place–and thus, he was never resurrected since he didn’t die.

Is this spoken about in the Quran and, if so, do Muslims have other sources for this belief or is it based solely on Muhammad’s “revelations”?


#2

[quote="StHelena, post:1, topic:303749"]
I understand that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was actually crucified--that some other prisoner took his place--and thus, he was never resurrected since he didn't die.

Is this spoken about in the Quran and, if so, do Muslims have other sources for this belief or is it based solely on Muhammad's "revelations"?

[/quote]

None crucifixion and the reason for being so is based entirely in the Quran. Had discussion on this issue a few times before with Muslims - their reasons varies but eventually it boils down to fact that the Quran says so. It is out of this that some Muslims apologetic and scholars try to debunk the Gospels account of crucifixion, notably the late Ahmad Deedat who debated with Christian scholars.


#3

[quote="StHelena, post:1, topic:303749"]
I understand that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was actually crucified--that some other prisoner took his place--and thus, he was never resurrected since he didn't die.

Is this spoken about in the Quran and, if so, do Muslims have other sources for this belief or is it based solely on Muhammad's "revelations"?

[/quote]

that is correct, They think the crucifixion is a fraud. It was another man. They also say that the first Christians were really muslims and that Jesus himself when he said in reference to the Holy Spirit coming after him (someone greater) is actually a reference to Mohammed himself since they believe Mohammed is the last and greatest prophet. They claim that We (Christians) and Jews have corrupted the scripture and Mohammed has it correct.


#4

What I don't understand is how Muslims can on one hand say that Muhammad is "the seal of the prophets", including all the OT prophets we believe in and Jesus (whom they consider a prophet and Messiah, though their understanding of Messiah is different from ours), yet in spite of this, they do not build on the NT at all, or uphold Jesus's teachings.

They point to the times when Jesus talks of sending the Holy Spirit and consider this to be a reference to Muhammad, yet Jesus clearly stated that "the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (John 14:26) What did Muhammad teach that reiterated what Jesus taught?

However, what he did teach, which is repeated over and over again throughout the Quran, is that "God has no partners" (or similar wording), clearly referring to the idea of the Trinity and Jesus's divinity in particular. This is not building on what Jesus taught. It's as if the focus is on differentiating themselves from Christians, rather than focusing on their common Abrahamic beginnings.


#5

I watched an interesting Youtube video made by a female American convert to Islam, that claimed that Barabbas, the one freed by Pilate in place of Jesus, was actually Jesus, because bar-Abba means "son of God". Therefore, Jesus, son of God, was freed by Pilate and another man also named Jesus was crucified.
I don't buy it, but it's interesting.
Can't remember which video it was, but I'll post a link if I find it.


#6

[quote="StHelena, post:1, topic:303749"]
I understand that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was actually crucified--that some other prisoner took his place--and thus, he was never resurrected since he didn't die.

[/quote]

Well this is partly true. Muslims deny the crucifixion but regarding the whole "other person" issue; no official declaration has been made on this. Various sects hold to the substitution theory belief while others don't and simply believe no crucifixion was connected to Jesus in any way. Be it him being replaced by someone else or not

[quote="StHelena, post:1, topic:303749"]
Is this spoken about in the Quran and, if so, do Muslims have other sources for this belief or is it based solely on Muhammad's "revelations"?

[/quote]

No it is not spoken about in the Qur'an nor the hadith but, it is taught by some prominent muslims.


#7

[quote="StHelena, post:5, topic:303749"]
Barabbas, the one freed by Pilate in place of Jesus, was actually Jesus, because bar-Abba means "son of God".

[/quote]

bar Abba means "son of the father". "Son of God" would be something like bar-El, wouldn't it?


#8

The problem with that idea is that by Jesus' time, "Abba" had been used as a personal name for some time, so in addition to meaning "Father" in Aramaic, "Abba" was also a personal name. So, "Son of the Father" is one translation. "Son of Abba" is another. When there are two possibilities like that, it is up to the one who has a great deal of theology wrapped up in choosing one over the other (i.e., the Muslim) to prove why his choice should be considered to be the correct interpretation despite the clear ideological motivation for the choice.

By the way, it is funny to me that a Muslim should make this kind of argument. In Arabic, "Abbas", أباس, still exists as a proper name (from Latin; not to be confused with the more popular 'Abbas, عباس, as in Mahmoud 'Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority under Fatah), so you'd think that a Muslim would know about its status as a proper name. For instance, this guy in Nigeria named "Abbas al-Mursy" is probably not the father of someone named "Mursy", as this is not, as far as I know, a proper name in Arabic (it is a last name, ex. Egyptian president Mohammed el-Morsi).


