Jesus, Islam, and Crucifixion

[Kadaveri]

It’s important to remember that any theories explaining Sura 4:157 are all ultimately based on guesswork. The verse only says that Jesus (as) was not crucified, but that it only appeared to his enemies that they’d crucified him, and that they didn’t know it for sure, they only followed conjecture. Make what you will of it, but there’s nothing in there that says that anyone else was substituted or the like, such interpretations are just that, interpretations.

However, in response to a comment made further up this thread, the Qur’an is clear that Jesus (as) did not go on to live to be an old man, as the very next verse says that God raised Jesus (as) up to Him.

That Muhammad (saaw) was influenced in any way by Basilidian Gnosticism is very unlikely. There is no documented evidence whatsoever that Muhammad (saaw) ever came into contact with Gnostics, or that he even knew anything about them or their teachings. And even so, the Basilideans were only a rather obscure Egyptian branch of Gnostism from the 2nd Century, even more unlikely that Muhammad (saaw) would have been familiar with their teachings; he was afterall, a completely uneducated and illiterate 7th Century Arabian camel herder, not someone who’d be expected to possess an encyclopedic knowledge on various sects of Gnosticism

Any similarity between the two is only concerning one particular issue anyway, in which the similarity is really too vague to be granted any significance.

And about God ‘tricking people into believing Jesus had died’, that’s not what the Qur’an says. It says that the Pharisees boasted that they had killed Jesus (as) when they were only following conjecture, so they were infact only deceiving themselves.

Peace.

 

[Montalban]

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

Volume 9, Book 84, Number 63:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
As if I am looking at the Prophet while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, “O Lord! Forgive my, people as they do not know.”
usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/084.sbt.html#009.084.063

It’s important to remember that any theories explaining Sura 4:157 are all ultimately based on guesswork. The verse only says that Jesus (as) was not crucified, but that it only appeared to his enemies that they’d crucified him, and that they didn’t know it for sure, they only followed conjecture. Make what you will of it, but there’s nothing in there that says that anyone else was substituted or the like, such interpretations are just that, interpretations.

Who caused the person to appear to look like Jesus? Are you now suggesting your own texts have this happening against al-lah’s will? You have then ‘someone’ making this appearence, but Al-lah raising him up. Seems rather odd.

However, in response to a comment made further up this thread, the Qur’an is clear that Jesus (as) did not go on to live to be an old man, as the very next verse says that God raised Jesus (as) up to Him.

This is part of the confusion Moslems have about Jesus. You make the claim that he is both an ordinary man, yet ascribe remarkable attributes unto him, such as being born of a virgin.

That Muhammad (saaw) was influenced in any way by Basilidian Gnosticism is very unlikely. There is no documented evidence whatsoever that Muhammad (saaw) ever came into contact with Gnostics, or that he even knew anything about them or their teachings. And even so, the Basilideans were only a rather obscure Egyptian branch of Gnostism from the 2nd Century, even more unlikely that Muhammad (saaw) would have been familiar with their teachings; he was afterall, a completely uneducated and illiterate 7th Century Arabian camel herder, not someone who’d be expected to possess an encyclopedic knowledge on various sects of Gnosticism

Any similarity between the two is only concerning one particular issue anyway, in which the similarity is really too vague to be granted any significance.

And about God ‘tricking people into believing Jesus had died’, that’s not what the Qur’an says. It says that the Pharisees boasted that they had killed Jesus (as) when they were only following conjecture, so they were infact only deceiving themselves.

Then it again begs the question who tricked teh Pharisees, because it says that the substitute was made to appear like Jesus.

 

[Kadaveri]

You’ve missed the point, the Qur’an doesn’t say anything about someone being caused to look like Jesus (as), that’s just a guess (of many) on how to interpret that verse.

This is part of the confusion Moslems have about Jesus. You make the claim that he is both an ordinary man, yet ascribe remarkable attributes unto him, such as being born of a virgin.

There isn’t any confusion, many of the Prophets have remarkable attributes despite still being ‘ordinary’ men. Adam (as) for example wasn’t born of any woman, Issac was born of an elderly woman and John the Baptist was born of an infertile woman, yet these were all just men were they not? God only needs to say ‘Be’ for anything to be created.

