Jump to content
Islamic Forum
The Shrew

Why Islam's Denial Of Christ's Crucifixion?

Recommended Posts

I believe I did answer your question; but perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say -- maybe you could clarify?

 

Allaah is not mentioning Isa peace be upon him due to the Bible alluding to him as being a deity; because the Bible does not allude to anything of the sort. There are many verses in the Bible which confirm that Isa peace be upon him is not God, or part of God, or anything like that. And like I said, the concept of trinity came about many many years later. Allaah in this verse is speaking about what the people have attributed to Isa and Maryam, which has no basis in the teachings of Isa peace be upon him.

Not hardly, There are many verses that show Jesus is the son of man is what you should say. You shouldn't say show that he is not the Son of God. The Bible proves He is both the Son of Man and the Son of God explicitly and unequivocally. You err not knowing the Scriptures of the Bible. According the the Bible Jesus is subordinate to God in office, position and function but equal in nature, essence and character. If you want me to quote Scriptures for you to prove this just say so. You say Allah didn't ask Isa because the Bible alludes to His deity; then why does Allah ask Isa? and more importantly why ask Isa about Mary? What does she have to do with the price of tea in China? Your answer has no substance to it. What people attributed deity to Isa and Mary? What people are you speaking of? You have an information hole or two here. Please be more specific.

Peace

post-37118-1320205313.jpg

Edited by aj4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
I’m only trying to understand how Muslims justify this.

 

All I’m asking is why would the people be condemned if they genuinely believe in Christ’s resurrection? They are neither arrogant or rebellious...

 

Through God’s instrument of deception millions are now paying the price in hell according to Islamic belief...

 

God bless,

That is actually a good point!

post-37118-1320208444.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for answering,

 

God permits evil in order for a greater good to come forth from it; hence my question why would God deceive the people if it resulted in a greater misguidance of the poeple?

 

God bless,

 

I'm not sure how you think God misguided the people. It makes no difference to those who witnessed the "death" of Isa peace be upon him whether he literally died or whether he was taken up. As long as they accepted him as a Messenger of God and followed his teachings then that's what matters.

 

As for mankind now, well, God didn't leave mankind in misguidance, proof of that is that He sent the Qur'an explaining that which Jews and Christians erred in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m only trying to understand how Muslims justify this.

 

All I’m asking is why would the people be condemned if they genuinely believe in Christ’s resurrection? They are neither arrogant or rebellious...

 

Through God’s instrument of deception millions are now paying the price in hell according to Islamic belief...

 

God bless,

 

Hmm, again this is a strange question. As a Christian do you believe that Muslims (who reject Isa peace be upon him as anything but a Messenger from God) will go to Paradise? How about the Atheist and the Hindu?

 

It's not God's deception, it's the peoples deception, and Satan has deceived the people. Remember why Adam peace be upon him was banished from the Garden and why God sent him to earth. Mankind are here on this earth to be tested, and their greatest enemy is Satan who will use every tool in his "power" to turn people away from the worship of God. If the worship of Isa isn't one of the greatest deceptions of Satan then I don't know what is. It sounds great... no one has to do anything because Isa died for our sins! All you have to do is accept "Jesus" and Lord and Saviour and you're good to go :sl: Does this sound right to you? Is this what Messengers of God from the past came and taught the people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not hardly, There are many verses that show Jesus is the son of man is what you should say. You shouldn't say show that he is not the Son of God. The Bible proves He is both the Son of Man and the Son of God explicitly and unequivocally. You err not knowing the Scriptures of the Bible. According the the Bible Jesus is subordinate to God in office, position and function but equal in nature, essence and character. If you want me to quote Scriptures for you to prove this just say so. You say Allah didn't ask Isa because the Bible alludes to His deity; then why does Allah ask Isa? and more importantly why ask Isa about Mary? What does she have to do with the price of tea in China? Your answer has no substance to it. What people attributed deity to Isa and Mary? What people are you speaking of? You have an information hole or two here. Please be more specific.

Peace

 

Maryam was the mother of Isa peace be upon him... the price of tea has nothing to do with either AT ALL; so I think that's a bad example.

