“It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the world view that is based on the truth to manifest it over all other world views, although the mushrik make dislike it.” (Qur’an 9:33)
﷽
The following is a translation from the talk by Shaykh Mustafa al Adawi. Any mistakes or flaws in the translation belong to us.
What is the truth about the awaited Mahdi?
“The awaited Mahdi, as they call him, is ultimately a righteous man who will be an imam, establishing justice among the people. This is the extent of his role according to the established evidence from the Messenger of Allah, (saw). Most of these narrations do not explicitly mention the Mahdi. Rather, they state that before long, his name will appear, coinciding with mine and his father’s name, and he will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been oppressed. This is the most that can be said about him.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Furthermore, even if there is a chain of narration (isnad) that is not strong enough to allow us to base significant rulings on it—such as a hadith narrated by Malik from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar, or by Zirr from Salim from his father, or one that was narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim—there is none of that. It is not narrated by al-Bukhari or Muslim, and it is not a definitively strong chain of narration. Many narrations revolve around Aim ibn Abi al-Najud, and Asim is a narrator whose reliability is questioned. Some scholars consider his hadiths acceptable, but others question his memory. This is the strongest narration I have found on this topic. It is not explicit in mentioning the Mahdi. Rather, it is a hadith about how you will be when the son of Mary descends among you. And before you, from among you, the Muslims present the Messiah, (as), to lead them in prayer. The Muslims present the Messiah to lead them in prayer, and the Messiah, (as), says, “No, rather some of you are imams for one another. Allah has honored this nation.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Beyond that, many sayings have been woven about the awaited Mahdi. I repeat that the hadiths concerning this awaited one are not so strong that they can reassure the soul without doubt or uncertainty. Rather, their chains of transmission are questionable. One can accept that the hadith is sound in this regard, but the wording of the sound hadith is: “The Hour will not come until a man emerges whose name is like my name and whose father’s name is like my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” I had mistakenly thought there was an authentic hadith in this regard, which is the hadith: “When you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” But Abu Hatim al-Razi mentioned that this hadith is flawed and rejected, and it is as Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, said.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“As for the much talk about the awaited Mahdi, it should not be taken lightly. This matter has garnered significant attention because of the hadiths it contains, as I mentioned earlier. I tasked one of our brothers, a student of knowledge named Adil ibn Abd al-Salam, with compiling all the related material. He compiled it, and the result, after careful review with him and after I researched it in my book,The Authentic and Attributed Collection of Hadiths on Tribulations, Battles, and the Signs of the Hour, is as follows: With Allah’s help, I see that many have spoken on this topic, but many of them are not scholars of hadith; rather, they are like those who gather firewood in the dark. The meaning of “those who gather firewood in the dark” is that they collect what is true and what is weak, like someone gathering firewood at night who might also gather a snake. Allah knows best. As for the Shia, they have myths that have no basis whatsoever in this regard.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
Question from the students of knowledge.
Peace be upon you. Peace be upon you and Allah’s mercy. And upon you be peace and Allah’s mercy and blessings.
How are you, Sheikh Mustafa? Praise be to Allah. Please, Shaykh, I have a question: Is there a single authentic hadith that mentions the name of the Mahdi? And if there isn’t, how can someone who denies the Mahdi be considered wrong?
