The Koran on Jesus's Crucifixion - what it says

Does the Qur’an actually contend that Jesus was not crucified?

Lets look at this:

4.154. And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: “Enter the gate with humility”; and (once again) we commanded them: “Transgress not in the matter of the sabbath.” And we took from them a solemn covenant.

4.155. (They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah. that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, “Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah.s Word; We need no more)”;- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-

4.156 That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

4.157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

4.158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

4.159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

This is countering the Talmud. This is not saying he wasn’t crucified but its saying the events did not occuer the way the some Jewish sects claimed. The issue of Jesus in the Talmud is still a big debate among Talmudic scholars.

Now if you were told that your grandma passed away yesterday and say she came back to life again. People can say grandma never died but she was brought to life again. Others will say grandma died and was brought back to life. It depends on the time frame you are talking. And yet others will say grandma is not dead, she is alive.

They are all correct depending on the time frame. When the Koran says it appeared to them, it means they thought they killed him or he was dead, but he came back to life again. Of course the Jews do not believe that Jesus can come back to life again. So they denied that and said he was killed. But it appeared to them so, just like it appeared to people grandma was dead and gone.

The Koran says that God has his wrath on the Rabbinic Jews for their rejection of Jesus and their animosity towards him because, I believe, he attacked the Talmud. They were known in the Gospel as the Pharisees. The Pharisees today are the dominant school among Judaism and the Talmudic sign of the star of David is the national symbol of Israel.

Now go and read the Talmudic accounts about Mary and Jesus and you will see what the Koran is talking about.

If Jesus was never crucified the Koran would have never said it confirmed the Gospel and ordered so called Christians to follow its command:

Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)

**If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, **they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 69)

Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord…" (Surah 5, Al Ma’idah, verse 68)

In truth** We have sent the Quran to you, confirming all the previous heavenly books that were revealed before you **and bearing witness to them. – 5:48

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). – 3:3

Also see:

religiousroundtable.blogspot.com/20…-and-quran.html

Also the Koran did not say “he was not killed and he was not crucified”, but said “they did not kill him and they did not crucify him”.

I think Jesus was crucified but brough back to life. They thought they killed him but he was brought back to life and then resurrected. The accounts in the Gospel are pretty clear about this.

You can post as many words as you want from the Quran to prove your point. The Quran is wrong. No one has proven the Bible is corrupted. And it seems to be a very common thing that some do to start their cults/religions - take the Bible and twist it for their purposes.

You can take one guy, who lived centuries after Jesus or Jesus and His Apostles’ words for it. Muhammed has shown us no miracles, nothing except that he said he saw an ‘angel’, and who couldn’t even get the Biblical stories correct. Even by word of mouth he couldn’t get them correct let alone the fact he couldn’t read and write. And ‘word of mouth’ is so highly thought of in the ME, and Muhammed didn’t get the stories straight. And then when people didn’t ‘buy his story’ he started to do atrocious things to them.

Someone posted this about the angel that Muhammed claimed to have seen all by his little self in the caves that he liked to hang out in:

“Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.” (2 Cor. 11:14)

Maybe what Muhammed experienced was ‘cave gases’. they even think the high priestess of Delphi was high on cave gases!

I don’t know about the cave. This is not Koranic and it is something that Muslim historians tell us. I don’t know who was there to witness it anyways.

As far as Muhammad committing atrocities I am not sure about that. I see no evidence from the Koran. All the battles fought in the Koran was with the pagans. I here some people say that initially he was peaceful and then after he became stronger he became different. However when I looked at the Koran all his problems were with the pagans. And the verses about paganism in the Koran was neevr conciliatory from day one. Thats probably why he had to flee Mecca in the first place. There are refernces to Jews and Christians(especially Jews) in the Koran but they were a side issue. Paganism was the dominant faith across Arabia and all the battles in the Koran are with the pagans.

