The Quran and Jesus’ Crucifixion


Reading that book, I found out that the tragedy of the Armenian Christians was not a single tragic event, but many years of persecution, robberies, deportations, and murders.
Ugur Ungor, the Turkish historian, also mentions that one of the reasons for the persecution of Christians, (the reason which was hushed up) -the desire to enrich themselves with their property

Unfortunately, today the story is repeated, (exactly the same, according to the plot of atrocities) and the fate of Christians in the Middle East, often similar to that fate - the Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians in the Ottoman Empire.
The question is whether the Muslims are ready for dialogue and co-existence.
This issue is very important in the background of political revival of Islam.


Islam will never be ready for dialogue and co-existence. These are foreign concepts in Islam. It’s muslims VS non-muslims. We (Western society and Christians) need to understand this.


Name one other person who saw the angel.


Once Gabriel came in form of a human( in form of a Sahaba, named Dıhye) and many Sahabas were witness. In other cases there are many Sahabas who were witness of revelation. Angel Gabriel were not seen but the coming of revelation was perceived. It is writen in Hadiths and I have no text in English.


The Quran is a disturbing book with contradictions. I agree that true ecumenical dialogue between Muslims and the West is impossible. The Quran has contradictory statements of the Peoples of the Book. On one hand, we are to be tolerated. But on the other hand, we supposedly tell lies about God. Under sharia law, the Jewish and Christian minorities are free to practice their faith; as long as they don’t evangelize to Muslims. Under these conditions, true dialogue is impossible. As for Muhammad supposedly being illiterate; it doesn’t mean he hadn’t heard the Bible stories as part of an oral tradition. And remember: Many pre literate societies still had literature. Look at the Odyssey and Iliad among the Greeks. Very easily, Muhammad could’ve taken these stories and cooked up retellings from his own perspective, inspired by whatever force commanded him to recite their verses. Plus, it seems that the Quran has a lot of Christian heretical ideas: Look at the Quranic retelling of the Crucifixion that Jesus didn’t die. Plain as day; that’s a Gnostic heresy.


Once Gabriel came in form of a human( in form of a Sahaba, named Dıhye) and many Sahabas were witness. In other cases there are many Sahabas who were witness of revelation. Angel Gabriel were not seen but the coming of revelation was perceived. It is writen in Hadiths and I have no text in English.

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!” - Galatians 1:8


Amen. What also gets me is that the Quran refers to Jesus as the Messiah, or Masih; and He has a distinct role in Islamic eschatology. No other prophet in the Quran receives this treatment. Interesting.


So from whom did Paul get that? Is that “source” to be accursed also? Or was Paul a prophet to be regard? Why words of Paul is above revelation? And why accuse an angel? Is that right as religiously?


Quran also caution Muslims and even prophet Muhammad. God do that for their faults. So People of Book were revealed and Quran want awaken them for their faults. As much I know there are such monitory statements in Torah and Bible.

Muhammad were taught by God otherwise the case cannot be explained. It is obvious. Muslims always were kind for People of Book. Ottomans was a worldly state so errors of a government should not damage Islam. Even Ottomans gave most rights of other religions.

Islam do not reject other religions(Jews and Christians). Because essences of holy religion is Islam. That does not mean the shapes of them is same but the aim and principles are same. We all worship God may be in different ways which alike. But Quran mention some conflicts which occured after their prophets.


The problem is that the Quran permits the persecution of the People of the Book; it advocates war and even condemns Muslims who refuse to participate. True, the Meccan suras were largely peaceful, but the Medinan suras were composed in an atmosphere of war against unbelievers. The Medinan suras are problematic for Muslims who contend that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. The Medinan suras make that clear.


So, they saw a human who claimed he was an angel. No, I want you to provide a person who actually saw an angel.

( in form of a Sahaba, named Dıhye) and many Sahabas were witness. In other cases there are many Sahabas who were witness of revelation.

You mean that they saw Mohammed roll around on the ground and get up and say that he had a revelation. No, I want you to provide witnesses who saw an angel who actually did something miraculous to prove he was an angel.

Angel Gabriel were not seen

I know. You believe all of Mohammed’s claims without proof.

but the coming of revelation was perceived. It is writen in Hadiths and I have no text in English.

The hadiths came AFTER the purported revelations. They claim that the revelations were perceived by others. But provide no proof of them. Only the unverified testimony of Mohamed.


Paul got this revelation from Jesus Christ himself.

Obviously that source is not to be accursed because it comes from God directly himself.

Paul is not above revelation. He is the humble deliverer of God’s revelation.

The “angel” as you claim is accused because he contradicts the original Gospel message. The difference between us is we don’t claim the divine messages before us have been corrupt. We embrace the Hebrew scripture as it is. You claim the scriptures have been corrupt. You cannot the accept the present day scriptures because they contradict the Quran. We don’t have that problem. The present day Hebrew scripture compliments our scripture. I pray you see the light.


I think that is a claim by Paul, right?

Have Paul ever seen Jesus?

A man not importand how much he is credible but he cannot take situation of a prophet.


Just an instance:

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. Matthew:26

" and fell on his face, and prayed, " That is Sajdah and Salat. But Christians do not perform those worships anymore. And doctrine of Christians is that Jesus Himself want to be a sacrifice on cros. But in that verse Jesus prayed Father to be saved. Because Jesus was informed by Father about case. And Jesus gave Father freedom about case. It is obvious that being crossed is not choice of Jesus. And Father accepted pray of Son. That is Islam is Bible.


Here’s a problem. Jesus never taught the Apostles to pray salat; you’re giving an interpretation_ to fit an error that the Quran makes. What Jesus did was showing His fully human nature and He accepted His Passion as part of Our Father’s Will. That shows His fully human nature and makes Him relatable as our Savior. Christ knew that His Passion was necessary for human salvation. Jesus couldn’t do that if He wasn’t God the Son.


I asked for historical evidence of Islamic belief being taught pre-Muhammed proving that Islam came before Christianity.

You gave me one Gospel verse that depicted Jesus praying. (If we are going to quote the Catholic version of the Bible as to how Jesus prayed, we have to include when he taught his disciples to pray the Our Father in Matthew 6)

Where are the historical sources arguing for Islam before Muhammed? To prove early Christianity’s existence, one only needs to look at the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Josephus, and the number of Greek polemicists. We also have the Alexamenos graffiti. None of these sources ever speak of any Islamic teachings by early Christians or their founder, Jesus.


Witnesses around Paul saw a miraculous bright light during his first encounter with Jesus.

Paul’s apostleship has been endorsed by Peter and the other apostles.

Paul’s credibility has been proven by his miracles


So your men have credibility but others not?


Our men hold a divine office given to them by Jesus. Our men do not claim the previous scriptures have been corrupted to cover their errors


Paul was enemy of Jesus and His followers. Paul persecuted followers of Jesus. Apostles were not in agreement with Paul.

The problem is about interpretations of Bible which is used to support new ideas(doctrines). Why should Jesus trust His enemy? A religion should not be cocnsist of a doubtful vision. Followers of Jesus conflict with followers of Paul for centuries. But follwers of Paul were dominant eventually.

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