I am facing this dilemma, namely, the choice between accepting the Christian conception of Jesus or the Muslim conception of Jesus. The Christian argues that Jesus is the incarnation of God and unless I believe this I will go to hell. The Christian also argues that we know these things are true because the Holy Bible tells us so. The Muslim argues that Jesus is not the incarnation of God and if I believe in such a notion I will go to hell. The Muslim also argues that we know these things are true because the Holy Qur’an tells us so.
What should I believe? I don’t want to go to hell. I’m scared. Help me!
The Muslim conception of Jesus is utterly ahistorical, and unattested by any non-Muslim secular historian. Yet the Christian conception of Jesus, or at least biographical information about him, is widely seen as valid by secular historians. For example, a secular historian and a Christian will tell you that Jesus died on the cross under the accusation “INRI” (Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews). Muslims deny this occurrence, because in Islam, crucifixion would be seen as defeat of God’s “messiah” (which Muslims do claim Jesus to be). Instead, the Quran and hadith require that Jesus was bodily assumed into heaven by God. Conveniently, according to Islamic teaching, God allowed one of Jesus’ innocent followers to take on the appearance of Jesus and die in his place. Now, am I just cynical, or does the Muslim account of the crucifixion of Jesus twist history to fit Islam’s conception of the Umma as a continually-victorious people?
Beyond the Quran itself, much of the content of Islam comes from the “hadith,” the supposed sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. But non-Muslim historians, like
G.H.A. Juynboll and
Joseph Schacht, have systematically analyzed the trails of transmission of hadith (the
isnads), and found that they can link back to no earlier than the 2nd century post-Hegira.
And the content of the hadith themselves are very suspect. One
) isnadattributed to Muhammad’s cousin Ibn Abbas and accepted as valid by Sunni Muslims refers to the first followers of Jesus as originally being Muslims. The hadith tells the story of how “Islam” disappeared. After God supposedly allowed one of Jesus’ followers to take the appearance of Jesus and be crucified in his place, Jesus was bodily assumed into heaven (without dying). The remaining followers split into three camps, according to the hadith: the Muslims, the Jacobites, and the Nestorians. Well, that’s awfully interesting, because Jacobites were named for
Jacob Barradaeus and the Nestorians named for
Nestorius. Turns out that the Hijaz, where Islam got its start, happened to be located very close to the border between a Jacobite kingdom, the
Ghassanids, and the kingdom in which Nestorian Christianity had taken major root, the
Sassanid Empire. These lands were conquered during the “Rashidun” (Rightly-guided) caliphate, bringing them under the military control of the Arab invaders well before the first Hadiths were recorded. What’s this all mean? That the “hadith” was based on the Christians who the first followers of Muhammad conquered. If you look at Christian theological history, the Nestorian - Jacobite spectrum of belief DID NOT EXIST before the named founders, because earlier debates of Christology were more focused on the nature of the Trinity (e.g., the First Nicean Council) than the nature of Jesus Christ himself (e.g., the Council of Chalcedon – after which the Nestorians split from the Greek and Latin “Chalcedonian” west).
Muslim apologists have no response, other than a rote statement of faith that in fact, Jacobites and Nestorians were around at the time of Jesus. It’s quite preposterous.
My personal view is that the Quran is a pastiche of Jewish and Christian folk stories and religious books. For example, the scene of the “Feast” at the end of Sura 5 (al Madiah) describes Jesus asking God to bring a table down from heaven. Then God announces that anyone who doesn’t believe this miracle will be punished like never before. To me, this is a clear editing of John 6’s “bread of life” discourse, with nearly exactly the same flow of narration. People ask Jesus to give them food from heaven, Jesus complies. Jesus (in John 6) says that unless you eat of his flesh, you shall have no life within you. Pretty harsh. Well, Sura 5 modifies that and has Allah saying that you’ll be punished if you don’t believe that the feast came down from heaven. Now think about it: why does Islam need a Eucharist? The body and blood of Christ, the central sacrament of Christian worship… has no role in Islamic understanding of divine revelation. So what is Sura 5? To me, it’s an attempt to convince poorly-educated Christians (originally, the largely illiterate populations of the lands Muslims conquered) that Islam and Christianity were saying the same thing. Propaganda.
Jesus is the promised messiah of Israel, who established the Kingdom of God on earth for all the world. And his kingdom is one where love is the law, not one that conquers with sword and spear.
. If we don’t start there, we aren’t giving Christianity a fair shake, since the crucifixion and resurrection are where Christianity starts, in every sense. I noted in my previous post that indeed the Qur’an can be interpreted as acknowledging the crucifixion and teaching the resurrection. But that isn’t how it’s been traditionally interpreted. I don’t know what local Islamic community, if any, you’re in contact with–perhaps you have found one that is OK with the view that Jesus was crucified. (I presume, by the way, that you know about the role of the hadith in traditional Islam, and that “Quran-only” Muslims are a fairly small minority and often regarded as heretical by others. I know of some in Louisville.)