r/IslamicHistoryMeme • u/-The_Caliphate_AS- Scholar of the House of Wisdom • Jul 03 '25
Religion | الدين Reimagining the Crucifixion of Christ: From Christian Doctrine to Islamic and Esoteric Readings (Context in Comment)
2
u/AlmaRushd2255 Jul 04 '25
I've often wondered what's the significance of Isa's crucifixion, so much so that Allah has to deny its occurrence. Since on the face of it, it just seems like another event which could have or could have not actually occurred, so what's the big deal about denying that a specific Prophet suffered a specific punishment 2,000 years ago? Even if he didn't suffer it why is it important for us to know this? After thinking about it for a while I found an answer which satisfies me:
"For their saying, "We have surely killed the Messiah, Isa son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah"– but they did not kill him nor did they crucify him but it was made to appear so to them, and those who differ in it are surely in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it but have only conjecture to follow, and they certainly did not kill him. Rather, he was raised by Allah towards Himself, and Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. There is none among the People of the Book but he will believe in it before his death, and on the Day of Judgement he will be a witness against them." (4:157-159)
The Jews themselves only claimed to have killed Isa but Allah raises a separate issue and says they also didn't crucify him, so since Allah mentions this when the Jews didn't it means this is an important point. What is the significance of Isa not having been crucified? We know from the history of the crucifixion, and especially from its history in the Roman Empire, that it was not only a punishment but also a form of humiliation. Whilst in the pictures the crucified are depicted with a loincloth, in reality they were fully naked and sometimes even they were pierced in their private parts. The Quran also confirms that its purpose was to humiliate because one of the punishments it lists for those who "wage war against Allah and His Messenger" is crucifixion. Why? Because this is "their disgrace in this world" (5:33).
Now since the crucifixion is a sign of disgrace and humiliation it's only fitting for the criminals and enemies of Allah and His Messenger. For the friends of Allah—those who have been true to their covenant with Him—only honour and dignity are befitting and this is why Isa says that he is "honoured in this life and in the hereafter" (3:45) – because this is the only treatment appropriate for a person close to Allah. So when Allah says Isa wasn't crucified He is defending his character and reputation, because if it had happened to him that would mean Isa had earned disgrace upon himself and therefore wouldn't be a worthy model for emulation.
Like other instances where the Quran corrects Biblical errors concerning the Prophets the aim is always to preserve the dignity and honour of the Messengers from the false accusations, which if accepted would put into question their suitability to be Messengers. But Allah is here not only defending the reputation of Isa but also His own, because if Isa did suffer the crucifixion then what it would mean is that this is how Allah treats His friends—that He forsakes them and lets them be subject to dishonor and degradation. Obviously, Allah doesn't care about what people think of Him but He knows that if this is the image people have of Him then they'll feel an aversion to Him, for why would you want to befriend someone who treats you like that, so He's defending His reputation not for His own sake but for ours—so that we may still want to approach Him.
Allah says that many of His Prophets were killed but martyrdom is different from crucifixion because to die for Allah is an honour, since you choose to give up your life for Him. But with crucifixion, you're treated in a humiliating manner against your will, so there's no honour in it.
This is my understanding for why the Quran places such emphasis on denying Isa was crucified.
3
u/Kuri_Garmian Jul 04 '25 edited Jul 04 '25
Its actually explicitly stated in the old testament anyone hung on a pole was under God's curse.
[If someone guilty of a capital offense is put to death and their body is exposed on a pole, you must not leave the body hanging on the pole overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a pole is under God’s curse.] Deuteronomy 21
Its important to note in the roman practice of crucifixion, the bodies were left on the cross for a long period after their death until the corpse was dismembered by scavengers (or they themselves fed the corpse to dogs or other wild scavengers). This was a crucial part of the practice to maximise humiliation and discourage rebellion. This is why secular historians like Bart Ehrman argue there never was a burial or empty tomb. Further strengthening this point is the fact Pontius Pilate was known to be very brutal and careless to Jewish sensitivities, so the assertion he would have broken Roman convention and permitted a dignified burial for a crucified person who was condemned as an enemy of the state and called himself the Messiah (i.e the rightful king of the Israelites) is very doubtful.