#9

[quote="StHelena, post:5, topic:303749"]
I watched an interesting Youtube video made by a female American convert to Islam, that claimed that Barabbas, the one freed by Pilate in place of Jesus, was actually Jesus, because bar-Abba means "son of God". Therefore, Jesus, son of God, was freed by Pilate and another man also named Jesus was crucified.
I don't buy it, but it's interesting.
Can't remember which video it was, but I'll post a link if I find it.

[/quote]

Well she should learn that Barababas means "Son of the father" actually and that to distinguish Jesus Barabbas from our Jesus; Pilate asked whether he should free Barabbas or Jesus the one whom they called Messiah... The crowd chose Jesus Barabbas to be freed and the Jews chose the latter to be crucified (Jesus the messiah)
:rolleyes:

It's funny how poetic scripture don't you think? I mean Jesus "son of the father" against Jesus THE REAL SON OF THE FATHER
Hallelujah! :harp:


#10

[quote="dzheremi, post:8, topic:303749"]
The problem with that idea is that by Jesus' time, "Abba" had been used as a personal name for some time, so in addition to meaning "Father" in Aramaic, "Abba" was also a personal name. So, "Son of the Father" is one translation. "Son of Abba" is another. When there are two possibilities like that, it is up to the one who has a great deal of theology wrapped up in choosing one over the other (i.e., the Muslim) to prove why his choice should be considered to be the correct interpretation despite the clear ideological motivation for the choice.

[/quote]

I don't think "Abba" was a common term used in reference to God as it is such a personal term. It is almost akin to claiming yourself to being God's Son... I guess that's why Jesus called God "Abba". In reality it's english equivalent would be "daddy".

The implications of using Abba in refference to God clearly rang blasphemy in most Jewish eyes and as such, they got upset when Jesus addressed God this way (when he said "My father") because his Sonship would imply deity rather than spiritual sonship due him calling God, "daddy". Which it did.:D


#11

[quote="Gorgias, post:7, topic:303749"]
bar Abba means "son of the father". "Son of God" would be something like bar-El, wouldn't it?

[/quote]

What I was going to say.


#12

[quote="dzheremi, post:8, topic:303749"]
The problem with that idea is that by Jesus' time, "Abba" had been used as a personal name for some time, so in addition to meaning "Father" in Aramaic, "Abba" was also a personal name. So, "Son of the Father" is one translation. "Son of Abba" is another. When there are two possibilities like that, it is up to the one who has a great deal of theology wrapped up in choosing one over the other (i.e., the Muslim) to prove why his choice should be considered to be the correct interpretation despite the clear ideological motivation for the choice.

[/quote]

And this is why I come here with questions like these, because I'm such a theological doofus compared to the minds here. :D


#13

[quote="StHelena, post:1, topic:303749"]
I understand that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was actually crucified--that some other prisoner took his place--and thus, he was never resurrected since he didn't die.

Is this spoken about in the Quran and, if so, do Muslims have other sources for this belief or is it based solely on Muhammad's "revelations"?

[/quote]

There are Gnostic sources that also claim Jesus did not die, but that perhaps it was Judas or Simon of Cyrene who were mistakenly crucified in Jesus' place.

Muhammed probably adopted his beliefs from the Christian sects existing in Arabia at the time. It didn't orignate within Islam, but within the frame work of Christianity, albeit "heretical sects" but Christian none the less, which Muhammed adopted the Christian idea of the time.


#14

This topic has been discussed many times on CAF. No, Jesus didn't die on the cross and he was never crucified as well. What early Christians saw was an illusion of Christ hanging on the cross. Right before Jesus was about to be crucified, He was saved by the Angels.

That's what Muslims believe. There's no one replacing Christ on the cross.


#15

And what I often mentioned to them. The Quran does not have any personal and intimate teaching of Jesus – the parables, the beatitude, the commissioning of the apostles, etc. All of those simply were not in the Quran.

Muslims would still maintain that they follow the teaching of Jesus. In fact, one Muslim poster sometimes back claimed that the Muslims are the true followers of Jesus, not the Christians who have distorted his teachings. They based this reasoning about Jesus in the Quran reprimanding those who believed in the Trinity, thus multiple gods by implication. This is of course strange, as the thrust of Jesus’ teaching was not on the oneness of God, which was already a given in Judaism. Everyone accepted that.

