At the outset we need to bear in mind that in all probability, Muhammad was illiterate and so could not read the gospels for himself. For what knowledge he had of their contents he was dependent on such information as was supplied to him by others. (# Surah 16:105, “Surely a certain person teaches him”) Had he himself known the records he could not have been misled about this central event, because they afford incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was crucified and that He died on the cross.

May we conclude, however, that Muhammad was in genuine doubt as to what actually took place? In that case the confused and conflicting statements in the Qur'an would receive explanation. He could not read, and it may be that he never met an ardent evangelist whose one theme was "Jesus Christ and Him crucified". It is, indeed, remarkable that throughout the Qur'an there is no comment on the Christian interpretation of the significance of Christ's death. It is for these very, reasons that one biographer of the life of Muhammad declares that, "Muhammad cannot have had permanent personal relations with Christians who had accurate information concerning their religion".(# Tor Andrae, Muhammad, English translation p.125.)

On the other hand, it is not impossible that he heard of the Manichean view of the Person of Jesus, and that he believed that someone else was crucified instead of Jesus. In which case we may suppose that Muhammad would have welcomed it and used it to secure the name of the prophet Jesus from the "ignominy" of such a death. The late Sayyid Amir Ali once stated that "success is always one of the greatest criterions of truth ", (#The Spirit of Islam p.66) and that seems a point of view typical of much Muslim thought. Judged by this standard the Crucifixion could only be looked upon as tragic failure: yet Jesus, in the thought of Muhammad certainly, was not a failure, rather he was “illustrious in this world and the next” Surah 3:40.

Then there was the part taken by the Jews in this matter. It will be observed that in Surah 4:156 it is clearly affirmed that it was the Jews who claimed they had slain Jesus. What account of the matter would those at Medina give to Muhammad? For any one Christian who might seek to explain away the crucifixion of Jesus in the fashion of the Docetists, there would have been hundreds of Jews to swear on oath that He had been put to death on the cross. What then? Muhammad had experienced much trouble at the hands of these people—as the Qur'an bears testimony, they had teased him and he believed lied to - how was he to know they were not deceiving him again? After all, the Jews hated the name of Jesus: what was to prevent them lying to Muhammad about this affair also?

Is there yet another possibility? Have we any ground for the conjecture that Muhammad knew the facts about that Death, and that he was also aware of its unique influence, as a spiritual factor, in winning men to the allegiance of Christ? Could this have been why he denied the Crucifixion? That is probably a question that can never be answered with any confidence.

Nevertheless, here is one who called himself a Muslim and claimed to pattern his life on that of Muhammad—Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, of Qadian. He at least leaves us in no doubt about the motive of his own denial of the Crucifixion.

His trenchant assertion, therefore, in what may be called his last legacy to his followers, that Christ died and is dead, is not without deep significance for those who would understand the real attitude of the modern Ahmadi rationalist towards the Cross and Christianity.

But the actual and ample historical evidence for the Crucifixion afforded by the gospels themselves is all that a reasonable man requires in order to be convinced. There is, indeed, a striking contrast between the full and graphic account of actual eye-witnesses in the one set of narratives, and the meagre, vague and contradictory assertions in the other. Frankly no one would go to the Qur'an for reliable information about an event like this that had taken place 600 years previously.

Nothing is clearer in the gospel narrative than the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified to death under Pontius Pilate, to placate the Jews.

The grand theme of St. Paul's writings is the cross of Christ. He himself could never have denied the Crucifixion, yet it was a long time before he saw its sublime meaning; but when he did, he exclaimed,

"God forbid that I should glory save in the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Galatians 6:14)

The Jews have never denied it - (Acts 2 :36,37) Rabbi Joseph Klaiisner, Jesus of Nazareth said that the more widely all the branches of Judaism during the period of the Second Temple are studied the more impossible it becomes to cast wholesale doubt on the historicity of the Synoptic gospels, p. 126.

Early non-Christian writers attest it. For instance Tacitus, the Roman historian (b. 56 A,D.) in his account of the persecution of the Christians under Nero, states that "The author of that sect was Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius was punished with death as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate"(# Annals 15:44)

And a Greek writer, Lucian, (b, 100 A.D.) in ‘The Death of Peregrinus’, refers to the Founder of Christianity as "the crucified sophist"; while Celsus, the Epicurean cynic speaks of Christ as "the crucified Jesus," and "crucified God”.

And even as the tenth day of Muharram bears evidence to the Muslim world of the historicity of the sad deaths at Karbala, so does the frequent celebration throughout the world of the Holy Communion service bear testimony to the actuality of the death of Christ.