 

I'm told that some used to place Maryam as a deuty; although I'm not sure if that still happens today (maybe it does on a small scale, I don't know).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Muslims,

 

I am so sorry for causing you such upset. But first of all, before explaining myself, I will defend Islam against the charge of Allah deceiving people.

 

Even from the start of this topic ('God's being a "trickster".' #3) this accusation has been put forward time and time again. I ignored it because it sounds so silly, but I will be quiet no longer. My dear fellow Christians, you are making yourselves look so silly. You think that you have found a chink in Islam's armour and are trying to poke at it continuously, thinking that you will sow a seed of doubt in the Muslims. However, you are only poking with a matchstick!

 

The Bible also talks about the Lord deceiving people:

 

"Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you."

Bible, 1 Kings 22:23

 

So please, stop talking about deception. How you explain 'God's deception' in the above Bible verse is most likely how Muslims explain their view of a man like Jesus being on the Cross in place of the real Jesus.

 

Doesn't the Bible talk about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you ... ?

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS. One more defence of Islam: in Christian polemics much is made about the blood of Jesus atoning for our sins, and that the Muslims have to accept this to go into heaven. So, in effect, what is taught is that for all Jesus' suffering what everyone can expect is nothing more than what they expected anyway: to go to heaven when we die and there see God. Well, so what! If the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus is to mean anything, it must mean more than what people have been believing without thinking about Jesus! So please, again, try to understand Islam from an Islamic viewpoint.

PPS. The Eastern Churches do not accept the teaching of Augustine of Hippo on sin and humanity (the Chaldean Churches in the far east have actually condemned him!), hence they have a different understanding of what sin and redemption is all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear Muslims,

 

I am so sorry for causing you such upset. But first of all, before explaining myself, I will defend Islam against the charge of Allah deceiving people.

 

Even from the start of this topic ('God's being a "trickster".' #3) this accusation has been put forward time and time again. I ignored it because it sounds so silly, but I will be quiet no longer. My dear fellow Christians, you are making yourselves look so silly. You think that you have found a chink in Islam's armour and are trying to poke at it continuously, thinking that you will sow a seed of doubt in the Muslims. However, you are only poking with a matchstick!

 

The Bible also talks about the Lord deceiving people:

So please, stop talking about deception. How you explain 'God's deception' in the above Bible verse is most likely how Muslims explain their view of a man like Jesus being on the Cross in place of the real Jesus.

 

Doesn't the Bible talk about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you ... ?

 

Richard

 

I'm not knowledgeable in the Bible so I wouldn't want to comment on those verses. I would however say that I do not believe the statement that was made previously that God is a "deceiver" would be correct. I believe that God ALLOWS for people to be deceived, and that He takes His guidance away from those who are not deserving of it, hence deceiving themselves... but to just say "Why did God deceive the people" or the like of it wouldn't be accurate because you have to look at the full picture. Sure God guides and misguides, but only as a result of what the people did/didn't do. It's not like God just decided that He is going to deceive the people so He could throw them into Hell; which some of the statements made previously on this thread seem to be alluding to this kind of thought. It's important we look at things in context, otherwise we have strange questions being asked such as "Why did God create Satan"... or "Why did God put man on earth" and others like it.

 

And I appreciate you sticking up for what you believe to be true; that's a sign of someone who is sincere in seeking the truth and I ask God to guide you to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would however say that I do not believe the statement that was made previously that God is a "deceiver" would be correct. I believe that God ALLOWS for people to be deceived, and that He takes His guidance away from those who are not deserving of it, hence deceiving themselves...

 

That's is exactly what I was thinking, even if the writing of it was somewhat careless!

 

:sl:

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's is exactly what I was thinking, even if the writing of it was somewhat careless!

 

:sl:

Richard

 

Can I ask you why you do not accept the Qur'an as the final revelation from God and Muhammad peace be upon him as His final Messenger? Which parts of the teachings of Islaam is it that you reject? Is it just the position of Isa ibn Maryam peace be upon him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not hardly, There are many verses that show Jesus is the son of man is what you should say. You shouldn't say show that he is not the Son of God. The Bible proves He is both the Son of Man and the Son of God explicitly and unequivocally. You err not knowing the Scriptures of the Bible. According the the Bible Jesus is subordinate to God in office, position and function but equal in nature, essence and character. If you want me to quote Scriptures for you to prove this just say so. You say Allah didn't ask Isa because the Bible alludes to His deity; then why does Allah ask Isa? and more importantly why ask Isa about Mary? What does she have to do with the price of tea in China? Your answer has no substance to it. What people attributed deity to Isa and Mary? What people are you speaking of? You have an information hole or two here. Please be more specific.

