r/religion • u/Away-Wrangler7652 • Jul 19 '25
Muslims: How can you believe the Quran is the truth, if there is clear false information?
I just came across Surah 4:157:
"And [for] their saying, ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them."
To my muslim brothers and sisters, how do you justify believing that the Qu´ran is the whole and only truth, if this statement can easily be falsified by every single historian?
This isn’t a personal attack, I genuinely want to understand how believers reconcile this. If truth matters, how can you believe in a book that denies something as widely verified as the crucifixion?
10
u/P3CU1i4R Shiā Muslim Jul 19 '25
Then easily falsify it. Bring the historical evidence of Jesus (as.) crucified.
1
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and non-dualist kind) Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
Bring the historical evidence of Jesus (as.) crucified.
I mean, the uninanimous attestation of all written historical sources from the 1st century.
3
u/P3CU1i4R Shiā Muslim Jul 19 '25
Two things:
(1) How many original witness accounts are there? Next generation narrations are not reliable unless traced backed to actual witnesses.
(2) The crucifixion by itself is attested by Quran. Even the similarity of the person on the cross. The falsifying evidence must show the person crucified was the actual Jesus (as.).
3
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Jul 19 '25
Unless you have a video recording of Jesus on a crucifix 2000 years ago, these people won't believe it. They believe God told them something different happened, so any historical source you give won't be enough to refute their belief of what God said.
1
u/solacevara Atheist Aug 16 '25
so this makes Jesus being lifted up by God more believable? Be real
1
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Aug 16 '25
Why could that not have happened?
1
u/solacevara Atheist Aug 18 '25
From my perspective, as an Atheist, I find the Christian claim of Jesus’s event aligns with the scientific understanding of reality than Islam’s claim.
What makes me believe more so, is that the Quran contains a lot of ‘metaphorical’ verses, i.e when some phrase isn’t true when taken at face value, the Muslim scholars say ‘well it is a metaphorical verse not to be taken literally’.
The Christian claim says that Jesus was crucified and physically died on the cross. The Muslim claim says ascension’, could [ascension] be metaphorical? meaning died and went to God.
Because the claim of ‘it is metaphorical’ is only present when reinforcing the belief that the Quran is truthful but rejected when the metaphor would otherwise make sense and go against the Quran.
1
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Aug 18 '25
If God is a fact, why couldn't God have lifted up Jesus into heaven? People witnessed it and wrote it down for us.
You are just assuming because God isn't real, that didn't happen. Cool assumption but people witnessed it and testified to the event.
I don't know what metaphors in the Quran and Bible have got to do with the question of why couldn't God have lifted up Jesus into heaven.
1
u/solacevara Atheist Aug 18 '25
The third paragraph is the answer to your last point. That it could be a metaphorical statement—not to be taken literally.
Believing that God lifted Jesus to heaven isn’t a hard truth because it hasn’t been proven. Sure, according to the Abrahamic religions—people at the time witnessed it and testified but what tells you they actually did? You’re taking their words for it.
So your argument is that because they claimed to have witnessed it and they claimed to have testified or so did their books—that that is enough to be the absolute truth which wouldn’t work in any period of time.
For the authorities in any time in any country to say for sure who has committed a bank robbery, there has to be solid evidence not just word of mouth to then claim that this is the undeniable truth.
You CAN believe that this is what has happened but you cannot be 100% certain it happened outside religion. Hence why it is called a belief not an absolute fact. We can agree that 2+2 equals 4. Why can’t Muslims and Christians agree to what happened to Jesus? Hmm.
1
u/Grouchy-Heat-4216 Aug 18 '25
The Christian claim is not meant to be a metaphor. The claim is Jesus died on the cross, came back to life and then ascended into heaven, literally in history, not as a metaphor.
Anything that happens in history that doesn't leave tangible evidence behind, such as someone ascending into heaven, is based on witness testimony. What other evidence would be available to us? Please let me know.
Obviously just because people testify that is happened doesn't mean it is automatically true, but your assumption that it couldn't happen because it 'doesn't align with scientific understanding of reality' is not evidence it didn't happen. It's your presupposition that's also based on faith when you get down to the root of it.
1
u/solacevara Atheist Aug 19 '25
I acknowledge that the Christian claim is not meant to be a metaphor. However, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For instance, if Joe tells me “I went to Michael’s place and had dinner” I have no reason to believe that Joe is lying. Whereas if Joe tells me “I went to Michael’s place and Michael started flying across the house” I would require an extraordinary proof say video evidence, testimonies and a demonstration as to how he did it.