When I see the Koran I can see what those battles were about:

9.13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

As for such who do not fight you on account of faith, or drive you forth from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to deal with them with equity, for God loves those who act equitably. God only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of faith and drive you forth from your homelands or aid in driving you forth. As for those from among you who turn towards them for alliance, it is they who are wrongdoers. 60:8-9

Permission (to fight) is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged, and verily, God has indeed the power to aid them. Those who have been driven from their homelands in defiance of right for no other reason than their saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ 22:39-40

Plus the Koran makes it clear what the job of the prophet is:

16:82** But if they turn away from you, your only duty is a clear delivery of the Message**

6:107 Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed Divinity to aught besides Him; hence, We have not made you their keeper, nor are you a guardian over them.

4:79-80 Say:'Whatever good betides you is from God and whatever evil betides you is from your own self and that We have sent you to mankind only as a messenger and all sufficing is God as witness.** Whoso obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys God. And for those who turn away, We have not sent you as a keeper**."

17:53-54 And tell my servants that they should speak in a most kindly manner. Verily, Satan is always ready to stir up discord between men; for verily; Satan is mans foe … Hence, We have not sent you with power to determine their Faith

88:21 22;** And so, exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe**

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message.

I don’t know about some cave but I do know what I see in the Koran

I’m just going to post one verse and one verse only from the koran about Jews and Christians and it’s NOT just pagans - :smiley:

Fight against those who
(1) believe not in Allah,
(2) nor in the Last Day,
(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم) (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the **people of the Scripture (Jews and christians), **until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #29)

The koran was written by someone with the acumen of a 5-year old, and a shallow one at that.

Koran chapter 9 verses 13 through 37 - explaination - Tafsir

**In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behavior. **

Thats the verse(9-29) that Sunnis say abrogated all the previous verses in the Koran about when to fight and for what. But I see that verse as part of chapter 9 and I don’t see why the job of the prophet, as outlined in the Koran, should suddenly change. The Koran would have mentioned that. There is no reason for me to see why this verse is not a continuation of the verses of the Koran.

Anyways, is it logically to build a whole foundation on one verse that does not even say it came to abrogate the other verses? I think that later generation of Muslims and their dynasties wanted to conquer for material gains and tried to find some vers they can spin and could only find this verse.

But anyways, even this verse says “even if” they are from the people of the book and never said that it happened. Like I said there is no indication that battles were fought other than with the pagans. And by reading the Koran, it seems the pagans felt that Muhammad was a threat to them. In hindsight, I can see why they saw that. But then again, the former pagans of Mecca ended up ruling the world for almost 5 centuries. Its a remarkable turn of events.

I was always suspicious of the Meccans entering islam and abandoning their paganism because of all the battles and persecutions they did on Muhammad. But I was told by historians that pagans leave their gods when they suffer defeat. After Muhammad it seems all hell broke lose and a power war occurred. So I don’t trust too much Muslim historical sources because the wrond people came to power in the end. The very pagans of Mecca formed the Ummayid and then the Abbasid dynasty that ruled a big chunk of the world for almost 500 years until the Mongolians(Genghis Khan) destroyed Baghdad in the 12th century.

Please, may I ask, what koran are you using - it sounds very “warm and fuzzie” and watered down.

And if I may ask, what were you before you became a “koranist” - unless you posted it already and I missed it… :blush: If you did post it, please direct me to the thread and post number so I may read it…

Thanks!

Let us say ‘even if Muhammed had a problem with ONLY the pagans’ - you are giving Muhammed a pass for slaughtering and enslaving, and doing other things, to them.

But, he didn’t only do it to the pagans. To just write off all that he did to the Jews and Christians, as shown by the others who have replied on this thread, doesn’t give you an argument to keep discussing but it only shows us that you give another excuse for Islamic violence. To show us that by ignoring it, you think everyone else should ignore it.

And the historical writings (Ishaq) and the hadith are not discounted in Islam. They are discounted only when a Muslim doesn’t like what they have written at the moment. Without these there would be no religious rites, rituals, and rules. The Six Pillars, oh er I mean Five (Muslims don’t like to admit that Jihad is one of the Pillars!:shrug:) would not exist without the hadith and the koran would be indecipherable.