Peace

 

Also didn't you start a thread where you said:

 

"Many Muslims tell me that Christians ascribe partners to God, but nothing could be further from the truth. Maybe, it is true about Catholics that worship images and worship and pray to Mary as the mother of God. I left the Catholic Church for this reason. Mary is blessed among women, but that is as far as it goes for me. The reason I think Muslims say this is because, we believe Jesus Christ is more than a prophet or messenger. We do believe honestly that He is the message not the messenger. We believe He is the actual word of God not a spokesman like Jehovah Witnesses call Him. If Muslims say we Christians ascribe partners than why can't we say the same about Muslims (not that i believe they do).

 

For instance, to be a Muslims one must swear that there is no god but Allah and his prophet, apostle & messenger is Muhammad; they call this shaadah. I could be wrong but this is what I understand. Now, one cannot be Muslim if he doesn't swear to such a statement. So in my mind's eye, Muslims must confess the name of non-deity (Muhammad a slave of Allah) along with Allah (god) or one cannot be Muslim. Isn’t that associating someone with Allah as pertains to your eternal hope? Isn't that a form of ascribing? Christians don't confess the name of any non-deity. They confess directly to God through His word (Jesus).

 

We believe God is Spirit; we believe He is Holy; therefore, He is the Holy Spirit to us as the Scriptures state unequivocally in the Bible. We believe God is ONE. Jesus, is according to Scripture the Word that God used to create all things seen & unseen including people. In fact the Bible states, that all things are held together by the Word (Jesus) of His power. So when a Muslim calls Jesus the “son of Mary” it is insulting to our spirit because we see Jesus above all prophets and angels. I hope this helps you to understand a Biblical Christians worldview a little better.

 

Peace be unto you"

 

Like I said, the Qur'an is clearing up the false beliefs of Christians; which have no basis in the teachings that Isa ibn Maryam peace be upon him came with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so emotionally charged?

(I'll split various thoughts up into different posts to make them easier to read.)

 

I think my words have been taken a bit out of context. I will try to explain them. The Qur'an says that Messengers (pbut) have passed before Jesus (pbuh), some have been killed, therefore, it wouldn't be inconcievable had Jesus (pbuh) actually died. BUT, the Qur'an explicitly mentions that he wasn't killed nor crucified, therefore, it is necessary to believe that he didn't because God explicitly states so.

Dear Younes,

 

I am sorry if I have taken your words out of context: I did not mean to. Before reading them I was of the opinion that Muslims did not believe in the crucifixion of Jesus because they thought that it was demeaning for a prophet to suffer so much. Therefore, reading that it might be possible to accept Jesus' crucifixion did excite my emotions. Hence my style of writing was I suppose a bit cheeky or playful, and perhaps I did get carried away a bit, but with innocence nevertheless. After all, at least it is a new idea rather than the old claims versus counter-claims ... :sl:

 

For example, a mob boss might say to his inner-circle that killed so and so although he didn't do the actual deed. He might not even had his henchmen do it but the corruped police instead! This analogous to the case of the Jews.

 

Furthermore, I think one of the Gospels is famous for the story where Pilate washes his hands and says he is innocent of Jesus' (pbuh) blood. What do the Jews say? The infamous line: "His blood be upon us and our children!".

This is perfectly true, and clearly how the Quran has been interpreted. But as you state above, "it wouldn't be inconcievable had Jesus (pbuh) actually died", so I am left thinking why this should become such an emotional issue? Surely if someone interprets the Quran as permitting Jesus to die (on the cross), why would this be such a barrier to being a Muslim? In my original post #108 I clearly distanced such an approach from any Christian interpretation: "After all, so what if he did rise up a few days later from death? Others have been raised from the dead too, right?

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is perfectly true, and clearly how the Quran has been interpreted. But as you state above, "it wouldn't be inconcievable had Jesus (pbuh) actually died", so I am left thinking why this should become such an emotional issue?