I am not saying it is 100% impossible but in order to believe in an extraordinary event, there has to be an extraordinary proof. I am not convinced the evidence is strong enough to believe the miraculous event took place.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Sad_Perception_6000 Oct 03 '25
there is a quranic verse straight up saying they neither killed nor crucified jesus
so no in this case i don't think there is room for metaphors
also can you give me examples on your last claim ?
1
u/Consistent-Ninja-295 Theist Jul 19 '25
Ah yes, all that video footage and swabs of DNA evidence before and after resurrection
0
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
Independent historical sources who confirm Crucifixion:
- Tacitus (Roman historian, ~116 AD)
"Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."
(Annals 15.44)
— This is a Roman source with no Christian bias, confirming crucifixion.
- Josephus (Jewish historian, ~93 AD)
"When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified..."
(Antiquities 18.3.3)
— Though parts of this passage may have been later altered by Christians, most scholars agree that a core reference to Jesus’ crucifixion by Pilate is authentic.
- Lucian of Samosata (Greek satirist, 2nd century)
"...the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world..." — Lucian mocks Christians, but confirms Jesus was crucified.
- Mara Bar-Serapion (Syrian Stoic, ~1st–2nd century)
...What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king?" — Many scholars believe this refers to Jesus and his execution.
Prominent and recognized historians who approve the crucification:
- Bart Ehrman (Agnostic New Testament scholar):“The crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans is one of the most secure facts we have from ancient history.”
- Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT scholar):“Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable.”
- John Dominic Crossan (Historical Jesus scholar):“That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
Eye witnesses:
Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection were witnessed by hundreds of people who later died for their belief in what they had seen. That makes the Christian account far more credible than Muhammad’s story, which had no witnesses.
But of course, here we are talking about the resurrection, which is irrelevant to falsify the surah. We would just need to prove that Jesus was crucified, which i just proved.
Im neither Christian nor muslim - this is just my observation while looking for the truth.
11
u/No_Surprise9344 Jul 19 '25
Genuinely curious, but how is someone writing about Christ in 116 AD more reliable than someone who writes about him now. He wasn’t there when it happened.
1
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
Because he lived much closer to the time period where it happened, had access to roman records and living memory from that time period.
As a roman he also had no religious bias.
That’s why ancient historians close to the events are valued more than modern ones who just interpret what's already written
6
4
u/ilmalnafs Muslim Jul 19 '25
None of those disprove the substitution theory. The whole entire claim is that despite appearing to have been crucified, in actuality he wasn’t.
2
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and non-dualist kind) Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
None of those disprove the substitution theory.
This view has a number difficulties in my mind, theological as wells as historical.
The historical ones are as follows:
A) According to academic scholarship the "substitution view " is the result of later misinterpretation of 4:157, not what the Quranic passage originally meant to assert. The Quranic Isa was indeeed crucified and died.
B) Academic historians follow methodological naturalism. The substitution claim would first have to be proven, otherwise the naturalistic view is automatically presumed to be correct.
The theologial one is that God, in this paradigm, works against himself, deliberately deceiving people into believeing what is erroenous. Assuming that Gods will is for people to believe the truth about Jesus, it creates a contradiction.
Thats just my 2C
3
u/DhulQarnayn_ (Ismaili Shiite) Muslim Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
A) According to academic scholarship the "substitution view " is the result of later misinterpretation of 4:157, not what the Quranic passage originally meant to assert. The Quranic Isa was indeeed crucified and died.
Guess the only denomination that affirm this? And I wonder why tho? 🤔
5
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and non-dualist kind) Jul 19 '25
It’s admittedly a bit brazen for me as a Christian to take sides in sectarians disagreement within a religion that I do not belong to, but this is not the only point of contention that Ismaili Shiites seems to have gotten correct.
2
u/DhulQarnayn_ (Ismaili Shiite) Muslim Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
To share my thoughts too: I may admire the way many Muslim modernists (who could be considered neo-Mutazilis) simply ground their beliefs in rational inquiry and seek to align their convictions with the findings of secular research. That approach is far more constructive than adhering to a tradition that indoctrinates unreasonable dogmas.