The quote you’ve given from Al-Tabari isn’t him giving an answer, but is in fact one of several (quite different) reports concerning the crucifixion that he’d heard of and written down in his book to analyse them. He actually concluded that all the reports had questionable authenticity and didn’t accept any as being true, this also being the reason why those reports aren’t found in any of the reputable Hadith collections (Al-Bukhari, Al-Muslim etc…).

 

[Montalban]

Koran 5:47 Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fasiqun (the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree) to Allah.

48 And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur’an) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures) . So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ.

You’ve missed the point, the Qur’an doesn’t say anything about someone being caused to look like Jesus (as), that’s just a guess (of many) on how to interpret that verse.

I didn’t miss that point at all. I asked you who do you think caused the appearance? Who has the power to do so? In the context that you then believe al-lah intervened and took Jesus up, then it would seem rather odd not to have him do this as well.

There isn’t any confusion, many of the Prophets have remarkable attributes despite still being ‘ordinary’ men. Adam (as) for example wasn’t born of any woman, Isaac was born of an elderly woman and John the Baptist was born of an infertile woman, yet these were all just men were they not?

Then they’re not ‘ordinary’. Go look ‘ordinary’ up.

Also, Eve wasn’t born of any woman either, is she a prophet?

God only needs to say ‘Be’ for anything to be created.

And yet most Moslems question the ‘possibility’ of the Trinity! Ah, sweet irony.

The quote you’ve given from Al-Tabari isn’t him giving an answer, but is in fact one of several (quite different) reports concerning the crucifixion that he’d heard of and written down in his book to analyse them. He actually concluded that all the reports had questionable authenticity and didn’t accept any as being true, this also being the reason why those reports aren’t found in any of the reputable Hadith collections (Al-Bukhari, Al-Muslim etc…).

Not just ‘anyone’ speculates, then…
Baidawi said

“It is related that a group of Jews reviled Jesus…then the Jews gathered to kill him. Whereupon Allah informed him that he would take him up to heaven. Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Which one of your is willing to have my likeness cast upon him, and be killed and crucified and enter Paradise?” One of them accepted, and Allah cast the likeness of Jesus upon him, and he was killed and crucified. It is said also that he was one who acted the hypocrite towards Jesus, and went out to lead the Jews to him. But Allah cast the likeness of Jesus upon him, and he was taken and crucified and killed.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s version:

4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- 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:-

Maulana Muhammad Ali’s version:

4:157 And for their saying: We have killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah, and they killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross, but he was made to appear to them as such. And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge about it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for certain:

The Wahhabi translation of Hilali/Khan reads

And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh,” - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)

The passage in the Koran says “they” is this the Jews? Why are they boasting of this when it was the Romans who had the power to crucify, not the Jews?

Who has the power to put this appearance on another man? Are you going to say Allah had help?

 

[inJESUS]

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

what’s interesting is that the Islamic tradition is Basilidean and Muslims deny it because he didn’t “meet” them or was “illiterate” to know about them. The Islamic tradition shows Muhammad interacting with different kinds of “Christians” and Medina included many faiths.What’s interesting is that he labelled them as “nasara”, never as “christians” and nasara were historically Jewish-Christians who became heretics that’s why you find Muhammad saying " Nasara are nothing if they don’t follow the Torah AND Injeel.The people who followed both and wanted to “judaize” the Gentile-Christians were the “nasara” who were admonished by the apostles because “Gentile-Christians” are not bound by the Mosaic Law since they’re not Jews but by the New Covenant God promised to humanity through the Saviour.

Many traditions/interpretations proved the existence of different cults of Christianity during his lifetime. History tells of the pre-dominance of heretics in Arabia. Muhmmad approved of the heretics and labelled orthodox Christians as unbelievers who will rot in hell ( not even understanding the orthodox doctrines that’s why you find nothing correct in the Quran ).If you know Arabic I got a book for you that will trace for you who the “nasara” Muhammad comfirmed were. They were a bunch of Messianic Jews who refused the teachings of the apostles regarding the Mosaic Law and who ended up in Arabia after being rejected by both Jews and Christians(gentiles and Jews). Muhammad was nothing but a Joseph Smith who saw too many faiths and decided to make a “pure” religion, plagiarizing gnostics, apocrypha, Talmud, legends and myths and misrepresenting orthodox Christianity and Muslims want to convince you that the author of legends is God.

