An interesting Islamic interpretation of Jesus' crucifixion.

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:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
—Qur'an 4:157-158

Most Muslim scholars today interpret the above event as one in which Allah substituted someone else for Jesus and that person was crucified. I differ, and instead interpret the verses as follows: Allah took his soul while he was nailed on the wooden cross. His blessed body was then taken down, prepared for burial, and sealed in a cave with Roman guards posted outside the cave. Allah Most High then returned his soul to his body while it was concealed in the cave. The body (the soul now with it) was then transformed from the spatiotemporal dimension of existence to a transcendental form and was then raised into the Samawat (i.e., the seven strata of space and time that exist between this world and Allah’s ‘arsh). Hence although Jesus was nailed on the cross, and had blood on his hands, he never experienced that death which the Qur’an calls maut (i.e., when the soul is taken and not returned).

Lessons from the Birth of Mary's Son

The typical Islamic interpretation is that somebody else made to look like Jesus Christ ended up being killed on the cross.

Sheik Imran Hossein offers a rather interesting take on the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.
His interpretation is that it was Jesus himself who was nailed to the cross, BUT was not killed as a result of it - because God took his soul making his body "lifeless". This lifeless body caused the Jews to think he was crucified. i.e - suffered a death resulting from being nailed to a cross. The crux of his argument is that "crucifixion" has to result in the death of the crucified one. But in Jesus' case, he was saved because God intervened, and thereby did not die from crucifixion.

Then, on his website, he goes on to say that after Jesus' lifeless body was placed in a cave guarded by Roman guards, God returned Jesus' soul to his body and raised him up. If this is indeed what transpired, then it means that Islam doesn't deny that Jesus was nailed to the cross, but only that Jesus did not suffer death as a result of crucifixion... so the Jews cannot boast that they "crucified" Jesus to death. I'd advice readers to spend 10 minutes watching the video. (English)

God knows best!

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


My only question is similar to what i've asked other muslim members...

How would they know exactly what happened better then those who were around to "witness" the event?

Mind you theres no mention of any of the authors of the gospels at the crucifixion... But at least they were alive... Where as the quran was written 600 some odd years after the fact.

reply to post by Akragon


I might be mistaken - but as far as I am aware all the Gospels were written after Jesus' death, some 70 years if I remember correctly. So most likely none of the authors of the Bible were around when Jesus were alive.
There was properly written something about him while he was alive, but none of it made it into the Bible as far as I am aware, or at least not directly.

reply to post by Akragon

My only question is similar to what i've asked other muslim members...
How would they know exactly what happened better then those who were around to "witness" the event?

Mind you theres no mention of any of the authors of the gospels at the crucifixion... But at least they were alive... Where as the quran was written 600 some odd years after the fact.

Thats a fair question... and the only answer that you would hear from me is that the Koran was divinely inspired. That is pretty much the same answer I get from Christians when I ask them which of the gospel authors were around when Mary met the angel, alone? Or when Jesus was alone in the wilderness? etc

On a side note... the subject of the OP has already been defined and I am more interested in a theological discussion, not a session on debating the history and validity of scriptures.

reply to post by Mads1987


Technically that isn't known...

Theres no way to prove who the writers were... The names given were all assumed...

Though the fact remains... 40-70 years later is much closer to the events then 600+ years later...

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Akragon

 

My only question is similar to what i've asked other muslim members...
How would they know exactly what happened better then those who were around to "witness" the event?

Mind you theres no mention of any of the authors of the gospels at the crucifixion... But at least they were alive... Where as the quran was written 600 some odd years after the fact.

Thats a fair question... and the only answer that you would hear from me is that the Koran was divinely inspired. That is pretty much the same answer I get from Christians when I ask them which of the gospel authors were around when Mary met the angel, alone? Or when Jesus was alone in the wilderness? etc

edit on 10-9-2013 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

Fair enough... Though im not a Christian

I actually prefer the version of the story where the vinigar/gall he was given was spiked with some sort of anaesthetic... Thus giving him the ability to survive the torture...

Sadly no one will ever know thw truth of the matter unless the Vatican has some document they refuse to let the public see

And im sure they do

reply to post by Akragon

Though the fact remains... 40-70 years later is much closer to the events then 600+ years later...

Doesn't matter if it was written 6,000 years later.
A revelation that was divinely inspired is not subject to time barriers, which is the basic premise of any discussion pertaining to Islam.

If someone believes that the Koran isn't divine in origin, then a discussion on Islams perspective on the crucifixion really serves no purpose.

sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Akragon

 

Though the fact remains... 40-70 years later is much closer to the events then 600+ years later...