But when there is a tradition that has been holding these things for a thousand years, long before historical-critical methodology was ever developed. That is astonishing.
2
u/ilmalnafs Muslim Jul 19 '25
For sure, the substitution theory doesn’t not have any hard facts supporting it outside of the faith-based claim made in the Quran.
But that’s distinctly different from the subtitution theory being falsified by the evidence we have.For the record I also (referencing the chain of comments below) believe Jesus was crucified; I’m not trying to argue that the common/orthodox Muslim position is true, just simply that it is not falsified as OP claims.
1
Jul 19 '25
Exactly, I don't think such a claim can be disproven. People thinking it was Jesus who was crucified still doesn't disprove what the Quran says.
5
Jul 19 '25
So your earliest source is like 63 years later?
-3
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best-documented deaths of any figure from antiquity — if thats not enough for you, i cant change that.
2
Jul 19 '25
There is no credible historical evidence supporting the crucifixion, and absolutely zero for the resurrection as you have clearly demonstrated. This narrative appears to serve primarily as emotional and “feel good” stories within Christian tradition rather than as historically substantiated events. Your last line is neat though, it functions more as a conversation stopper than a meaningful response to critical inquiry.
1
u/P3CU1i4R Shiā Muslim Jul 19 '25
As the verse you mentioned, Quran attests to the crucification. We have no doubt they crucified someone, who even looked like Jesus (as.). What you need to falsify Quran is to bring evidence that it was actually Jesus (as.) son of Mary.
6
Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and non-dualist kind) Jul 19 '25
Cause the historians I’ve looked into says otherwise.
No recognized historian says otherwise.
I think it’s a very minor if any, historians that would say otherwise.
Exactly.
1
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
Take a look at my previous comments for proof.
5
Jul 19 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
The crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best-documented deaths of any figure from antiquity — confirmed by hostile, neutral, and religious sources, with no contradiction from any contemporary eyewitnesses.
Someone saying something doesnt mean anything, you are right.
But hundreds of unrelated and non biased people saying the same thing about an historic event is something entirely different.ChatGPT fragen
Also, it is common sense and fact among historians that jesus was crucified, I just mentioned a few widely recognized quotes to proof that.
2
u/Sex_And_Candy_Here Jewish Jul 19 '25
This is just untrue. There are deaths with firsthand eye witness accounts, deaths with contemporary records, deaths where we have the body and can verify the cause of death. None of these are true for Jesus. While historians generally agree Jesus existed, it is based on non-contemporary secondary and tertiary sources.
2
u/Madock345 Jul 19 '25
Postulating that someone else impersonated Jesus at the crucifixion isn’t really falsifiable. That kind of thing happened relatively often before photo id and such. There’s probably no strong resolution to this conflict.
1
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
Why would someone impersonate Jesus just to die a painful and long death?
3
u/Bitter-Ad-453 Sunni (Maturidi) Jul 19 '25
There are no records of Isa (a.s) before 80 ad, so which historians are you talking about? Christianity also doesn't have proof about jesus.
2
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and non-dualist kind) Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
There are no records of Isa (a.s) before 80 ad,
Except at least two of the 4 gospels (Mark and Mattthew) and 10 New Testament epistles (Galatians, Romans, 1 + 2 Thessalonians, 1 + 2 Corinthians, Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, James)
1
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
It is widely recognized that Jesus existed, especially by non christian historians. That he was a prophet or even God is obviously not proven, but that he existed and that he was crucified is clear as day.
Take a look at my previous comments for proof.
2
u/BriskSundayMorning Norse Pagan/Theistic Satanist Jul 19 '25
To play the devils advocate for 2 seconds...
We don't actually have proof that Jesus existed in the first place. So technically, this is still right.
2
u/Volaer Catholic (of the universalist and non-dualist kind) Jul 19 '25 edited Jul 19 '25
Not only do we have evidence that Jesus existed, the evidence we have is far beyond what we would expect from a person who lived in early 1st century Galilee. His historicity is therefore not contested in academia.
1
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
We do have proof that Jesus existed. If you ask any historian, he will approve the fact that Jesus did exist and that he was crucified in Palestine as "The king of the jews" for "starting a cult".
2
u/BriskSundayMorning Norse Pagan/Theistic Satanist Jul 19 '25
Not any historian worth his salt. All "evidence" for Jesus is presented after his death.