“Yes, praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. There is a hadith on this matter: “If you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then know that the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi, is among them.” However, this hadith appears to have a good chain of narration, but it was deemed weak by the learned Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him. I agree with his assessment, as the hadith is weak. As for the hadith, “The Mahdi is from us, the family of the Prophet. The Mahdi has a broad forehead and a prominent nose. The Mahdi will rule for seven years. Allah will rectify the Mahdi in one night”—it is all weak and not authentic.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The most prominent hadith on this topic is one narrated by Asim ibn Abi al-Najud: “The days an dnights will not pass until a man emerges whose name matches my name and whose father’s name matches my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” Regarding Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, there is some scholarly debate; some accept his hadiths, while others question his reliability. Another hadith states: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you? Will he be presented to lead the prayer, or will they present the Messiah? He will say, ‘No, rather some of you are imams over others, a blessing from Allah to this nation.'” As you mentioned, I have not found any authentic hadith from the Messenger of Allah explicitly stating the name of the Mahdi, except for the hadith I mentioned to you: “The Mahdi is from the progeny of Fatima.” This hadith is weak and unreliable. Many hadiths on this subject are also unreliable. I have researched this extensively and have not found any authentic hadith except for the one I mentioned to you: “When you see the black banner coming from Khorasan.” However, this hadith is flawed, as Abu Hatim al-Razi, may Allah have mercy on him, pointed out. The hadith of `Asim ibn Abi al-Najud and the hadith of Muslim are also problematic.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The text mentions the name of the Mahdi. Also, I sent a message to some of our sons and brothers who are students of knowledge here. I was tasked with compiling a comprehensive treatise, and they dedicated time to this, and it came out with the same result. A treatise, I think it was printed, O Abd al-Rahman. Yes, check if it was printed or not. In short, what is notewrothy is that the two Shaykhs (al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not include any hadith about the Mahdi except what I mentioned form the hadith of Muslim: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” Our beloved Shaykh, yes, if you encountered someone who denied the Mahdi, would you rebuke him? By Allah, I mean, we iniform him of what is established according to the opinion of Hasan al-Khabar and Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, but the rebuke is not severe. May Allah reward you and the Muslims. What I have brought to your attention regarding the hadiths of the awaited Mahdi—you may be surprised if I tell you that most of them are not authentic, and I do not know of a single authentic hadith that contains the name of the Mahdi. Rather, they are all fabricated. For example, the hadith, “If you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” I used to doubt its authenticity, but it turned out to be defective.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“Abu Hatim al-Razi, in his book Al-`Ilal, mentions a hadith that might be considered acceptable: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” However, it doesn’t explicitly state that he is the Mahdi. Another hadith states: “The days and nights will not pass until a man emerges whose name is my name and whose father’s name is my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with oppression and tyranny.” This hadith also doesn’t name the Mahdi. He then asks about the hadiths concerning the awaited Mahdi. Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah. Regarding the Mahdi, there are few hadiths, and people are divided between excess and negligence in their understanding of him. Some cite a vast number of weak hadiths on this subject and base their rulings upon them, while others deny the Mahdi altogether. Both approaches are reprehensible. As I mentioned earlier, very few hadiths are considered authentic or sound.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“The authentic ones include: “What will you do when the son of Mary emerges among you?” or “When the son of Mary descends among you, and your imam is from among you?” In this hadith, Jesus,(as), is presented by the Muslims to lead them in prayer, but he says, “No, rather some of you are imams over others.” Allah honors him for this. The nation is divided into two groups of scholars. Some said this is the Mahdi. Another authentic hadith, or one considered acceptable despite some ambiguity in its narrators, states: “The Hour will not come until a man emerges whose name matches my name and whose father’s name matches my father’s name. He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with oppression and tyranny.” This hadith is acceptable and does not explicitly state that this person’s name is the Mahdi. Rather, the hadith states: “His name matches my name and his father’s name matches my father’s name.” A third hadith appears to have a sound chain of transmission, but it is flawed due to the wording: “When you see the black banners coming from Khorasan, then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” This hadith is flawed, and Abu Hatim al-Razi mentioned its flaw in his book Al-`Ilal.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
“These are almost all the reports that have been transmitted concerning the Mahdi with authentic chains of transmission. Yes, I know that some eminent scholars have compiled books in which they gathered the hadiths of the Prophet (saw) concerning the Mahdi. However, upon reviewing and scrutinizing these books, it became clear to me that most of what they included is not authentic. Their excuse is that they are not scholars of hadith. They included everything related to the Mahdi without considering its authenticity or weakness. This is a very brief summary. The most accurate thing that can be said is what Muslim included: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you, and your Imam is from among you?” Scholars interpreted this Imam as the Mahdi, peace be upon him. The second hadith is: “He will fill the earth with justice and equity after it has been filled with injustice and oppression.” As I mentioned earlier, some of the men in its chain of narration are not mentioned by al-Bukhari, may Allah have mercy on him. He is not mentioned at all in either al-Bukhari or Muslim. Rather, in Muslim, there is the hadith that mentions: “What will you do when the son of Mary descends among you?” Regarding the name of the Mahdi, I do not recall at the moment a hadith with a sound chain of transmission that includes the name of the Mahdi. Rather, all that I have come across in this regard has a weak chain of transmission, or a sound chain but with a flaw, as I mentioned earlier in the hadith alluding to the black banners coming from Khorasan: “Then go towards them, for among them is the Caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.” -Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi
Prima Qur’an comments. What we found interesting is that Shaykh Mustafa al-Adawi really went out on a limb to throw a life jacket to those who hold onto the belief that Mahdi is established in the authentic sunnah.
But what certainly raises an eye brow is the following:
“Regarding the Mahdi, there are few hadiths, and people are divided between excess and negligence in their understanding of him. Some cite a vast number of weak hadiths on this subject and base their rulings upon them, while others deny the Mahdi altogether. Both approaches are reprehensible.”
On what basis can those who deny the Mahdi altogether be considered among the reprehensible when Shaykh al-Adawi himself is among them.
