Golgotha 10277661_10203282042350289_7587023854590915637_nThe Muslim professes not to believe in the death of Jesus, at least that is the view of the preponderating orthodox party. The vast majority of Muslim people have always held and do still hold that God took Jesus up to heaven, so that He escaped death that day at the place called Golgotha.

> “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” (An-Nisa 4:157, 158)


The orthodox view – Jesus did not die: Another was taken and crucified instead of Christ

This belief is based on the traditional interpretation of the most interesting of four passages, namely 4:157. It is argued that God would never have permitted Jesus to die so shameful a death, otherwise He would have been “accursed of God” (Deuteronomy 21:23); an impossible fate for a prophet of God. What actually happened was that “one was made to appear to them like (Jesus)” or as Yusuf Ali says: “but so it was made to appear to them.” The latter goes on to say:”The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced the illusion in the minds of some of his enemies ………………………..  but thatthere was confusion at the time as to who was really crucified. Thus the Quran says that “They who differed about him were in doubt concerning him no sure knowledge had they about him, but followed only an opinion”.

The phrase just quoted has provoked amongst Muslim writers the most remarkable speculations. Baidawi, for instance, remarks that while some Jews maintained that Jesus was justly crucified, others said that it was not he who suffered, but another who resembled him in features. Much is said about the identity of the person mistakenly crucified in place of Jesus; thus Baidawi mentions Titanus as the individual but others have suggested Faltianus, and Shuyugh, the King of the Jews. (Qisasu’l-Anbiya, pp 274-5). In any case it is stated that it was God who changed these men into the form or appearance of Jesus. Tabari, commenting on this passage, quotes Ibn ‘Abbas to the effect that Jesus in Gethsemane asked, “Is there anyone who will offer himself in my stead? I will promise him a place in heaven”. Thereupon one of the disciples, Sergius by name, gave himself up to Jesus to be transformed into his likeness and to be crucified instead of him. After the crucifixion the disciples discovered that one of their number was missing. It was then that Judas went away and hanged himself, because he realized that he had been the means of a fellow disciple’s death.

In the spurious Gospel of Barnabas (Muslims often mistakenly, and at times wilfully, confuse this so called Gospel with the Epistle of Barnabas; the latter was compiled between AD 96-120, but wrongly attributed to Barnabas) Judas is the one to suffer crucifixion because of mistaken identity: He (Jesus) was in the house and they took him “out by the window”…..… “and placed him in the third heaven in the company of angels blessing God for evermore”. Judas impetuously entered the chamber while the disciples were sleeping, “whereupon the wonderful God acted wonderfully, insomuch that Judas was so changed in speech and face to be like Jesus that we believed him to be Jesus. And he having awakened us was seeking where the Master was. Whereupon we marvelled, and answered: “Thou, Lord, art our Master, hast thou now forgotten us?” And he, smiling said: “Now are ye foolish that know not me to be Judas Iscariot!” Thereupon the soldiers entered and laid their hands upon him “because he was in every way like to Jesus”, When Judas protested, “the soldiers lost their patience, and with blows and kicks they began to flout Judas and they led him with fury into Jerusalem”.

Words attributed to Jesus in the gospel account of the trial and crucifixion are then adapted for use by Judas, and finally he is led away and crucified. Enough has been quoted to show that this so-called “Gospel”, to which Muslim writers repeatedly refer, is nothing but a clumsy fabrication. The earliest form of it known to us is in an Italian manuscript. This has been closely analysed by scholars and is judged to belong to the 15th or 16th century, i.e. 1,400 years after the time of Barnabas. It is believed to be the work of a renegade European, with little knowledge of Christianity and still less of Islam. Sale, who referred to it 200 years ago in the Preface to his English translation of the Quran, there stated that “it appears to be a barefaced forgery”.


The influence of Gnostic Writers

Undoubtedly Muslim writers have been influenced by the speculations of the Gnostics and Docetists in the sub-apostolic period. For instance, a very similar view of this mistaken identity theory is to be found in the heretical teachings of the Manichaeans, centuries before the rise of Islam. Mani (3rd cent) and before him Basilides, taught that it was Simon of Cyrene, who took the place of Jesus and was crucified. The Gnostics of the second century contended that Jesus had no real share in the material side of human life and was “an abstract phantom” and so therefore claimed that he took on a different guise to different onlookers, at different times.