Muslims will try to get out of the absurd Quranic statement by denying their best interpretors with the excuse of “just interpretation”. Well fact is, it’s the only interpretation, which shows it has always been this belief in Islam.

The only people who mentioned “appearance” and “substitution theory” were the gnostics and both fit the Quran, yet the first does not deny Jesus’ crucifixion but teaches that his body was an “appearance”. The only way to get out of the Basilidean absurdity is to embrace the other Gnostic teachings of “appearance” and Muslims will be obliged to admit that Jesus was crucified as atonement for our sins. The ones who reject both interpretations have nothing more to say than “Allah knows best” which makes you wonder why on earth was Allah refuting by giving an absurd verse that bewilders more than it refutes.

It appeared? what appeared? mass hallucination 2006 years ago including Jews, Romans, and Christians? and allah refutes with an absurd single verse and we aresupposed to tke him seriously because Allah said so? Hilarious.

 

[Kadaveri]

I’m fully aware of what ‘ordinary’ means, I was using the word as you did in your previous post as the alternative to being ‘God in the flesh’, hence me putting ‘ordinary’ inside inverted commas. But the point remains, were Adam, Issac, John or even Eve, God in the flesh? They all had miraculous births afterall.

Anyway, on the crucifixion, I’m going to try to explain this again. There is nothing in the Qur’an that says anything about anyone being substituted for Jesus (as) and crucified, this is only an interpretation of the aforementioned verse.

The Hilali/Khan translation you’ve quoted has interpolations inserting the writers own interpretation of the original text into the translation, it’s not a well-trusted translation anyway. The Yusuf Ali version is a much more literal translation, and you’ll find that there’s no mention of Jesus’s appearence being put on anyone in it. If you want the important part translated as literally as possible then I’ll try, “wama qataloohu” = “and they killed him not” , “wama salaboohu” = “and they crucified him not”, “walakin shubbiha lahum” = “But to them it appeared so”.

That’s all the Qur’an says, anything about a man being substituted for Jesus (as) or his appearence being put on another is purely guesswork. And as a clarification the word translated as ‘appeared so’ and also just as easily mean ‘seemed so’.

Do you actually know who Baidawi is? Or did you just Google for something? He’s just a Muslim scholar (of hundreds) who wrote a commentary interpreting the Qur’an and thought that the verse meant someone else was crucified in Jesus’s place; he’s not an Islamic authority in anyway and at the end of the day he’s only guessing at what it means, not what it says. Do you understand the difference?

Peace.

 

[exoflare]

I’m fully aware of what ‘ordinary’ means, I was using the word as you did in your previous post as the alternative to being ‘God in the flesh’, hence me putting ‘ordinary’ inside inverted commas. But the point remains, were Adam, Issac, John or even Eve, God in the flesh? They all had miraculous births afterall.

On what are you basing your assumption that Adam and Eve were born “miraculously”? Beyond the fact that they were the first human souls created by God we don’t know of the details of the origin of their earthly bodies.

As for your argument in general, it is a strawman even though Muslims seem to bring it up all the time. You are countering an argument that nobody made in the first place - namely:

Jesus was born of a virgin,
therefore, Jesus must be God.

Christains don’t even claim this, so I don’t see the point of bringing it up.

 

[Kadaveri]

I meant that Adam and Eve weren’t born of any woman, which is of course not an ‘ordinary’ way for a human to come into existence.

I was addressing something said earlier in the thread here: “This is part of the confusion Moslems have about Jesus. You make the claim that he is both an ordinary man, yet ascribe remarkable attributes unto him, such as being born of a virgin.” I did consider him saying that Muslims believe Jesus (as) was ‘ordinary’ as in, that we don’t believe he was God (swt), although I may be mistaken.

But regardless, I have heard it argued by Christians quite a few times that since Jesus (as) was born of a virgin that he must have had a much higher status than any other Prophet; which inevitably leads to Jesus (as) being claimed to be God in the flesh.