You may also be interested in reading the following:
It seems that the trend is such that in another 20 to 30 years one will scarcely find someone from the scholars who believes in the coming of the Mahdi unless that one is a pariah. Allah knows best.
“This is a Warner of the series of the Warners of old. The (hour) ever approaches draws nigh” (Qur’an 53:56-57).
﷽
Yasir Qadhi: The Return of Jesus and the Qur’an.
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi takes a look at the four verses that are often advanced to make the claim.
“The issue about coming back at the end of times is one that has caused a little bit of controversy uh in the last few years online and before this point in time has also been a point of contention actually for the last few decades. I thought that in today’s library chat let’s take an academic look. Let’s remove ourselves from the emotional back and forth and let us see uh the reality of this issue and uh allow the evidences to speak for themselves. So today’s talk is going to be about a very interesting topic inshalla and it’s also one that uh on the one hand it is a very introductory level in the sense that everybody will benefit but on the other hand um because of the nature of this talk there will be quite a lot of packed information with names and dates and uh I will be at times speeding up uh I I know people say I talk uh quickly but I think I’m going to have to speed up quite a lot for this particular talk because I have quite a lot of information I want to just um uh put into today’s uh library chat. So it is at the same time an introduction and also it is a very uh comprehensive inshallah uh introductory level talk.”- Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Obviously I always make that caveat uh so that people don’t think that this is the end all and be all. Uh today’s talk will be dealing with theology uh with history even with methodology. And before I begin I’d like to point out that there’s there’s two primary ways to look at a controversy or to look at a contentious issue. Uh usually what I do is uh one of the ways to look at it is start from the end and to lay out all of the opinions and then to backtrack and say who says what and why did they say that and that’s a very standard and academic approach. You can flip it around and you have another approach and that is to build and that is to go back to the beginning and say what does the Quran have to say? What does the sunnah have to say? And so today we’re going to be following uh that particular uh procedure and I’m going to be working chronologically forward. And what we’re going to do is divide this entire library chat into a number of different sections. Firstly, does the Quran mention the return of or not? Uh secondly, what does the hadith have to say? And is are they a hadith mutawat or not? And who said they uh thirdly, uh what did the early scholars of Islam have to say about this issue? Uh fourthly uh the is there unanimous consensus on this issue. Uh fifthly what do the other strands of Islam say? Sunni Islam is obviously you know generally clear but what do the other strands of Islam say? And then finally sixth point uh what is the modern controversy and where did this arise and who are the main figures and players with regards to the modern controversy.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“So uh this is a fairly comprehensive uh lengthy introduction to the entire uh topic and I did spend a good amount of time uh around a day and a half doing uh this research to demonstrate uh a methodology of of how we talk about uh contentious issues. So we begin from the beginning and that is the book uh the book of Allah the Quran. The Quran uh has four verses in it that are used by some uh to posit that the Quran preaches the return “Isa of two of these verses have the exact same phrase in them. And so in reality it boils down to three particular phrases in the Quran because once again there are four verses but two of the verses are pretty much the same for what we want to do. So the two that are the same are (Qur’an 3:46 and Qur’an 5:110)and the both of them have the phrase that is going to speak this is repeated twice in the Quran. He shall speak shall speak to mankind which basically means you know in the cradle he’s going to speak as a baby.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Now uh the the word has been defined by many early scholars including that means when the whiteness of the hair begins to appear. So that’s what means and the actual age is something that is disputed. Most say around 40 some say 35 some say even beyond the age of 30. The number is not what is important. means that uh at at an older age and the the notion here is that the Quran says something that should be miraculous that he’s going to speak as a baby and he’s going to speak at an older age. Now it’s not a miracle to speak at an older age but if is not around at an older age then this is a prediction that he’s going to come back and speak when he’s an older man. So both the word and the context of the verse according to a group of scholars is indicating that is going to uh come back and uh this is the interpretation of quite a number of early authorities.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Nonetheless, it is not something that is explicit and uh the verse is ambiguous about this point about the return of this particular verse because even if we say that was 33 when his ministry finished Jesus was 33. So 33 would be considered by quite a number of uh linguists. Therefore, we say that this verse has been interpreted by a group of to imply that will come back. Nonetheless, A, it is not universally interpreted that way and B, the language in and of itself does not indicate that Isa is coming back. Okay? But it can be said that the context would indicate this. Okay? that why would it be miraculous unless there is a miracle involved.