And to add to your post AGabriel if I may, without the Tafsir the koran is cannot be understood.

I was a Sunni. The translation i use is a Sunni one by Yusuf Ali. I used it because it is the most used and even though its sectarian i am pretty much aware of Sunni handprints in them and can always refer to the Arabic text of the Koran. Sunni believe in abrogation and believe the oraltraditions are a second source of revelation and that the oral traditions can even abrogate the Koran. Sunni do not accept the Koran as a complete revelation and thus they have identical views with Rabbinic Judaism(Pharisees) who were also the only sect in Judaic history to say the same about the oral traditions and the Torah. However these are the sects that today dominate because of the political support they enjoyed throughout history. I see them as political movements as much as religious.

The reasons I abandoned Sunnism is because of the enormous contradictions between the Koran and hadiths though Sunnis deny that. But more and more people are realizing this also. Previously Western academics have noticed that also but prior to the internet it wa shard for people to have access to them and Sunnis were very smart and labeled them as Western spies. Today most Western academics do not believe the oral traditions are reliable and believe they were a later invention.

*Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur’an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. “The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school.” And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafii that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafii argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:

Two generations before Shafii reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafii to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.

Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur’an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra’y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur’an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra’y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra’y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too “found” hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that "where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses."

In summary, **Goldziher sees in hadiths “a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; **it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority.”
And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were "able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material." Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:

In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.* Herbert Berg-Phd

For more:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith#Non-Muslim_views

Koranist, thanks for you reply. Do you read the Tafsirs that explain the verses in the koran?

The Gospels are very clear about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Now, back to the koran, the Jews said “they did not kill him and they did not crucify him”

Technically, the Jews did not physically crucify Jesus Christ, Our Lord, - they had their hands in it - but the Romans did the actual physical deed for crucifixion.

the point is ,
accepting the Crucifixion and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ does not disqualify someone from being a Muslim but also does not make him a Christian either

Whats interesting is earlier Muslim sources were conflicting about the crucifixion but later on they took the opinion of dissentic Christian sources. Like I said more and more people are now discussing this issue. Recently a scholar has written a book called:

The Crucifixion and the Qur’an
A Study in the History of Muslim Thought
by Todd Lawson

Here is a preview:

Todd Lawson is Associate Professor at the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto. He is the author of Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought. This book will be of some interest to students of Henry Corbin. From the publisher:

According to the majority of modern Muslims and Christians, the Qur’an denies the crucifixion of Jesus, and with it, one of the most sacred beliefs of Christianity. However, it is only mentioned in one verse and contrary to popular belief, its interpretation has been the subject of fierce debate among Muslims for centuries. This innovative work is the first book devoted to the issue, delving deeply into largely ignored Arabic sources, which suggest that the origins of the denial may lie within the Christian Church. Arranged along historical lines, and covering various Muslim schools of thought, from Sunni to Sufi, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an will fascinate anyone interested in Christian-Muslim relations.

“With admirable lucidity the book takes us chronologically through all the main interpretations of the key verse where crucifixion is explicitly mentioned.” Michael Carter, Professor of Medieval Studies and Arabic, University of Sydney

“Compelling reading for all those interested in comparative Christian-Muslim theology and its implications for contemporary inter-faith relations. This important, thought-provoking book harbingers fruitful new trajectories for conversations between Christians and Muslims.” Asma Afsaruddin, Associate Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Notre Dame

This is a good sign as the debate about Islam is going global and not left only with the Sunni orthodoxy who are too busy parroting and mimicking their classic jurists of the past with blind and unconditional obedience. :frowning:

As far as me, I accept the authority of the Gospel and the crucifixion is pretty clear there and i don’t see the verse of the Koran contradicting that.

4.155. (They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah. that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, “Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah.s Word; We need no more)”;- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-

4.156 That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

4.157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

4.158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

4.159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

It is Islamic tradition that Jesus was not crucified nor killed. If your Muslim historians are saying the Qu’ran never countered the Passion and Death of Jesus, than know that they are lying and trying to deceive you. Again, it is Islamic tradition that Jesus was neither crucified nor killed.