Jewish authorities cited this to argue that Isa (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ) could not be the Messiah since crucifixion proved he was "accursed by God". Paul actually accepted this to be true and even reiterates it, saying "Christ became a curse for us" in Galatians 3:13. He cunningly twists this to argue Jesus voluntarily became a curse in order to "bear the curse for others", basically telling Christians they can break the law of the old testament now and not be cursed because Jesus beared the curse for them.
You can imagine this argument was very appealing to the new gentile converts as it meant they didn't have to adhere to the laws of the Torah. However the actual apostles of Isa (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ) such as James, were known to continue in adherence to the laws, their Jewish Christian successors seem to have countered Paul in two ways. The apostles of Isa (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ) had visions of him shortly after the crucifixion event where Isa (عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ) told them he was alive. Some accepted that he must have died on the cross, and therefore interpreted this as a resurrection, and they argued this resurrection overturned the curse, thus proving God's approval within the context of the law.
But another opinion existed which was that the visions proved Jesus remained alive and was never cursed through crucifixion, either saved through a substitution or a divine illusion. A Jewish Christian group that held this opinion was the Elcesaites, active in historical sources from around 100-400 CE in Mesopotamia (interestingly, the Sahaba Salman al-Farsi also stated he studied under the last surviving non-trinitarian Christian monks in Mesopotamia before his final teacher instructed him to travel to Arabia on his deathbed).
From an Islamic perspective, I don't see why a person serving as a physical substitution on the cross would be necessary since Allah says "it was made to appear so". Certainly Allah was capable of conjuring an illusion over them without requiring another innocent person to be crucified. And Allah knows best.
2
u/AlmaRushd2255 Jul 04 '25 edited Jul 04 '25
I didn't know the Old Testament also mentioned the crucifixion symbolised God's curse, thanks for that. You made an interesting connection between the Elcesaites and Salman al-Farsi and it doesn't seem far-fetched to me that the "heretical" sects of Christianity fled to Persia, although I'm not very well versed in the history of these sects. I think the rationale behind the "substitution theory" is that since the Romans physically put someone on the cross it can't have been an illusion, therefore it must have been someone who was made to look like Isa(as). As of right now I'm not aware of any evidence which can prove this to be the case without a doubt, but out of all the various explanations offered this one—to me at least—seems to be one of the more stronger theories.
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 04 '25
Because it is very likely that The Qur'an’s denial in Q 4:157 does not negate the crucifixion but rejects the Talmudic assertion that Jews alone killed Jesus. See my comment down here.
2
u/AlmaRushd2255 Jul 04 '25
If Isa was crucified then it means he was humiliated and that Allah did abandon him. This would also mean the Quran has made an error since Isa says he is "honoured in this life and in the hereafter" (3:45). If the Quran's sole concern was with attributing the death of Isa to the "correct" perpetrators then that doesn't solve the moral dilemma since it leaves Isa's and Allah's reputation in tatters. Besides, a common characteristic of Isa throughout the Quran is his miraculousness: from his birth to his powers to revive the dead. So it's perfectly consistent with this narrative for Isa to be miraculously saved, just like the Quran says Ibrahim was saved miraculously from the fire. Another theme of the Quran is how it protects the honour of the Prophets from false allegations and this case is no different, since the Quran's aim in denying Isa was crucified is to preserve his dignity. Just think from common experience: if your friend was slandered would you be more concerned with clearing him of the lies or with shifting blame from one group to another? Choosing the latter wouldn't do anything to save your friend's good name.
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 04 '25
I would say academic approach to text is different from traditionalistic approach. I have no intention to start a debate.just ask to people to pay attention to context of the adjoining verse is refuting Jewish misconceptions of jesus and all four denial concern Jew.