 

[exoflare]

I meant that Adam and Eve weren’t born of any woman, which is of course not an ‘ordinary’ way for a human to come into existence.

This is open to debate, though. At least for Catholics. It is perfectly within the scope of Catholic teaching to believe that Adam and Eve were born the natural way. So just don’t be surprised when people here won’t blindly take that as a premise right away without question.

As for the other part of your reply, thanks for the clarification. Looks like you and the other guy just have to settle what your shared definition is of the word “ordinary” here.

 

[Montalban]

004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- 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:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

I’m fully aware of what ‘ordinary’ means, I was using the word as you did in your previous post as the alternative to being ‘God in the flesh’, hence me putting ‘ordinary’ inside inverted commas. But the point remains, were Adam, Issac, John or even Eve, God in the flesh? They all had miraculous births after.

And Muhammad didn’t. And Jesus will come back to judge us.

Anyway, on the crucifixion, I’m going to try to explain this again. There is nothing in the Qur’an that says anything about anyone being substituted for Jesus (as) and crucified, this is only an interpretation of the aforementioned verse.

No. The Koran says (as per the various translations I evidenced) that He was substituted and the Jews were made to believe it was Jesus.

The Hilali/Khan translation you’ve quoted has interpolations inserting the writers own interpretation of the original text into the translation, it’s not a well-trusted translation anyway. The Yusuf Ali version is a much more literal translation, and you’ll find that there’s no mention of Jesus’ appearance being put on anyone in it. If you want the important part translated as literally as possible then I’ll try, “wama qataloohu” = “and they killed him not” , “wama salaboohu” = “and they crucified him not”, “walakin shubbiha lahum” = “But to them it appeared so”.

And how did it ‘appear so’? You’re leaving open the door that some force acting in a holy account of events is at work, that’s not Al-lah. Maybe he has a partner. Nice try. This is the thing you keep skipping about. And that’s not even dealing with the fact that the Jews wouldn’t have crucified Him.

That’s all the Qur’an says, anything about a man being substituted for Jesus (as) or his appearance being put on another is purely guesswork. And as a clarification the word translated as ‘appeared so’ and also just as easily mean ‘seemed so’.

All you do is give your interpretation of which is the more accurate interpretation. And you’re ignoring the centuries of interpretation which is what Islam has always had; even the Hadith are ‘commentary’

Do you actually know who Baidawi is? Or did you just Google for something?

You might like to think this. There is for instance, an Appendix of Islamic Jurists, Theologians and Historians in my book “The Legacy of Jihad” by Andrew Bostom (see p682)

He’s just a Muslim scholar (of hundreds) who wrote a commentary interpreting the Qur’an and thought that the verse meant someone else was crucified in Jesus’ place; he’s not an Islamic authority in anyway and at the end of the day he’s only guessing at what it means, not what it says. Do you understand the difference?

Who’s interpretations have been seen almost as a holy book to Sunni Muslims. His commentary; “Orthodox Muslims consider it the standard commentary”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidawi
“By the orthodox Moslems it is considered the standard commentary and almost holy, though it is not complete in its treatment of any branch of theological or linguistic knowledge of which it treats, and is not always accurate”
encyclopedia.jrank.org/AUD_BAI/BAIDAWI_Abdallah_ibn_Umar_al_Ba.html

At best your version is itself an ‘interpretation’ perhaps based on that of Muhammad Asad which is a modern idea.

 

[Kadaveri]

No. The Koran says (as per the various translations I evidenced) that He was substituted and the Jews were made to believe it was Jesus.

Did you actually read the three translations you quoted? Where exactly do they say that anyone was substituted for Jesus (as)? Look, none of them say that someone was substituted except maybe Shakir’s translation, but he clearly writes ‘(like Isa)’ in brackets, meaning that it is his interpolation, not a translation from the original text.

All you do is give your interpretation of which is the more accurate interpretation.

I’m **not **advocating any interpretation over another, I’m merely asserting that they’re all **interpretations **and that none of them have any significant evidence to support them, it’s all guesswork.