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“The third verse that we’re going to discuss is verse (Qur’an 4:159).That Allah subhana wa ta’ala says there’s not a single person of the people of the book except that he will believe in Isa before his death. Now the context of this series of verses is the context of the notion that the Yahood killed Isa. And Allah says very explicitly that they neither killed him nor did they crucify him but rather it was made to appear to them so. And Allah says they did not kill him for sure for certainty. They did not kill him. Rather Allah raised him up to himself. And then Allah subhana wa ta’ala says, “And there is no one from the people of the book except that he shall believe in him.” These are now pronouns. He shall believe in him before he dies. These are all pronouns here. Okay, the majority of early Mufasirun have interpreted this verse to mean that there will not remain a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that they will believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. Okay. So the and according to the majority say that this is Isa Ibn Maryam and therefore before Isa dies the Ahl Kitab will believe in him. Okay the Ahl Kitab will affirm him.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“However, there is a minority opinion from Qatada and Saeed Ibn Jubary and others that the pronoun biti and mauti are different and the bihi is a reference according to them to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam and the mauti is a reference to the person of the Ahl Kitab and therefore the verse will translate and there is not a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that he shall believe in the Prophet Muhammed sallallahu alaihi wasallam before he dies. And so they had a bizarre belief. Well, we say it’s bizarre. They don’t they wouldn’t think it is bizarre. They have a bizarre belief that at the time of death of the soul of the when the angel of death comes that before the angel of death takes the soul of the of the Ahl Kitab, the Kitabi must confess their emaan in the Prophet sallallah aii wasallam. This confession is a spiritual one. It doesn’t make them a Muslim. In other words, they’re not going to confess with the tongue that is physical. They’re going to confess with their soul and then they shall be allowed to uh escape their bodies. Now the problem of course is that uh the context of this these series of verses does not mention the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam at all. And also by the way uh the the the the notion that the soul is going to have to uh confess the belief of the Prophet it’s something that’s not found in any other source neither a verse of the Quran nor hadith of the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam. And that is why uh says so says the correct position about this verse is that it goes back to Isa and that none of the people of the book shall remain alive at that time except that they believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. and uh kir says there is no doubt that what says is the better opinion. So this verse therefore seems to be pretty strong. However to be clear it has been interpreted differently as well.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“There is a third uh problem if you like or problematization and that is done by the famous grammarian Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammed ibn al-Sarī al-Zajjāj and al-Zajjāj says that how can all of the Ahl Kitab believe in Jesus when most of them would have died before the coming of Jesus. Right? So al-Zajjāj says this verse does not mean what people think it means because he is saying that uh uh the verse says not a single person of the Ahl Kitab shall remain except that they believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. He is saying the bulk of Ahl Kitab have lived and died before the return of Jesus. By the way, al-Zajjāj is affirming the return of Jesus, he’s simply saying that this verse does not apply to that. That’s his interpretation. Others have responded that this verse is going to be restricted by common sense and the restriction by common sense means there is no person of the Ahl kitab that shall be alive when Jesus comes down except that he shall believe in Jesus before Jesus dies. So that restriction that shall be alive when Jesus comes down, it’s not in the Quran but it is assumed. It is something that is understood by the context of the uh verse. And another problematization that occurs is that uh the verse says there is not a single person of the Ahl Kitab except that they shall believe in him before he dies. Even if we say it is Jesus, what do we say to the Yehood that will be fighting on the side of the Dajjal and they’re seeing Jesus? they’re not going to believe in Jesus, right? So, what does this mean? And some have responded to this by the claim that well, iman here does not necessarily mean they shall believe uh in Jesus the belief of the Kalima and the belief of an acceptance of Islam, but rather they shall believe that Jesus was a prophet even if they reject his prophethood. Just like Allah says in the Quran that Allah affirmed the Quraysh have in Allah but they commit. So this is a partial im and so they believe in the concept of God. They believe that there is an Allah out there but they don’t believe that Allahel alone is the and the now the the same can apply over here that when you’re fighting on the side of the those people that are fighting they’re going to recognize that that is Jesus and they’re going to believe that that is the prophet but they know or they for whatever reason they are rejecting likel rejected they’re rejecting the following but they know that he is Jesus so to summarize this verse This verse seems to strongly indicate but to be fair uh a number of dissenting voices have not interpreted this verse to to confirm the return of Jesus Christ.