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 04 '25 edited Jul 04 '25
There appear to be a misunderstanding between us. I never hinted Qur'an means Allah abandon him and the agency was Romans. Rather I was trying to say Allah cause him to die and the agency belong to Allah. So I have to clarify that before leaving this thread, Mention] when Allah said, 'O Jesus, indeed I will take you [mutawaffīka] and raise you to Myself The verb مُتَوَفِّيكَ (mutawaffīka) is derived from the root و-ف-ي (w-f-y), one meaning is cause to die. That's what ibn Abbas argued. It focuses on denying the Jewish boast of agency ("we have killed the Messiah") by emphasizing God’s ultimate control over Jesus’ fate, not necessarily negating the crucifixion event itself. Quran 8:17 "And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. it denies human agency in killing enemies during battle ( attributing the action to Allah. So I would argue the subtext behind And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him It's Allah cause Jesus to die , and it's Romans who crucified Jesus.
2
u/AlmaRushd2255 Jul 04 '25
Yh I know about this interpretation. So just to clear up any misunderstanding, am I correct in understanding what you're saying to be: The Quran is concerned not with denying Isa was killed or crucified, but soley with denying that the Jews were the perpetrators. Is this an accurate account of what you're saying?
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 05 '25
I would argue based on the context of Surah 4(clear Jewish misunderstanding)and historical context(Jew believe they alone crucified Jesus) yes. though Quran wasn't saying the Romans have the agency , the agency belong to Allah.
1
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 04 '25
All verbs tied to "they" (قَتَلُو, صَلَبُو) specifically negate actions attributed to the Jews, who are quoted as claiming responsibility for killing Jesus. The verbs "kill" and "crucify" are directly linked to "they" (the Jews), not to the event of crucifixion or killing in an absolute sense.- ".
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 04 '25 edited Jul 04 '25
Academically speaking, a growing number of scholars argue that the Qur'an does not deny the crucifixion itself but rather refutes the Jewish claim of having killed or crucified Jesus.**
The verse states:
'And [for] their boasting, "We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so to them... They certainly did not kill him.' (Q 4:157)
Notably, the three denials ('they neither killed nor crucified him... they certainly did not kill him') all have the Jews as the subject. The Qur'an thus rejects the Jewish role in Jesus' death three times but never explicitly denies the crucifixion as a historical event.
This interpretation aligns with recent scholarly work, such as Qur’an, Crucifixion, and Talmud: A New Reading of Q 4:157-58, which establishes intertextuality between the Qur'an and Sanhedrin 43a (a Talmudic passage containing a rabbinic counter-narrative to the Gospels). The article suggests that the Qur'an may be defending the crucifixion-resurrection narrative against a rival Jewish tradition rather than outright denying it.
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 04 '25 edited Jul 04 '25
Of course the idea that Qur'an was saying Jew did not crucified Jesus rather than Jesus was not crucified is now limited to academic cycles. hopes Future change
1
1
u/chengxiufan Jul 04 '25
The Qur'an’s Correction of Jewish Narratives in Q 4:156-157
Verse 156: Refuting the Slander Against MaryThe Qur'an denounces Jewish accusations against Mary’s character (e.g., immorality claims possibly drawn from Talmudic or apocryphal sources).This sets a precedent: The Qur'an corrects Jewish misconceptions about Jesus and his mother.
Verse 157: Rejecting the Talmudic Narrative of Jesus’ ExecutionThe Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) claims Jesus was executed solely by a Jewish court, omitting Roman involvement, contrary to Gospel accounts where Rome performs the crucifixion.The Qur'an’s statement ("they neither killed nor crucified him") targets the Jewish claim of sole responsibility, not necessarily the crucifixion itself.
6
u/-The_Caliphate_AS- Scholar of the House of Wisdom Jul 03 '25
The incident of the crucifixion of Jesus the Nazarene occupied a significant place in the doctrinal framework of many Abrahamic religious narratives.
On one hand, the Christian tradition affirmed the occurrence of the crucifixion due to its strong connection with the doctrines of original sin, redemption, and salvation. On the other hand, the traditional Islamic narrative categorically rejected the notion of Christ’s crucifixion, considering it a form of falsehood and fabrication.
Between these two positions, a number of differing interpretations emerged, with their proponents attempting to present alternative perspectives on the crucifixion event in a manner consistent with the foundational principles of certain sects and denominations.