Regardless of what the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says about Baidawi, his commentary of the Qur’an is in no way considered ‘holy’ by Muslims what-so-ever, such thinking would be paramount to blasphemy. His commentary isn’t really considered ‘standard’ either, the commentaries closest to holding a ‘standard’ position are those of Ibn Kathir and Tabari, but even for those two I wouldn’t give them that position, since they are noted to contain some mistakes (and the articles referenced says that Baidawi’s commentary is also not always accurate).

At best your version is itself an ‘interpretation’ perhaps based on that of Muhammad Asad which is a modern idea.

I’m not giving any ‘version’, I’m just saying that all the Qur’an says is that ‘to them it appeared so’ and that’s it. Anything about someone being substituted on the cross is purely interpretation and guesswork.

I’m not advocating Muhammad Asad’s interpretation either, although it isn’t a modern idea, he wasn’t the first to hold the position that the crucifixion never happened and that it was just a legend, he was just the man who ‘popularised’ the idea in the West. And there are also other ideas that have been given by scholars such as Jesus (as) escaping from the cross; the Romans lying to the Jews saying that they’d crucified him when they hadn’t just to appease the Jews, and so the Jews boasted that they’d killed Jesus (as) when he actually hadn’t been killed; and there’s the idea that what was crucified wasn’t Jesus (as) but just an illusion of him.

Understand now? The Qur’an does not give any details about what happened to Jesus (as), all it says is that he was not crucified. The substitution theory (like all theories on this) is just a theory, based entirely on guesswork.

 

[Montalban]

Did you actually read the three translations you quoted? Where exactly do they say that anyone was substituted for Jesus (as)? Look, none of them say that someone was substituted except maybe Shakir’s translation, but he clearly writes ‘(like Isa)’ in brackets, meaning that it is his interpolation, not a translation from the original text.

They killed someone. It is inot an ‘interpolation’ if the meaning of the text is to convey that a substitution took place. It’s you repeating your belief that you know that a strictly literal translation is better than one that conveys a meaning that may in fact be the better translation.

I’m **not **advocating any interpretation over another, I’m merely asserting that they’re all **interpretations **and that none of them have any significant evidence to support them, it’s all guesswork.

Which leaves me asking you AGAIN who caused the Jews to be deceived.

Regardless of what the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica says about Baidawi, his commentary of the Qur’an is in no way considered ‘holy’ by Muslims what-so-ever, such thinking would be paramount to blasphemy.

It said ‘near holy’, as in terms of he is so widely revered

His commentary isn’t really considered ‘standard’ either, the commentaries closest to holding a ‘standard’ position are those of Ibn Kathir and Tabari, but even for those two I wouldn’t give them that position, since they are noted to contain some mistakes (and the articles referenced says that Baidawi’s commentary is also not always accurate).

And I quoted Tabari earlier. And I don’t argue that he doesn’t make mistakes. But you stating this ‘generalization’ as a rebuff to something specific is just an attempt to downplay this evidence by innuendo, rather than directly dealing with it.

Ibn Kathir also believed in a substitute.
And (remember) when Allah said: "O Isa! I will take you and raise you to Myself.'') When Isa ascended, those who were in the house came out. When those surrounding the house saw the man who looked like Isa, they thought that he was Isa. So they took him at night, crucified him and placed a crown of thorns on his head. The Jews then boasted that they killed Isa and some Christians accepted their false claim, due to their ignorance and lack of reason. As for those who were in the house with Isa, they witnessed his ascension to heaven, while the rest thought that the Jews killed `Isa by crucifixion. They even said that Maryam sat under the corpse of the crucified man and cried, and they say that the dead man spoke to her. All this was a test from Allah for His servants out of His wisdom. Allah explained this matter in the Glorious Qur’an which He sent to His honorable Messenger, whom He supported with miracles and clear, unequivocal evidence. Allah is the Most Truthful, and He is the Lord of the worlds Who knows the secrets, what the hearts conceal, the hidden matters in heaven and earth, what has occurred, what will occur, and what would occur if it was decreed. He said,

(Tafsir Ibn Kathir for Sura 4 Ayat 157)

This is the problem with your theory. Yes you may have a good theory on an absolutely literal interpretation. However a great many Moslems over a great deal of time have understood that the literal meaning is not all, that the terms used convey the meaning that Allah caused this to happen because he’s the cause of all things. It solves the problem in an instant of ‘who caused this to happen’. Regardless you want to divorce the words from this.