 

Surely if someone interprets the Quran as permitting Jesus to die (on the cross), why would this be such a barrier to being a Muslim? In my original post #108 I clearly distanced such an approach from any Christian interpretation: "After all, so what if he did rise up a few days later from death? Others have been raised from the dead too, right?

 

Hello,

 

The statement "it wouldn't be inconcievable had Jesus (pbuh) actually died" is entirely hypothetical.

 

The problem in interpreting that Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross makes it a barrier to being a Muslim because the Qur'an says that the Jews didn't get Jesus (pbuh) crucified nor killed. I think we can agree on the fact that the Jews tried to get him killed and boasted about getting him killed. If this premise about the Jews's boast holds true, then God directly refuted that claim.

 

Furthermore, the Qur'an never states that Jesus (pbuh) was raised from the dead. The Qur'an speaks about many cases were people were raised from the dead and it explicitly states that they were raised from the dead. All it says about Jesus (pbuh) is that he was raised. The fact that there are plenty of verses in the Qur'an where God explicitly speaks of raising people from the dead but doesn't in Jesus's (pbuh) case makes it extremely problematic.

 

Plus the Arabic word that is used in the verse doesn't denote ressurrecting somebody. The word is not used once in reference to resurrection - and the Qur'an speaks a lot about ressurrection. Like I said, in addition to the people who were raised from the dead in this life, one of the Quran's main themes is the Ressurrection of the dead on the Day of Judgement. It makes one wonder why the words that have been used in the plethora of verses talking about ressurrection aren't used when it comes to Jesus (pbuh) when they have been systematically used throughout the Qur'an.

 

The word used in reference to Jesus (pbuh) is used in reference to actually physically raising something, i.e. lifting up something. Plus it is used in reference to raising somebody in rank. It is also used in reference to lifting one's voice. But the main point is that it isn't used in reference to ressurrection from the dead.

 

There are some words in English that all get translated in the same way although they are different words and not used in the same context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differing Islamic Interpretations of the Crucifixion

 

No Muslim claims to know where the tomb of Isa is, because 1) It doesn't exist 2) It can't exist therefore only an ignorant person would claim such a thing.

 

Dear Abu,

 

When writing my post I did write the bit about Jesus' tomb from memory, and have since found that it might not be so clear cut as I had thought. There was a Islamic writer called Ahmed Deedat, who wrote various booklets against Christianity; I received them at Birmingham University (UK) during their 'Islamic Awareness Week' many years ago. In them he clearly advances the view that Jesus was put upon the cross, and suffered, but did not die. He walked about after a few days, but did not rise from the dead. Therefore, I had thought that he shared the same view with the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect who do believe that Jesus is buried in India. He might do, but I cannot find any reference as to what he thought about Jesus' end, although it could be as the Ahmadiyya. An Ahmadiyya commentary on the Quranic verses in question can be found ######muslim(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/english-quran/ch004-e.pdf .

 

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;- [4:159]

 

How do you interpret this verse to mean that Isa peace be upon him died? Especially when you have read the verses which come before it.

 

Whether you are a Muslim, Jew or Christian you must believe in Isa (as a Messenger of Allaah) before death comes to you. Your interpretation wouldn't even be logical if I'm honest with you, because if the requirement was to believe in Isa before his death and according to you he has already died then we are in trouble.

And there is none of the People of the Scripture, but must believe in him, before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he will be a witness against them.

 

Had this meant that Jesus (pbuh) actually died already it would have said, "after his death".

 

I must admit that in the latter part of the post I did get carried away a bit, but you do not seem to know that there are mainstream differences in interpreting these verses. So regarding, "And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death", Yusuf Ali comments (see web page (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=4&verse=153&to=162"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sur...=153&to=162[/url] ):

 

#665 to v159. 'Before his death': Interpreters are not agreed as to the exact meaning.

 

Those who hold that Jesus did not die refer the pronoun "his" to Jesus. They say that Jesus is still living in the body and that he will appear just before the Final Day, after the coming of the Mahdi, when the world will be purified of sin and unbelief. There will be a final death before the final Resurrection, but all will have believed before that final death.