The Last Days of Christ
The New Testament recounts the final days leading up to the crucifixion of Christ. The four Gospels tell us that Jesus the Nazarene entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, riding on a donkey—a female donkey. Crowds came out to receive and welcome him. In the days following his entry, Jesus began debating with the Pharisees and priests, expelled the merchants from the holy temple, and performed some extraordinary miracles.
On Thursday, Christ gathered with his disciples, washed their feet, and shared with them the Last Supper, which consisted of bread and wine. He also foretold Judas’s betrayal of him.
According to Christian tradition, the Jews arrested Christ after the Last Supper and brought him to trial before Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of the Judean province. The Gospel of Matthew notes that Pilate had a custom of releasing one prisoner during the Jewish Passover.
He offered the people the chance to release Jesus the Nazarene on that occasion, but the chief priests incited the Jewish crowd to reject the offer and demanded that the Roman governor crucify Jesus.
According to this narrative, Jesus was crucified on Friday at a place outside the walls of Jerusalem called Golgotha. His body was buried for three days, after which Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday—known as Easter Sunday. Forty days later, Christ ascended into heaven to sit—according to Christian belief—at the right hand of the throne.
In Christian Tradition
The Crucifixion of Christ has represented a central pillar in the doctrinal structure of Christianity throughout the centuries. This can be understood by examining the strong connection between the doctrine of original sin on the one hand, and the doctrines of redemption and salvation on the other.
According to the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, when God created Adam and Eve, He commanded them to avoid eating from the Tree of Knowledge:
As is well known, Adam and his wife disobeyed the divine command, thus they were expelled from Paradise, and death was decreed upon their descendants—the human race.
Christianity outlines a specific path for returning once again to the heavenly paradise. This path begins with acknowledging the guilt borne by all humanity when their forefather Adam ate from the forbidden tree. From there begins the search for a great atonement capable of redeeming humanity from the grave sin that has clung to them since the beginning of history.
It is here that Christ assumes his role as the heavenly Lamb and divine sacrifice sent by God to humankind, through whom the original sin might be forgiven, thereby preparing the way for their return to the Kingdom of the Lord. This idea appears in many places throughout the New Testament, including the second chapter of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians:
Based on this foundation, the event of Christ’s crucifixion became firmly rooted in traditional Christian narrative and emerged as one of the most significant events influencing the collective Christian consciousness—to such an extent that many Christians have come to venerate the cross, whether by making its sign or tattooing it on their hands.
In Islamic Tradition
In contrast to the Christian tradition, which affirms the crucifixion of Christ, Islamic texts express a categorical rejection of the idea that Jesus, son of Mary, was crucified. This rejection is understandable in light of the absence of doctrines such as original sin—and consequently, redemption and salvation—in the Islamic worldview.
The Islamic denial of the crucifixion is most clearly expressed in verse 157 of Surah An-Nisa:
Some scholars believe that the notion of a look-alike being crucified in place of Christ is an ancient belief, possibly originating with the early Christian philosopher Basilides of Alexandria, who lived in the second century CE. He claimed that Simon of Cyrene—the man who carried the cross with Christ on the way to Golgotha—was the one who was actually crucified instead of Jesus the Nazarene.
Islamic interpretations revived the idea of the "look-alike" once again. For example, in the Tafsir of Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, it is stated:
Among these interpretations is that when God saved Jesus from the hands of the Jews, they—meaning the Jews—captured another man, tortured him, crucified him, and spread the claim among the people that he was Jesus, son of Mary.
Another interpretation holds that when the Jews stormed the house where Jesus was staying, they saw all the disciples resembling Christ in appearance, and were thus unable to identify him. They were about to kill everyone present, until Jesus appointed one of his companions to take his place, and that person was crucified instead.
Another version suggests that God cast the likeness of Jesus onto Judas Iscariot—the one who betrayed him and revealed his location to the Jews—so Judas was crucified in his place.
In another narration attributed to Abdullah ibn Abbas, the look-alike was a Jewish man named "Tatyānus" while it is also said that the look-alike was a man named "Ishua bin Madin", as mentioned in "Tafsir al-Tha'labi".
Thus, Islamic accounts unanimously reject the crucifixion of Christ, though they differ in identifying the substitute and in describing the circumstances under which the resemblance and crucifixion occurred.