I’m not giving any ‘version’, I’m just saying that all the Qur’an says is that ‘to them it appeared so’ and that’s it. Anything about someone being substituted on the cross is purely interpretation and guesswork.

That is your version. A strict literalness. This doesn’t happen all the time. For instance the verse that allegedly abrogates temporary marriage has very little to do with temporary marriage, but traditionally it is held to contain that meaning.

 

[Montalban]

I’m not advocating Muhammad Asad’s interpretation either, although it isn’t a modern idea, he wasn’t the first to hold the position that the crucifixion never happened and that it was just a legend, he was just the man who ‘popularized’ the idea in the West. And there are also other ideas that have been given by scholars such as Jesus (as) escaping from the cross; the Romans lying to the Jews saying that they’d crucified him when they hadn’t just to appease the Jews, and so the Jews boasted that they’d killed Jesus (as) when he actually hadn’t been killed; and there’s the idea that what was crucified wasn’t Jesus (as) but just an illusion of him.

Understand now? The Qur’an does not give any details about what happened to Jesus (as), all it says is that he was not crucified. The substitution theory (like all theories on this) is just a theory, based entirely on guesswork.

It isn’t ‘guesswork’ at all. It’s understanding that is deeper than a mere look at the words.

It takes you pretending that your literalness is the way to do this, and that involves avoiding the obvious question of ‘who caused this?’ and also to downplay several major Islamic thinkers in order to do so; advocating your own interpretation as correct above theirs.

And the Jews would not have crucified him, nor attempted to do so. Again a point you might want to attempt to respond to.

 

[Angelos]

Did you actually read the three translations you quoted? Where exactly do they say that anyone was substituted for Jesus (as)? Look, none of them say that someone was substituted except maybe Shakir’s translation, but he clearly writes ‘(like Isa)’ in brackets, meaning that it is his interpolation, not a translation from the original text.

I’m **not **advocating any interpretation over another, I’m merely asserting that they’re all **interpretations **and that none of them have any significant evidence to support them, it’s all guesswork.

Regardless of what the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica says about Baidawi, his commentary of the Qur’an is in no way considered ‘holy’ by Muslims what-so-ever, such thinking would be paramount to blasphemy. His commentary isn’t really considered ‘standard’ either, the commentaries closest to holding a ‘standard’ position are those of Ibn Kathir and Tabari, but even for those two I wouldn’t give them that position, since they are noted to contain some mistakes (and the articles referenced says that Baidawi’s commentary is also not always accurate).

I’m not giving any ‘version’, I’m just saying that all the Qur’an says is that ‘to them it appeared so’ and that’s it. Anything about someone being substituted on the cross is purely interpretation and guesswork.

I’m not advocating Muhammad Asad’s interpretation either, although it isn’t a modern idea, he wasn’t the first to hold the position that the crucifixion never happened and that it was just a legend, he was just the man who ‘popularised’ the idea in the West. And there are also other ideas that have been given by scholars such as Jesus (as) escaping from the cross; the Romans lying to the Jews saying that they’d crucified him when they hadn’t just to appease the Jews, and so the Jews boasted that they’d killed Jesus (as) when he actually hadn’t been killed; and there’s the idea that what was crucified wasn’t Jesus (as) but just an illusion of him.

Understand now? The Qur’an does not give any details about what happened to Jesus (as), all it says is that he was not crucified. The substitution theory (like all theories on this) is just a theory, based entirely on guesswork.

Rather than wasting your time by condemning those different interpretations of that verse in the Quran, why don’t YOU present your personal interpretation? Why do you think so many different Muslim commentators felt obliged to bring up so many different comments? Are you claiming that it is impossible to know what the verse means?

You also wrote:
so the Jews boasted that they’d killed Jesus (as) when he actually hadn’t been killed; and there’s the idea that what was crucified wasn’t Jesus (as) but just an illusion of him.