 

Others think that "his" is better referred, to "none of the People of the Book", and that the emphatic form "must believe" (layu 'minanna) denotes more a question of duty than of fact. ®.

 

Before this he comments on various different interpretations of what happened to Jesus:

 

C664 to v158. There is difference of opinion as to the exact interpretation of this verse. The words are:

 

The Jews did not kill Jesus, but Allah raised him up (rafau) to Himself.

 

One school holds that Jesus did not die the usual human death, but still lives in the body in heaven, which is the generally accepted Muslim view.

 

Another holds that he did die but not when he was supposed to be crucified, and that his being "raised up" unto Allah means that instead of being disgraced as a malefactor, as the Jews intended, he was on the contrary honoured by Allah as His Messenger:

 

see also next verse.

 

The same word rafa'a is used in association with honour in connection with Mustafa in 94:4. ®.

 

Does this make things clearer regarding differing mainstream interpretations? With these other possible interpretations, it appears to me that it should be possible to accept these Quranic verses as allowing one to believe that Jesus died on the Cross, with a 'lifting up' (Post #144) afterwards (after his resurrection from the dead?). It is the knowledge of differing interpretations that keeps my mind occupied with this: if they did not exist, then I would have to capitulate before your superior knowledge of Arabic!

 

Richard

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Differing Islamic Interpretations of the Crucifixion

Dear Abu,

 

When writing my post I did write the bit about Jesus' tomb from memory, and have since found that it might not be so clear cut as I had thought. There was a Islamic writer called Ahmed Deedat, who wrote various booklets against Christianity; I received them at Birmingham University (UK) during their 'Islamic Awareness Week' many years ago. In them he clearly advances the view that Jesus was put upon the cross, and suffered, but did not die. He walked about after a few days, but did not rise from the dead. Therefore, I had thought that he shared the same view with the Ahmadiyya Muslim sect who do believe that Jesus is buried in India. He might do, but I cannot find any reference as to what he thought about Jesus' end, although it could be as the Ahmadiyya. An Ahmadiyya commentary on the Quranic verses in question can be found ######muslim(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/english-quran/ch004-e.pdf .

I must admit that in the latter part of the post I did get carried away a bit, but you do not seem to know that there are mainstream differences in interpreting these verses. So regarding, "And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death", Yusuf Ali comments (see web page ######islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=4&verse=153&to=162 ):

Before this he comments on various different interpretations of what happened to Jesus:

Does this make things clearer regarding differing mainstream interpretations? With these other possible interpretations, it appears to me that it should be possible to accept these Quranic verses as allowing one to believe that Jesus died on the Cross, with a 'lifting up' (Post #144) afterwards (after his resurrection from the dead?). It is the knowledge of differing interpretations that keeps my mind occupied with this: if they did not exist, then I would have to capitulate before your superior knowledge of Arabic!

 

Richard

:sl:

 

Isa ibn Maryam peace be upon him did not die, therefore there is no body or tomb. Yes he will return, and he will die and he will be buried next to the grave of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him.

 

I've seen the verse interpreted both ways 1) the Jews and Christians must accept Isa ibn Maryam as a Prophet of God before his/her death 2) The Jews and Christians have to accept Isa ibn Maryam as a Prophet of God before his death (which would be speaking about his REAL death after he returns in the end times).

 

I do not know Arabic, but I do not believe there is anything to support the idea of Isa ibn Maryam peace be upon him dying on the cross; the verses are clear on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this make things clearer regarding differing mainstream interpretations? With these other possible interpretations, it appears to me that it should be possible to accept these Quranic verses as allowing one to believe that Jesus died on the Cross, with a 'lifting up' (Post #144) afterwards (after his resurrection from the dead?). It is the knowledge of differing interpretations that keeps my mind occupied with this: if they did not exist, then I would have to capitulate before your superior knowledge of Arabic!

 

To be fair, you should pay careful attention to Yusuf Ali's wording. He didn't say that those who think Jesus (pbuh) died are mainstream. Nor does he clarify how the other "school" believes Jesus (pbuh) supposedly died. In fact, he didn't really go into a lot of detail. He just presented two views. I can honestly tell you that there aren't differing mainstream interpretations about this matter. There are about other issues but not this. If there is, I would like to know myself.