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“The fourth verse that we will uh discuss is considered to be the most explicit and it is considered to be uh uh the strongest indication that the Quran is affirming the coming of Jesus, the second coming of Jesus and that is Qur’an 43:61. Allah says in the Quran and he is or it because again and it or he is a knowledge of the day of judgment. Now what is the context of these verses? Go back a few verses and Allah subhana wa ta’ala describes the that when uh the son of Mary is given as an example your people they uh break out in applause in applause and they they become happy and they say which one is better our gods or Jesus and Allah says they’re only using him to argue now the the context of revelation that when Allah subhana wa ta’ala revealed uh in the Quran you and those whom you worship uh besides Allah will all end up in Jahannam. One of the members of the Quraysh thought that he had outwit the Quran. And he said, “Okay, if everything that is worshiped besides Allah is going to end up in Jahannam. How about the Christians who worship Jesus and you guys think that Jesus is a prophet? This means that Jesus is going to go to Jahannam as well.” And of course we know from the Quran and from the Sunnah that uh the righteous who were mistakenly worshiped uh will not end up in Jahannam and uh the idols that were constructed as false god will end up in Jahannam. So the verse here says when the son of Mary is given as an example your pe your people meaning the Quraysh they become happy at this and they say which one is better our gods or Jesus and then the verses go on he is but a righteous example and a good a good servant and then Allah says and he shall be a a knowledge of the day of of the hour a knowledge of judgment So do not have any doubt about this.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“Now this verse has been interpreted by a number of Sahabah most prominently Abbas as being an explicit affirmation of the return of and in fact Ibn Abbas and a number of other uh early Sahabah Ubai and others they actually had a variant recitation of this verse which is actually even more explicit and that recitation rather than it would become means a flag means a sign means an indication and they would recite the verse. Now, of course, the whole concept of recitations and something is a very very deep one and you’re probably aware that it’s probably best I do not go into a lot of detail because people are super sensitive about this topic even though again the evidences are very clear about this. But uh the Sahabah had their multiple recitations and all of them are valid as our Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam said is very explicit that do not argue over these uh verses. Our Prophet said do not argue over these recitations and the Quran was revealed in seven and uh Abbas and others would recite this verse in a different recitation and Jesus is a sign for the day of judgment. Now that recitation it is authentic from the Sahabah. However, it has not been preserved in the 10 recitations. It is not preserved in the 10 karat that are commonly recited in our times. It is however well known in the early books of so the way that we recite the verse and is and he comments on this that whoever recites this verse as it means that he is a knowledge of the closeness and proximity of the day of judgment. And whoever recites it with a fat then that means that he is an and he is a sign for the day of judgment. The point being that whether you recite or uh the meaning uh slightly changes but the concept is still the same. Either Jesus is a knowledge of the proximity of the day of judgment or Jesus is a sign of the day of judgment. So this is the majority interpretation of this verse from a whole bunch of early.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
“However, still there is an alternative interpretation and that is the interpretation of Hassan Al Basri said wa-innahu la’il’mun lilssa’ means wa-innahu the ha goes back to the Quran or goes back to the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam that the Quran is uh the knowledge of the day of judgment and it goes back to the revelation of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala and so he did not understand this verse to be uh now again Hassan Al Basri affirms the coming of Jesus. It’s just a matter of does the Quran talk about it or not. So these are the four verses in order of strength from the weakest in terms of its uh dala in terms of its evidence to the strongest. And to conclude this particular section about the verses of the Quran, the Quran suggests and indicates there is really a very strong suggestion that isa shall return. And this has been the derivation of the vast majority of Sahabah and the early commentators of the Quran that the Quran indicates the coming of. However, to be academic and pedantic, uh this is not the unanimous uh interpretation of the Quran. And again, right now we’re talking about does the Quran talk about to the coming of Jesus or not. As for other sources of the coming of Jesus, that is a separate topic. Does the Quran talk about the coming back of Jesus or not? For every one of these verses, you will find some of the early authorities, a minority opinion, uh interpreting the verse in a different manner. And therefore uh we can say that the Quran strongly suggests the Quran seems to have a very strong indication that Isa is coming. However, it is not definitive and it is not conclusive in and of itself. Just from the language of the Quran and just from the context of the Quran, we give it the presumption but not the certainty. And that’s the first evidence, the Quran.” – Shaykh Yasir Qadhi
wa-innahu la’il’mun lilssa’ wa-innahu the ha
If you would like to see other articles in regard to Shaykh Yasir Qadhi we would invite you to read the following:
“Do they then only wait for the hour that it should come on them all of a sudden? But already come some tokens thereof, and when it comes to them, how shall they have their reminder?” (Qur’an 47:18).
﷽
Dr. Shabir Ally has a channel called: “Let the Qur’an Speak.” In one particular episode he went over the verses that are often used to justify the return of Jesus -alayi salam. Dr. Shabir Ally has concluded that these verses cannot be used to justify the return of Christ Jesus.