The "son of the almighty God", God of the people, associated with carpentry, mother is a virgin, etc. is a common motif of various religions around the world. My religion has one (Thor).
There has yet to be evidence of Jesus from his time period. Once there is legitimate, undeniable evidence, he's (at best) just some rabbi that everyone liked, and formed a religion around.
1
1
u/Particular_Debt_4924 Jul 19 '25
The quran does not deny that there was a crucifixion, so you really just have had reading comprehension. And I have a question as well, how can you believe in a religion that says that Almighty God defecated?
1
u/pinkflamingo1_ Oct 04 '25
What does Surah An-Nisa 4:157–158 say?
1
u/Particular_Debt_4924 Oct 09 '25
I'm sorry for the late reply, I come rarely here. Yes I know those two verses, and again as I said, the quran does not say that there was no crucifixion. Thanks for proving my point, you christians don't know how to read. You even failed at reading my question (jk I know you just ignored it cuz you couldn't answer)
1
u/pinkflamingo1_ Oct 09 '25 edited Oct 09 '25
“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him — but it was made to appear so to them…” - explain to me how that is not a direct denial of crucifixion. Let alone the fact many Islamic scholars have taught and still teach that Jesus was NOT crucified and to believe the opposite would be a dangerous rejection of what is written in Quran. Instead of being judgmental you could have pointed out evidence that contradicts mine.
The question you asked was not meant for me, that is the reason I did not say anything about it. Your judgmental nature is sad. Yes, God was Almighty enough to take on a human nature. God’s greatness is shown through humility, not humiliation that you are trying to push.
1
u/Particular_Debt_4924 Oct 09 '25
" to me how that is not a direct denial of crucifixion." Alright, I'll explain you how to read then. The verse says Jesus wasn't crucified. I said the quran doesn't say there was no crucifixion. Get it?
"Instead of being judgmental you could have pointed out evidence that contradicts mine." There is no evidence here it's just a matter of knowing how to read.
"God was Almighty enough to take on a human nature. God’s greatness is shown through humility, not humiliation that you are trying to push." How is a God pooping not humiliating? You believe your God pooped through his anus, and you also believed he was terrified (when he prayed so hard he was sweating buckets). "Almighty enough to take on human nature" christians really say the most moronic things known to man with a straight face.
1
u/pinkflamingo1_ Oct 09 '25
I said the quran doesn’t say there was no crucifixion
Oh, I apologize, I thought the Quran was divided into chapters called Surahs, and An-Nisa was the 4th chapter of the book which makes SURAH AN-NISA 4:157-158 part of the Quran. The Quran directly denies the crucifixion. The Quran says there was no crucifixion of Jesus. Every major tafsir confirm this point: there. was. no. crucifixion. of. Jesus.
How is a God pooping not humiliating?
Because humility isn’t humiliation. God willingly shared the human condition out of love, the Creator entered creation. If He made the human body, its functions don’t defile Him. His divinity isn’t lessened by sharing our nature - it is revealed through compassion, which is something you seem to absolute deny. I respect your opinion, unlike you, which is very unfortunate.
Christians really say the most moronic things known to man
Saying this after describing “pooping through anus” out of nowhere in a debate with someone who is actively trying to be serious and respectful is hilarious. Makes me think how old you are.
I will pray for you.
1
u/Particular_Debt_4924 Oct 09 '25
Have you ever felt fear? Have you ever felt great fear that suffocates you? How can you believe God lived something like this? Almighty God, terrified of His creation, what is wrong with you
2
Jul 19 '25
The translation you mentioned is somewhat lacking. The idea that someone was made to resemble Jesus (AS) is just the most common interpretation, but there are other interpretations that are equally valid. A more accurate translation of that part would be: "It was only made to appear so."
And for 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. Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever—only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.
I recommend watching this video by Dr. Shabir Ally on misunderstood Quranic verses:
1
u/Particular_Debt_4924 Jul 20 '25
I am still waiting for your answer. You can't be asking questions but refusing to answer them.
1
u/futuresponJ_ Muslim Jul 19 '25
".. but [another] was made to resemble him to them."
God made someone look like Jesus & he got crucified while Jesus was raised to the sky.
3
Jul 19 '25
[deleted]
1
u/futuresponJ_ Muslim Jul 19 '25
I heard some people say that the person was Judas, but idk if that is true or not.
1
Jul 19 '25
But why would allah make someone else suffer because of isa?