 

The mainstream believes that Jesus (pbuh) didn't die but that he will return and then die. I haven't seen any esteemed scholar hold the view that Jesus (pbuh) died on the cross. Maybe Yusuf Ali meant that there are some people who go by the name of Muslims and that believe Jesus (pbuh) died. I have seen this. But I haven't seen scholarly views.

 

"With these other possible interpretations, it appears to me that it should be possible to accept these Quranic verses as allowing one to believe that Jesus died on the Cross, with a 'lifting up' (Post #144) afterwards (after his resurrection from the dead?)"

 

We again go back to the explicit statement that they didn't kill him nor crucify him so dying on the cross doesn't fit the equation.

 

Besides, just for the sake of arguement, if the verses allowed the idea that he died (which I definately don't think they do), why should resurrection from the dead come into the picture? Why not just a "lifting up" of a dead body? To save his dead body? A sort of burial like Moses' (pbuh)? I mean, if you look at the second view Yusuf Ali presented, it doesn't say anywhere that Jesus (pbuh) was raised from the dead. Wouldn't this idea of him being resurrected mostly rely on Christian interpretations instead of being based on the Qur'anic text itself? I think you implied in one of your posts that your interpretation of the text (or suggestion) wasn't based on the Christian view but only the text itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair, you should pay careful attention to Yusuf Ali's wording. He didn't say that those who think Jesus (pbuh) died are mainstream. Nor does he clarify how the other "school" believes Jesus (pbuh) supposedly died. In fact, he didn't really go into a lot of detail. He just presented two views. I can honestly tell you that there aren't differing mainstream interpretations about this matter. There are about other issues but not this. If there is, I would like to know myself.

 

I got my copy of Yusuf Ali's translation of the Quran from the Islamic Propagation Centre International, based in Birmingham (although I did a quick web search before this and it appears to have moved to Pakistan with a bookshop remaining in Birmingham): the Quran has the IPCI sticker inside the back cover. As such, I must point out that Ahmad Deedat, who apparently founded the IPCI, did indeed believe that Jesus suffered on the cross and then walked about a few days later. The reference in the footnotes to Jesus dying must then be to this.

 

It is interesting that the 'King Fahd' edition removes from the footnotes all references to Jesus dying on earth. (Note, this is just a change in the footnotes, not in the actual text of the Quran: just so that you know that I know! :sl: )

 

Besides, just for the sake of arguement, if the verses allowed the idea that he died (which I definately don't think they do), why should resurrection from the dead come into the picture? Why not just a "lifting up" of a dead body? To save his dead body? A sort of burial like Moses' (pbuh)? I mean, if you look at the second view Yusuf Ali presented, it doesn't say anywhere that Jesus (pbuh) was raised from the dead. Wouldn't this idea of him being resurrected mostly rely on Christian interpretations instead of being based on the Qur'anic text itself? I think you implied in one of your posts that your interpretation of the text (or suggestion) wasn't based on the Christian view but only the text itself.

 

"Why not just a "lifting up" of a dead body?": I would be happy with this - would the Quran support this view? I am exploring how the Quran could be interpretted differently, and this for me would naturally lend itself towards the Christian interpretation ...

 

I can see that this is a sensitive issue, and so will not seek to poke around. While the Ahmadiyya are not treated as full Muslims, yet for me as a non-Muslim I am interested by how they interpret the Quran, and they clearly believe that Jesus died a natural death. I do not wish to debate about the position of the Ahmadiyya - discussion of sects are not allowed in this forum - yet it will always be in the back of my mind that the Arabic of the Quran can be interpretted in such a way.

 

Fumbling around I also found this (apparently mainstream) commentary:

 

What is categorically asserted here is merely that the Jews did not succeed in killing the Messiah, but that God raised him unto Himself. The Qur'an furnishes no detailed information about the actual form of this 'raising'. It neither states categorically that God raised him from the earthly sphere to some place in heaven in both body and soul, nor that his body died on earth and his soul alone was raised to heaven. Hence neither of the two alternatives can be definitely affirmed nor denied on the basis of the Qur'an. If one reflects on the Qur'anic version of the event one gets the impression that, whatever the actual form of this 'raising', the event was of an extraordinary character.