Here is what Mr. Yusuf Ali says in his comment on Surah 4:157: “The Orthodox Christian Churches make it a cardinal point of their doctrine that his (Jesus’) life was taken on the cross, that he died and was buried, that on the third day he rose in the body with his wounds intact, and walked about and conversed, and ate with his disciples, and was afterwards taken up bodily to heaven. This is necessary for the theological doctrine of blood sacrifice and vicarious atonement for sins, which is rejected by Islam. But some of the early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the cross. The Basilidans believed that some one else was substituted for him. The Docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body, and that his crucifixion was only apparent, not real. The Marcionite Gospel (about A.D. 138) denied that Jesus was born and merely said that he appeared in human form. The Gospel of Barnabas supported their theory of substitution on the Cross.”

Golgotha john_3_16_Jesus_on_Cross_sunrise_background_photoThe Gospels

Our earliest and only historical documents on the subject are the gospels; why not be guided by these? With one voice these proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth was put to death on the cross, by the orders of Pontius Pilate, at the instigation of the Jews. In those records there is not the remotest suggestion either of confusion of identity, or of substitution, nor yet the slightest doubt but that Jesus actually died on the cross. But no, rather than face the fact, the Muslim prefers to dally with an admitted heresy and to attest it instead of the only historical account of the event which the world possesses. The pity of it.

6 Responses to “The Crucifixion of Christ”

  • Hafiz Jawad Sohail:

    If you’re Muslim then you have to believe in every comment and sayings of Prophet Muhammad PBUH. If it is only the one word or full speech. Your own commentary is of zero value. ALLAH in His Quran also says that Jesus PBUH was not crucified then who are you to deny as Muslim. Jesus PBUH will return again to show every disbeliever that He PBUH was only the prophet of ALLAH and not the begotten son and not crucified but was raised in heavens for later time.

    • admin:

      Our commentary is extremely important for it relates what actually happened in the earlier generations as found in the earlier books, which are held in great esteem in Islam. These historically books not only give details of the crucifixion itself, but provide the circumstances, geographical setting, and the persons involved in executing this happening.

      While Muhammad accepted that Jesus had a miraculous birth, performed miracles, healed the sick, and that these were clear signs, he opposed the teaching of the crucifixion as it did not fit into his own agenda. Any reading of the Gospels that fails to incorporate the cross and the resurrection of Jesus has failed to grasp the central importance of the mission and person of Jesus Christ. May I encourage you not to simply believe what you are expected to believe, but to read the gospels for yourself and discover the truth. Regrettably, Muhammad was unable to read, and unable therefore to discover for himself the teaching found within the gospels

      • Kevin:

        Just to clarify, do you have proof regarding the details of the crucifixion of Yeshua, or just personal preferences and sandy convictions? Since the latter responses are all that you are capable of possessing, how can you even write a post intending to convert Muslims on the subject?

        You both have faith in information that was ultimately scribed by men. You both have great reasons to be emotionally affected by the content of your writings, to the point of belief.

        The prescriptions and admonitions, which are the real body of piety and religion (rather than theological abstractions), in both of your books are basically identical. God does not curse the simple, pious man who fails to relay to God the correlations and significance of Trinitarian logic.

        **The meaning of the Crucifixion and Sin Sacrifice is that the wielder of the Christian vehicle may have a beautiful reason to give up their earthly life in favor of the divine submission (intrinsic to all religions of submission, including those of non-Abrahamic origin), and an authoritative allowance to feel relieved of their shame and guilt, which prove to be a great hindrance to the aims of religion. The Trinity emphasizes that the human soul is of great divine significance. I bet that if you were given the Bible on your own for the first time, without having read philosophical human exegesis, you would never have arrived at the concept of the Trinity. And not just because of the radical Monotheism espoused in most of the book: Even if you had explored the New Testament on its own. Neither would you be so certain that you don’t need to follow the Sabbath and the rest of Jewish law’s 612 commandments.

        The Muslim rebuttal to these theological concerns accompanies those of the early Jews, whose religion Jesus followed; which is to say that the Crucifixion and Trinity are redundant in the face of an all-powerful, completely unified God already available to forgive any given sin with due repentance, who defines the significance of man very clearly in the first book. What unique purpose could there be, even as a sign, to divide God into “*unified parts*?” Even as a Christian you ask for forgiveness in repentance for your sins: what other than the replacement “…In Jesus Name” is the significance of this symbolic bloodshed?