The episode is titled: The Coming Messiah | The Quran in Dialogue with Other Faiths, ep. 29 | Dr. Shabir Ally
Below is the transcript:
“Peace be with you. Thanks for joining me for this continuing chat in which we talk about the Quran in conversation with other scriptures and religions. Today I want to look at the widespread belief that there is going to be a future savior or messiah or some personality who is going to bring about all that we expect to be right with the world and do away with injustice and so on. So why do we have such a pervasive feeling among the world’s religions? Let’s look at them one at a time and see what exactly is expected, and then we will analyze why.” -Dr. Shabir Ally.
“First of all, the Quran. In the Quran, we have some mention of apparently something that is going to happen in the future, and then people have taken this to mean that Jesus, on whom be peace, is coming back. Take Surah 4, verse 159, for example, speaking about Jesus having been raised into heaven. Now it says in verse number 159 (Shabir speaks Arabic). In the English translation: “Every one of the people of the book will definitely believe in him before his death. And on the day of judgment, Jesus will be a witness against them.” Now it is interesting that this verse is being used to justify the belief that Jesus, on whom be peace, will come again. But at the same time, there are very ancient commentators on the Quran who said that this does not mean that at all. You see, there is a question: when it says that there is none of the people of the book except that will believe in him before his death, what does the word “his” refer to? Does it refer to “his” meaning Jesus’ death, or does it refer to “his” meaning the person of the book? So if it refers to the person of the book, it means that before the person of the book dies, all of reality will be open to him or her as it is open to every one of us when we reach that moment of death. That is when the person of the book will understand correctly and believe correctly about Jesus. So those who previously rejected him, such as his Jewish opponents, will come to understand him and believe in him correctly. And the Christians, on the other hand, who had so over-glorified him will come to recognize him truly as he is, as a prophet and as a messenger of God. So on that view, it is not really talking about Jesus coming back. But if it is taken to mean that “his” is a reference to Jesus, before his death, that would mean that Jesus has not died yet, and when he comes back, before he dies, at that time every one of the persons of the book will believe in him. So you cannot take an ambiguous verse like this and make it mean something of such major import as a major figure coming back into the future and doing all of these great things. Of course, that belief is in Hadith, and one who takes the Hadith as very authentic will naturally be constrained to that belief. But we should not read that belief back into the Quranic verses without proper warrant.” -Dr. Shabir Ally.
“Another verse that is cited to refer to the second coming of Jesus is Surah 43, verse number 61. So what does it say in the Arabic? (Shabir speaks Arabic). And the English translation – here, I will read first, then we will try to analyze it: “And his second coming is truly a sign for the hour. So have no doubt about it, and follow me. This is the straight path.” Now when it says “second coming” here in the English translation, the translator has used a half square bracket to insert the word “second” and mark it off as an insertion. But even without marking that word as an insertion, even the word “coming” is not there in the Arabic. There is nothing like (Shabir speaks Arabic) in the Arabic – “his coming” – it just says (Shabir speaks Arabic), which literally means “and he is” or “it is.” Now if it is understood to mean “it is,” then that is a reference to the Quran, which has been mentioned previously within the same context. So it (the Quran) will be a sign of the hour, or as it is also read alternatively, it will contain knowledge of the hour – that the Quran itself is knowledge of the hour, or knowledge personified, something like this. Only if it refers to “he” as a human person can it possibly refer to Jesus. But does it refer to his second coming? It may be just that it is referring to him as a fact because of some miracles pertaining to him or associated with him that he will become a sign, or he is a sign of the hour. By his performing these miracles, people can take heed from that and realize that God, who made it possible for Jesus to do all of these things, is able to bring about what is called the hour. So in short, we can say that there is no verse of the Quran that clearly indicates that Jesus, on whom be peace, is coming again. And apart from that, there is no future messianic figure that is mentioned in the Quran. The closest you have to a figure is Dabbat al Ard (a creature from the earth who will speak to people) or Ya’juj and Ma’juj. They are mentioned in the 18th chapter of the Quran and also in the 21st chapter of the Quran. But there is no future messianic figure in the Quran. Why? We will try to come back and analyze that. But I want to go forward to look at scriptures of the other Abrahamic faiths.” Dr. Shabir Ally.
Prima Qur’an: Dr. Shabir Ally is someone who has been involved in interfaith dialogues, discussions and debates for 35 years. If he felt there was some solid proof for the second coming of Christ Jesus in the Qur’an he would have advanced it.
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will raise you up to Me and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shall place those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
He has been a guest at the behest of Paul Williams of Blogging Theology numerous times to discuss topics of interest in regard to Islam and Christianity.
That aside, what has intrigued us about Dr. Louay Fatoohi is that he believes that Jesus (as) has died and that he will not return. This brings him in line with the Ibadi school of Islam, as virtually no other school of Muslims shares this view.