This is countering the Talmud. This is not saying he wasn’t crucified but its saying the events did not occuer the way the some Jewish sects claimed. The issue of Jesus in the Talmud is still a big debate among Talmudic scholars.

Now if you were told that your grandma passed away yesterday and say she came back to life again. People can say grandma never died but she was brought to life again. Others will say grandma died and was brought back to life. It depends on the time frame you are talking. And yet others will say grandma is not dead, she is alive.

They are all correct depending on the time frame. When the Koran says it appeared to them, it means they thought they killed him or he was dead, but he came back to life again. Of course the Jews do not believe that Jesus can come back to life again. So they denied that and said he was killed. But it appeared to them so, just like it appeared to people grandma was dead and gone.

The Koran says that God has his wrath on the Rabbinic Jews for their rejection of Jesus and their animosity towards him because, I believe, he attacked the Talmud. They were known in the Gospel as the Pharisees. The Pharisees today are the dominant school among Judaism and the Talmudic sign of the star of David is the national symbol of Israel.

Jesus did not attack Talmud, and the Pharisees did not oppose Him because of any of His teachings. They opposed Jesus because He claimed to be God. Blasphemy, according to the Law of Moses, is punishable by death, and that’s why they brought Jesus to Pilate so he could crucify Jesus for them, since only Romans, under Roman law, were allowed to execute criminals. But Jesus was innocent of any crimes, so His enemies had to come up with a ridiculous charge against Him: saying He claimed to be an earthly king. In the Empire, anyone who claimed to be a king or have a kingdom was guilty of treason. The Jews knew Jesus had called Himself a king in the spiritual sense (a king that reigns in the righteous heart), not in the social sense (a king that reigns in a physical kingdom), but they decided to twist His words, so that He could be charged with treason.

More on Jesus being God and Messiah here (please pardon the uncharitable first sentence): forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=5309860&postcount=2

From sunni to koranist and now perhaps we may help you find the real Truth, in Jesus Christ, outside of the koran ofcourse…!!! :smiley:

Be well and God Bless you koranist - and welcome to CAF!

Best regards,
Pam

The Pharisees opposed him because of this:

Matt 15:1-6 "Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” He answered and said to them, “**Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” “For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”; then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.” **

Matt 23:25-26 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cleanse the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of extortion and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee, first cleanse the inside of the cup and dish, that the outside of them may be clean also.

Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”(Mathew15.15-20)

While other cultures and Jewish groups maintained oral traditions, only the Rabbis gave ideological significance to the fact that they transmitted their tradition orally.[1] According to Rabbinic tradition, Moses and the Israelites received an oral as well as the written Torah (“teaching”) from God at Mount Sinai. The books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) were relayed with an accompanying oral tradition passed on by each generation. Jewish law and tradition thus is not based on a strictly literal reading of the Tanakh, but on combined oral and written traditions.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah

Nope. They opposed Jesus because He called Himself God (blasmphey):

Matthew 26
63 Then the high priest said to him, “I order you to tell us under oath before the living God whether you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”
64 Jesus said to him in reply, “You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see ‘the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming on the clouds of heaven.’”
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! What further need have we of witnesses? You have now heard the blasphemy;
66 what is your opinion?” They said in reply, “He deserves to die!”

Mark 14
61 Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”
62 Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
63 At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses?
64 You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die.

Luke 22
66 When day came the council of elders of the people met, both chief priests and scribes, and they brought him before their Sanhedrin.
67 They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us,” but he replied to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe,
68 and if I question, you will not respond.
69 But from this time on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”
70 They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied to them, “You say that I am.”
71 Then they said, “What further need have we for testimony? We have heard it from his own mouth.”

Saying you are the Messiah is not the same as saying you are God Almighty. In fact Messiah means the annointed one(chosen one). I was talking about why they refused his Messianship, because he criticized their religious traditions. The Pharisees were a sect among others, but they were the most extreme in their oral traditions. Other Jewish sects were more liberal regarding the oral traditions. Sunnis are the same as the Pharisees.

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.