        Haven’t you learned of the Hindu deities, the Trimurti, the Hindu Trinity? The basis of much of Hinduism is Pantheism, where *everything* is equally God. Whether observing Ishvara or Brahma, (names for their Most High One) or the Trimurti (Shiva, Vishnu, and Krishna) or all of their 33 Million other Gods, they are all technically undivided *unified parts* or faces of their Most High God. The reason the Jews and Muslims deny the Trinity is because *IT IS POLYTHEISM ON THE SAME TERMS THAT POLYTHEISTS USE POLYTHEISM!*

        Restated: The same logic used to justify worshipping a Male Creator/Father, a less defined Holy Spirit, and a manifested God-Man, as a single deity is identical to the reasoning those who are supposedly against Monotheism use. The consequences of the qualified Polytheism inherent in the Trinitarian interpretation of Christianity are manifest most boldly in the idolatry, iconography, and blatant saint worship of its Mother Catholic Church, whose Roman hands molded the New Testament and its interpretation.

        Thank you for your time. Please seriously consider what I write if any of it is news to you, even if you do not decide to respond. Have a great evening, and may purity and righteousness lead you to your destination.

        • admin:

          Hello,we will only respond to your initial argument otherwise the response will be too long but if you would like to re-submit your comments about the Trinity on the relevant page we would be delighted to discuss it further.

          The gospels are a truly amazing ancient record of what happened to Jesus Christ: they place the life of Christ in a geographical setting such as the Jewish regions of Galilee, Perea, Judea and some Gentile areas. Galilee studies looking into its geography, politics and history of the time indicate the setting is completely compatible to the ministry of Jesus. The well-known Jew, Josephus, provides additional information which gives supplementary activity to those days. Many individuals, such as the high priests Caiphas and Annas, Herod Antipas and Pilate, all involved in the crucifixion are known in their extra-biblical historical context and once again provide the context into which Christ lived and was crucified. We find in the gospels the correct social setting for the time: we read of Jesus’ circumcised according the Jewish law, his presentation in the temple, the excursion into Egypt because of the activities of Herod the king, etc.

          The Christ event did leave its mark in non-Christian historical sources: the first comments were written by a certain Roman Suetonious who suggested that the cause of the expulsion of the Romans from Rome in AD 49 was in connection with a disturbance concerning ‘Chrestus’. While the interpretation of it can be disputed it is generally recognised that Christians through their preaching of Christ caused unrest in the Jewish community. Strikingly we have what is known as ‘Alexamenos Graffito’ which was found on a stone in a guardroom on Palatine Hill in Rome. This inscription ridicules the Christian faith, (like Islam), showing the figure of a man with the head of an ass hanging on a cross – with the inscription “Alexamenos worships his god”. Then we have Pliny, governor of Bithynia writing in AD 112 concerning the belief of the early Christians. Who was the one that gave impetus to these developments? None other but Jesus Christ and him crucified.
          The death by crucifixion is completely compatible with the historical context of this cruel Roman death sentence unlike that given in the account of the Quran of the threatened crucifixion of Pharaoh against the believing sorcerers (Al-Araf 7:124). We know this form of punishment was not practised in ancient Egypt.

          You may like to consider how the weight of your argument can rebound on your own belief system. Apart from the unbelieving Quarraish who are constantly belittled in the Quran, there are no unbelievers brought forward to confirm the events that happened during the life of Muhammad. Very few names are given, in the Quran and there is virtually no geographical or historical background hardly a suitable setting to which any historian can have confidence. All you have are reports by believers lauding the glories of Muhammad which were recorded later in writing based solely on isnads. The biographies recognised by Muslims were written by believers.

  • Adthra (Melissa):

    I am newly reverted Muslim and formerly ROMAN CATHOLIC from Philippines and I am still reading substantial articles,searching and comprehending my newly founded religion.. I am very amazed and full of greatness upon reading this articles learning that my BELOVED JESUS indeed was not hang on cross thus our Almighty ALLAH will not allowed to see his only begotten son; the son of Mary to die in a very shameful death.

    ALLAH is all know-er, all ruler and most merciful….
    Thank you….

    • admin:

      As you begin to comprehend your newly founded religion you will begin to learn the many ways in which Muslims propagate their belief that Jesus did not die upon the cross. However, the testimony of the New Testament writers are clear Jesus predicted he would suffer in Jerusalem; the records describe the crucifixion and later the reasons for the crucifixion are explained. This is the ‘Beloved Jesus’of scripture: “who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth …. who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:21-25)

      You have chosen to reject the testimony of those who witnessed those events and chosen to follow a heretical belief, as outlined in the article. Muhammad had little to say about the crucifixion and the little that he did say, he got completely wrong. He lived 600 years after the events and how painfully that shows in his misguided comments.

Leave a Reply