Here is the PDF: The end of Jesus’ Life on Earth in the Qur’an. The title is interesting because it is a bit of bait. Because English can convey a meaning that seems in line with the majority position of Ahl Sunnah. As the majority of Sunni Muslims believe that Jesus (as) Earthly life came to an end (just not that his life itself) came to an end.
The readers are encouraged to show their gratitude for his academic work by subscribing to Dr. Louay’s YouTube channel, visiting his website and purchasing his many, many insightful books!
Now we are going to be very forward in saying we don’t think this particular article is one of Dr. Louay Fatoohi’s best. There is a great deal to be desired.
In some ways, if you are a traditional Sunni who holds the majority traditional views of Jesus (as) being taken up into heaven and returning again towards the end of time, you will enjoy this read….up to a point.
We say, “Up to a point,” because you are in the Jaguar with Dr. Fatoohi doing 160km on the freeway when suddenly he hits the breaks, giving you the biggest whiplash you ever had.
You read this article, and you see the footnotes, you see the scholarly quotations, you see the references from the Qur’an and the arguments that he builds. Then suddenly we get the following bold assertion from the good Doctor:
“In this paper, I have argued in favour of a combination of the majority opinion that Jesus was raised alive in heaven and the minority view that he died naturally. That Jesus died after, not before, he was raised means he died in the abode in heaven to which he was taken.”
“and the minority view that he died naturally.” No, no you didn’t, Dr. Fatoohi. Because you did not quote anyone who says: means he died in the abode in heaven to which he was taken.
No one who argues that Jesus (as) died naturally states he was whisked up to heaven alive in a body and then died in heaven. That is a far cry from any natural death. That is a bit of sleight of hand there. We must call it out for what it is.
Not only that, but indeed you did not give us a single quote from the Qur’an or the Sunnah to substantiate that Jesus died in heaven! Heaven being a place of death is news for us. We have to be quite honest in saying this.
Then there is this bit here:
“This phenomenological perspective seems to lend support to the minority view of al-Suddī (d. 127), which is favoured by al-Ṭabarī, 80 that the dialogue in 5:117 between God and Jesus happened after he was raised to heaven, rather than it will happen on the Day of Judgement.”
That makes little sense as Allah (swt) is already aware of this. It makes the knowledge of Allah (swt) redundant, and we seek refuge in Allah from this.
Yet, to make this happen on the day of judgement where it can be witnessed is more sensible. It is not for Allah (swt) to know redundant information but for those who party to the questioning.
Then we need to come back to the following verse of the Qur’an:
“Peace be upon me the day I was born, the day I die, and the day I will be raised back to life!” (Qur’an 19:33)
What is the point of being raised back to life if you have already been made to die (in heaven) and are presumably there now?
Unless the claim is that Jesus is dead in heaven and will be brought back to life (at a point in the future), what is the purpose of this?
Again, heaven being an abode of death, rather than life, is truly news to us as Muslims. It must also be news to Christians and Jews as well.
There are just too many loose ends that Dr. Fatoohi has in the article.
Dr. Fatoohi offers really no engagement at all with the hadith tradition. That now becomes someone else’s task.
“The support for the traditional view comes mainly from aḥadīth. Such narratives are found in all major ḥadīth sources, including al-Bukhārī and Muslim. This has led to the treatment of Jesus’ return as a fundamental Muslim belief and even conflating it with Islam’s articles of faith,82 accusing those who deny it of kufr. 83 The conclusion of this article implies that those aḥadīth are inauthentic. Indeed, scholars who argue that Jesus died naturally on earth claim the aḥadīth on Jesus’ return are aḥād, rather than mutawātir, so their credal status is at best doubtful.84 Consequently, Jesus’ return is not a tenet of Islam. Books of creeds also distinguish it and other beliefs from the six articles of faith.”
“The conclusion of this article implies that those aḥadīth are inauthentic.”
A conclusion that we must admit, with all candor, is based upon the filmiest ground possible i.e. he (Jesus) died in heaven!
“scholars who argue that Jesus died naturally on earth claim the aḥadīth on Jesus’ return are aḥād, rather than mutawātir.”
Those scholars which have laid charge to the ahadith, none of which have argued that Jesus (as) was brought alive bodily to heaven and then died in heaven.
This became all the more curious in light of Dr. Fatoohi’s recent article:
“Among the Prophet’s (PBUH) sayings regarding Imām ʿAlī is his address to the Muslims at Ghadir Khumm, when he asked, “Do you not know that I have more authority over every believer than they have over themselves?” They replied, “Yes, we bear witness that you have more authority over every believer than they have over themselves.” He then declared, “Then for whomever I am a guardian, this is his guardian,” and he took ʿAlī’s hand.”