You must be kidding to state that who was crucified was not Jesus, but an illusion of him. Illusion is the synonym of apperance: the kernel of Gnostic doctrine denying the passion was a theory based on illusion. The only thing different Gnostic sects had in common was their adherence to the notion of “illusion”. Hence the apparent association between Gnosticism & Islam. (You are right, Mohammed could not have received all these tenets from Gnostics. He received them from Allah as well as he received all the apocryphal writings from his allah! )

Will you please take pains to tell us who caused the illusion? I can infer that it was Allah who delighted in fooling the Jews through a miracle : 003: 054 And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.

Is your interpretation of the verse in question an official & authorized one? (You look down upon all interpretations as unofficial)

Finally, your scripture is in such a poor condition that Muslims could get nothing out of it if Muslim translators & commentators deprived them of their personal interpretations. For instance, the Quran does not clearly assert that it was Ishmael whom Abraham attempted to offer to Allah as a sacrifice. Nevertheless, Muslims still believe & teach that the data in the Old Testament are corrupted because Jews replaced Ishmael with Isaac. Which one do u believe? Who was offered as a sacrifice? Tell me the guesswork you rely on as well. Then go and study Tafsir to see how Muslim teachers interpreted 4: 156. If u do not like them, start a new movement in Islam that endorses “Sola Scrittura” (scripture alone).

Peace to you,
Angelos N. (ex-Muslim)

 

[Montalban]

Rather than wasting your time by condemning those different interpretations of that verse in the Quran, why don’t YOU present your personal interpretation? Why do you think so many different Muslim commentators felt obliged to bring up so many different comments? Are you claiming that it is impossible to know what the verse means?

That’s an interesting point. He is, at best, arguing at the weakness of the Koran in conveying a message.

You also wrote:
so the Jews boasted that they’d killed Jesus (as) when he actually hadn’t been killed; and there’s the idea that what was crucified wasn’t Jesus (as) but just an illusion of him.

You must be kidding to state that who was crucified was not Jesus, but an illusion of him. Illusion is the synonym of apperance: the kernel of Gnostic doctrine denying the passion was a theory based on illusion. The only thing different Gnostic sects had in common was their adherence to the notion of “illusion”. Hence the apparent association between Gnosticism & Islam. (You are right, Mohammed could not have received all these tenets from Gnostics. He received them from Allah as well as he received all the apocryphal writings from his allah!

And it still begs the question of who had the power to deceive the Jews. And, why were they doing the killing and not the Roman State?

 

[inJESUS]

First regarding the virgin birth, Muslims point at Adam. Hello? Adam was the first to be created, but after Adam, the sexual reproduction was established and all people were born as such but Jesus no. The best answer Muslims give is : because Allah wanted so! or : no reason, it was just a “mirale” ! yea sure.

Regarding the crucifixion, no wonder Muslims will go from the illogical to the absurd,and some will even deny all of their Gnostic tafasir . But the fact remains, the Gnostic teachings were the ROOT for these interpretations and the other Gnostic interpretation of “illusion” and “semblance” still prove that the “deity” of the Quran was nothing but a bunch of Gnostic interpretations and apocryphal absurd gospels and Talmud plagiarism with a bit of Judeo-Christians legends to give more flavour.

 

[Montalban]

First regarding the virgin birth, Muslims point at Adam. Hello? Adam was the first to be created, but after Adam, the sexual reproduction was established and all people were born as such but Jesus no. The best answer Muslims give is : because Allah wanted so! or : no reason, it was just a “miracle” ! yea sure

But they’re ‘god’ goes back on a lot. He promised the Messiah to the Jews. He sends all his (recognised) prophets to the Jews and then suddenly goes “Oh, well” and instead gives the next prophet (Muhammad) to the Arabs; a people he has no covenant with.

In fact the Koran calls Jesus “Christ” and “Messiah”.

Regarding the crucifixion, no wonder Muslims will go from the illogical to the absurd,and some will even deny all of their Gnostic tafasir . But the fact remains, the Gnostic teachings were the ROOT for these interpretations and the other Gnostic interpretation of “illusion” and “semblance” still prove that the “deity” of the Quran was nothing but a bunch of Gnostic interpretations and apocryphal absurd gospels and Talmud plagiarism with a bit of Judeo-Christians legends to give more flavour.

Indeed. It’s the same reason Muslims claim that Mary is part of the Trinity.

It’s the same book that says we’re all degenerates, but in Koran 5:5 accepts our foods as Halal