 

note 195 you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamicstudies.info/tafheem.php...=153&to=162

islamicstudies . info

 

As I said I do not plan to talk much about this, but just to know that there will always be in my mind other possible ways of interpretting the Quran. Peace be with you, continue to believe in what you have always believed.

 

 

Blessings,

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An apology to "Catherine"[using large font size is not allowed]

 

Dear Catherine,

 

I don't know whether it was God's will or what the reason is that this topic was moved to the front of this forum again. Whatever the reason is, it caused me to read through it again. I came to post #37, which was given by a person named Christine-1208 and contained material that I attributed to coming from you in my post #83, because I was too stupid to go back and confirm the heading. You tried to defend yourself in posts #100, #101, and #105, using words that I now see to be true. But to my further embarrassment, again I did not confirm the source.

 

I ask your forgiveness, I am sincerely sorry.

 

signed "Stillsmallvoice"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was re-reading my notes made from Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and found this which I had forgotten about, on [5:75] :

 

The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger; messengers passed away before him, and so he passed away like them, for he is not a god as they claim, otherwise he would not have passed away; his mother was a truthful woman, [siddīqa means] extremely truthful; they both used to eat food, like all other human beings, and one who is such cannot be a god because of his compound being and fallible nature, and because of the [impurities such as] urine and excrement that he produces. Behold, in amazement, how We make the signs, of Our Oneness, clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away!, [how] they are turned away from the truth despite the proof being established

 

So according to this tafsir Jesus did die, at least sometime in the past if not on the cross.

 

For comparison, here is the tafsir on the crucifixion bit, 4:157-159:

 

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

[on 4:157] And for their saying, boastfully, ‘We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God’, as they claim: in other words, for all of these [reasons] We have punished them. God, exalted be He, says, in repudiating their claim to have killed him: And yet they did not slay him nor did they crucify him, but he, the one slain and crucified, who was an associate of theirs [the Jews], was given the resemblance, of Jesus. In other words, God cast his [Jesus’s] likeness to him and so they thought it was him [Jesus]. And those who disagree concerning him, that is, concerning Jesus, are surely in doubt regarding, the slaying of, him, for some of them said, when they saw the slain man: the face is that of Jesus, but the body is not his, and so it is not he; and others said: no, it is he. They do not have any knowledge of, the slaying of, him, only the pursuit of conjecture (illā ittibā‘a l-zann, is a discontinuous exception) in other words: ‘instead, they follow conjecture regarding him, that which they imagined [they saw]’; and they did not slay him for certain (yaqīnan, a circumstantial qualifier emphasising the denial of the slaying).

[on 4:158] Nay, God raised him up to Him. God is ever Mighty, in His kingdom, Wise, in His actions.

[on 4:159] And there is not one of the People of the Scripture but will assuredly believe in him, in Jesus, before his death, that is, [before the death] of one belonging to the People of the Scripture upon seeing the angels of death with his very eyes, at which point his faith will not profit him; or [it means] before the death of Jesus, after he descends at the approach of the Hour, as is stated in hadīth; and on the Day of Resurrection he, Jesus, will be a witness against them, of what they did when he was sent to them.

 

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing as it is Good Friday in the West, I thought I would share this quotation which I found a few days ago. I was looking in "Sirat Rasoul Allah, The earliest biography of Muhammad, by ibn Ishaq" (there is a pdf somewhere on the internet) for references to the Najran Christians, when in one place I noticed the next section "11- The Trinity" (page 58 in my pdf). Here he writes the following about Jesus:

 

Then Allah revealed the Sura known as The Family of Imran which begins by refuting the Christian Trinity, and proclaiming omnipotence and one-ness of Allah. There is no god but He, the Living, the Eternal who cannot die; but Jesus died and was crucified.

 

I was originally intending to read his work, until I found that Muslims have serious doubts about its historical accuracy. Nevertheless, the above affirmation of Jesus' crucifixion and death is his own personal view, and so probably those of his disciples, and of those who taught him. When his work was criticised during his lifetime, his view on the crucifixion does not seem to have been mentioned. (See http://www.answering...-Ibn-Ishaq.html )

 

So at least some important early Muslims did accept Jesus' death on the cross!

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×