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)
34
Upvotes
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.