There are some Muslims who would often taunt Christians by saying that there is one God and that he has no son (or daughter or mother) obviously insinuating that Christians believe it is so.

There are some contradictions in Mohammad’s teaching as compared to Jesus especially in the area of marriage. Muslims defense is to refer to the OT where the prophets had multiple wives.

To be fair, not all Muslims would go to the extent of claiming that Mohammad is foretold in the Bible. This probably is for the sake of argument and one that they probably know has little foundation.

Similarly the more educated Muslims would not speculate on what happened during the crucifixion except for the fact that Jesus was not crucified. The rest, the Quran is simply silent on what actually happened. It is prevalent among Muslims to speculate though – like Judas was the one actually crucified or some other possibilities. But all these are shot down by the fact that it would only make God looked foolish.

Yes. They are taught that the Trinity is too complicated which God is not, and ultimately implies a multiple gods. It can irk us sometimes when they keep saying into our face that there is only one God (as if we don’t).


#16

This position is not universally held by Muslims and there is no set dogma on the topic.

The key passages here are 4.157 and 5.117. It is not clear that the Qur’anic denial of the crucifixion of Jesus(pbuh) is meant to be taken literally. If you provide 5.117 with its natural interpretation (i.e., that Jesus died), then 4.157-158 demands a figurative reading: you killed the body but not the spirit and truth of Jesus which has been exalted and dwells with God. Furthermore, most of the people who hold the position which you describe, also believe that Jesus was raised up by God in order to return later; this is an idea that is nowhere found in the Qur’an, even metaphorically. This makes it seem as if either a certain reading is being forced onto the Qur’an to support an idea that doesn’t belong to the Qur’an, or a mythological interpretation of the passage from the Qur’an has led to even worse myths about a returning Jesus.

A reading that affirms the historical crucifixion of Jesus finds defenders throughout Muslim history. There is definitely a minority tradition within Islam that accepts that Jesus was executed by crucifixion, more or less as recounted in the various Gospels: Al-Razi, the anonymous Ikwan al-Safa, and ibn’Sina would be the most prominent historical examples I can think of. But, even today, this position is not uncommon, and is universally held among Ismailis.

[And as I once pointed out in a thread here, a couple of years ago, it is even the implication of an accepted Sunni mainstream translator and commentator like Muhammad Asad. Asad totally treats the ascension in an allegorical way (see his note on 4.158). Nonetheless he continues to treat 157 as a literal denial of the crucifixion, despite the fact that an allegorical reading of 158 demands an allegorical reading of 4.157 as well [you say he is dead; we say he is exalted — if the exaltation is not mythological claim about Jesus being taken into heaven (and Asad is clear that it is not), then the claim about his death, which is being denied, must not be literal either). This drift in Asad is only reinforced by the fact that he gives the most obvious translation of 5.117 as well: namely, that Jesus “died”. In many ways, Asad’s tendency on this is not surprising, since he is deeply influenced by al-Razi.]

Again, there is no set Islamic dogma on the topic.

Allahu a’lam.


#17

[quote="robwar, post:3, topic:303749"]
that is correct, They think the crucifixion is a fraud. It was another man. They also say that the first Christians were really muslims and that Jesus himself when he said in reference to the Holy Spirit coming after him (someone greater) is actually a reference to Mohammed himself since they believe Mohammed is the last and greatest prophet. They claim that We (Christians) and Jews have corrupted the scripture and Mohammed has it correct.

[/quote]

also it is sad that mohammad may have gotten his "religion" from 4 or more other religious traditions including many forms of paganism, Hebrew traditian, Christians, and "Christians"

-http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=486859

hope this helps:thumbsup:
Shalom
God Bless


#18

[quote="Reuben_J, post:15, topic:303749"]

Yes. They are taught that the Trinity is too complicated which God is not, and ultimately implies a multiple gods. It can irk us sometimes when they keep saying into our face that there is only one God (as if we don’t).

[/quote]

How can anyone look at nature and think that there is anything "simple" about God? (rhetorical question)


#19

It may be rhetorical but that’s absolutely brilliant question.:slight_smile:

Maybe another rhetoric: How could we know the fullness of God other than what is revealed? There were saints who walked in a journey to know God for the rest of their lives.


#20

[quote="StHelena, post:1, topic:303749"]
I understand that Muslims do not believe that Jesus was actually crucified

[/quote]

The logical answer would be how come the merciful GOD:
1) Allows that claimed confusion to last for over 600 years!
2) Sent by a non Jewish descendant!
3) Sent by a different language!


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.