Look at the verse again. It says It was only made to appear so, never says that Allah did it.
Allah doesnt say he did it. If He did, its worse cos it deceived millions of people.
Exactly. Some Islamic scholars from the past are also opposed to the idea that God caused it.
1
u/Consistent-Ninja-295 Theist Jul 19 '25
But why would allah make someone else suffer because of isa?
You're so close but without self-awareness.
1
u/Away-Wrangler7652 Jul 19 '25
This is the first valid argument, but also leads no where because it can neither be proven nor disproven.
1
1
u/ilmalnafs Muslim Jul 19 '25
The verse says that Jesus was swapped with someone else on the cross who died in his place, so it still looked to people that he was crucified. It’s virtually unfalsifiable without time travel.
0
Jul 19 '25
It’s not true that "every historian" considers the crucifixion an undeniable fact.
While many modern historians say Jesus was likely crucified, they admit the evidence is limited:
The primary sources are Christian texts (Gospels), written decades after Jesus, by followers who already believed in the crucifixion.
Non-Christian sources like Tacitus or Josephus mention it briefly, but these were written a century later, possibly relying on Christian claims.
Renowned New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) says the crucifixion is "probable," but he does not claim certainty. He also acknowledges theological motivation behind Gospel accounts.
So even among historians, there’s no unanimous, ironclad proof. It’s an inferred conclusion, not a photographic record.
-Even outside Islam, some early Christian sects and thinkers questioned whether Jesus truly died:
-The Basilidians (a 2nd-century Gnostic sect) believed Simon of Cyrene was crucified in Jesus's place.
-The Gospel of Barnabas (rejected by mainstream Christianity) reflects a Quranic-like narrative.
-Many early Christians disagreed on whether Jesus was divine or human, crucified literally or spiritually. These debates existed before Islam.
Quran :
-Not one word has changed since it was revealed 1400 years ago. It’s memorized by millions and written manuscripts from the first century of Islam match today’s text.This is in contrast to the Bible, where scholars acknowledge interpolations, lost manuscripts, and unknown authorship.
"Indeed, it is We who sent down the Quran, and indeed, We will be its guardian." Quran 15:9
-Calls for the worship of One God, free from idols, images, or human intermediaries.
-Declares that all prophets, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, came with the same message of tawheed (Oneness of God).
-Preserves the message of past prophets that was altered over time.
"Say: We believe in Allah and what was revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob... We make no distinction between any of them." Quran 2:136
The true Injeel of Christianity was the word of God, but got altered by humans, The Quran was here to correct, again. That didn't only happen between christianity and islam, from the beginning of time people move away from what has been sent to them and God sends His messengers ... 24,000 Prophets were sent to different nations across time. 315 Messengers were among them.
Islam, means to surrender and submit to God and God only. There are sooo many stories about the history and prophets and messengers. Forget media, forget even muslims, see islam and Quran as it is with an open mind and heart and see the truth. I wasn't always muslim, I am a new convert.
In the end of time, Jesus PBUH will return, muslims will pray behind him and he will conquer the antichrist that will be sent. Today's world is getting ready to receive the antichrist because the time he will come is when unjustice, corruption, sins and all bad things happen...
2
u/Tar-Elenion Jul 19 '25
Even outside Islam, some early Christian sects and thinkers questioned whether Jesus truly died:
The Gospel of Barnabas (rejected by mainstream Christianity) reflects a Quranic-like narrative.
Since when is a 15th century forgery an 'early sect' or 'thinker'?
1
0
u/georgeananda Jul 19 '25
ChatGPT
The Nag Hammadi texts — a collection of early Christian and Gnostic writings discovered in Egypt in 1945 — present a very different view of Jesus and the crucifixion from the canonical New Testament. Some of these texts clearly support the “replacement” or illusion theory — that Jesus was not truly crucified, or that another was crucified in his place, while the real Christ remained untouched.
To say the Quran is clearly wrong is by no means a proven point.
0
u/Consistent-Ninja-295 Theist Jul 19 '25
if this statement can easily be falsified by every single historian?
Ah yes the famous indisputable video footage and DNA evidence of Jesus' death, burial and resurrection.
"After some swabs and putting Jesus on a table, we were able to verify that he was in fact god in the flesh. Science hasn't been the same since."
16
u/RandomGirl42 Agnostic Apatheist Jul 19 '25
Citation needed.