Doesn't matter if it was written 6,000 years later.
A revelation that was divinely inspired is not subject to time barriers, which is the basic premise of any discussion pertaining to Islam.

If someone believes that the Koran isn't divine in origin, then a discussion on Islams perspective on the crucifixion really serves no purpose.

Well my opinions on the quran are irrelevant... But the fact is nothing would be written in the quran about Jesus if they wrote nothing about him in earlier texts... Even the quran must rely on what has aleady been writen...

Honestly though the islamic version sounds more like it was taken from gnostic writing

Besides that... What would be the point of taking his spirit for a time only to return him to a broken body?

It's all lies.

They didn't kill me at all. I popped off when they weren't looking *yoink* and have been living among you ever since, watching you ignore my word.

naughty sinners, the lot of you.

reply to post by Akragon

Even the quran must rely on what has aleady been writen...

If God sends an angel to speak to an uncontacted Amazon tribe about Jesus... a tribe who have never seen a Bible or met a missionary, and if they produce a document about Jesus...would you still insist that he relied on what was already written?

If one believes the Koran was written by scholars sitting in well stocked libraries, then he would naturally come to believe that previous texts were relied on to produce the Koran. But that leaves us with the question on as to why they left out other aspects of Biblical theology (example : Pauls theology).

A Muslim believes that the references to Jesus' crucifixion are the result of divine inspiration. So there is no need for previous scriptures.

reply to post by Akragon

What would be the point of taking his spirit for a time only to return him to a broken body?

So it cannot be said that a bunch of cruel Jews managed to kill Jesus by crucifixion.
So the Jews themselves cannot boast about having killed Jesus.



As for Jesus' broken body....I can only speculate but maybe Jesus who healed the blind and the lame, through the power given to him by God... was himself healed by Gods power before being transformed and taken up.

God knows best.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

So it cannot be said that a bunch of cruel Jews managed to kill Jesus by crucifixion.
So the Jews themselves cannot boast about having killed Jesus.

I don't believe i've ever even met a single jew in my life... Regardless i highly doubt all jews are as rude as that kid... Or hold to the same idea about proudly killing Jesus

I would have slapped the snot out of that little punk with the pigtails... Then maybe hacked off his little braids... Just for fun

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Can I just ask, what is the point of this doctrine? Why do Muslims believe it?

As a Catholic, I believe that Christ's death was necessary for our propitiation. The Bible says that He "gave up the ghost" after committing His spirit into His Father's hands (Luke 23:46.) His spirit left His body and He was really dead.

Why do Muslims want to split hairs on this issue? Why go to the trouble of believing He existed in human form and then deny the purpose of His entire bodily existence?

If the answer is in the video, forgive me; my Internet connection is too slow for video right now.

reply to post by Snsoc

what is the point of this doctrine? Why do Muslims believe it?

First off, Jesus is a crucial part of Islam. Don't let anybody fool you into thinking otherwise.

Muslims believe that every man has to die only ONCE, (see : Hebrews 9:27)
So the Christian idea that a man, Jesus, died on the cross and would still return is incompatible with Islamic theology.

Why do Muslims want to split hairs on this issue? Why go to the trouble of believing He existed in human form and then deny the purpose of His entire bodily existence?

If the speaker in the video is correct, then it implies that Islam accepts that Jesus was on the cross, but did not die and was raised later. The only real difference with Christianity is that it believes Jesus died on the cross and was raised later.

Muslims however don't accept the various un-Biblical theologies that have been woven around Jesus - the idea of his sin sacrifice, his divinity, etc. - all of which can be refuted using the gospels themselves.

sk0rpi0n
only answer that you would hear from me is that the Koran was divinely inspired.

Well ... considering that the Qu'ran was obviously NOT divinely inspired ... and considering that the gospels are first hand eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus ... it seems common sense to accept the first hand accounts over a book written 600 years after the facts and that claims 'divine inspiration' but has absolutely no proof of it.

That is pretty much the same answer I get from Christians when I ask them which of the gospel authors were around when Mary met the angel, alone?

I don't know what Christians you supposedly talked to ... but that's not accurate. Mary was alive for years after Jesus died. Those things that are spoken of in the Gospel of Luke were Mary's inner most thoughts. They were first hand accounts of her life with Jesus. Obviously she spoke to Luke and told them to him so he could write them down. Luke and Mary were alive during the same time period and would have known each other.

edit on 9/10/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)