“This ḥadīth has been recorded by many scholars, including Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal,[29] al-Bazzār (d. 292),[30] al-Nasāʾī (d. 303),[31] Abū Yaʿlā (d. 307),[32] and al-Ṭabarānī (d. 360).[33]Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (d. 287) reported it via eleven companions, and he also documented a ḥadīth in which thirteen unnamed collectively testified to having heard the Prophet (PBUH) utter those specific words regarding ʿAlī.[34] In other words, this ḥadīth is mutawātir.”
So we asked Dr. Fatoohi in his X post the following:
“Another question I have. Would you regard it as Mutawātir Lafẓī or Mutawātir Maʿnawī? Given that we have thirteen unnamed individuals that are claimed to have heard this particular wording?”
Why is this important? It is important because in our article here:
“These scholars suggest that the majority consensus is based on a misunderstanding of the Qur’an, which Muslims have failed to correct for fourteen centuries.” -Louay Fatoohi.
The consensus is that Jesus (as) is coming back. Dr. Fatoohi goes against this consensus.
But as regards the distinction between Mutawātir Lafẓī or Mutawātir Maʿnawī, this is important for the following reasons.
The Sunni consensus is that the hadith on the return of Jesus are Mutawātir Maʿnawī. There are many hadith from many Companions. Some say Jesus will “descend,” others say he will “come,” others focus on him “praying behind the Mahdi.” The exact words differ, but the core meaning (Jesus will physically return at the end of time) is from the Sunni persepective, mass-transmitted and undeniable.
The Sunni consensus is that over 100 Companions narrated the event of Ghadir Khum. Few report the phrase “Whoever’s master I am, Ali is his master.” Others report different wordings or focus on different parts of the sermon. However, the core meaning (the Prophet stopped the caravan at Ghadir Khum and declared Ali had the right to the spoils) is transmitted by so many chains that it is historically certain. It is not considered Lafẓī because the wordings vary, and major collections like Bukhari and Muslim did not include it in its most famous verbatim form.
Concerning Ghadir Khum Shi’i will often try to catch people unaware of this very important point.
However, back to Dr. Fatoohi’s article and his views.
“Ibn ʿĀshūr also accepts that Jesus is dead but he argues he will still return, as stated in ḥadīth. He mentions the possibility that Jesus will have a special early resurrection, rather than the later universal resurrection of all other people and will descend to earth”
He is a well-known Sunni Muslim of the Maliki school of jurisprudence and Ash’ari school of theology.
“Being faithful to aḥadīth about Jesus’ return to earth is also given as a reason for the Muslim misunderstanding of wfy contrary to its more frequently used meaning.”
“I have critiqued these claims in detail elsewhere.”
“It concludes that Jesus was raised to heaven where he continued to live, which is the majority view, but he later died naturally there and will not return to earth, in agreement with the minority view.”
Again we are not sure which scholars hold the view that Jesus (as) ascended to heaven alive and died in heaven. That cannot be described as a natural death at all.
Dr. Fatoohi suggests: “When analysing Qur’ānic terminology, the hermeneutical principle that the Qur’ān interprets itself remains the best option when the Qur’ān provides enough relevant information.”
Prima Qur’an comments: Yet Dr. Fatoohi also states: “Twenty-one occurrences of the verbal root wfy in the Qur’ān are unambiguously associated with death, but the term is also used twice in connection with sleep. This fact suggests the term has a broader meaning than just the end of a person’s life.”
So why Dr. Fatoohi wants to interpret the word in light of it’s less common usage instead of the broader usage merits pensive reflection. He is correct, and it establishes that it has a broader meaning. However, the admission is that the overwhelming majority of the time it is used, it unambiguously means death.
“In the two remaining instances, the Qur’ān uses wfy in the context of describing God’s intervention to protect Jesus from the attempt on his life, so most Muslim scholars have taken this word to mean something other than death in the case of Jesus.”
Prima Qur’an comments: What Dr. Fatoohi does not mention is that this too is influenced by the hadith and the idea that Jesus (as) is coming back. If no such aprior belief was held, then it is more than reasonable for the text to translate as death. Since Dr. Fatoohi is not holding to those traditions, it puzzles one anymore why he takes the position that he does. For the sake of having a novel view? Only Allah (swt) knows what is in one’s heart.
Dr. Fatoohi informs us: “This conclusion is informed by other arguments as well, such as the denial of the crucifixion in 4:157 and the belief in Jesus’ return.”
Dr. Fatoohi states: “The fact that most appearances of wfy are in connection with death or separation of the soul from the body is usually used to conclude there is no justification for claiming the two instances of this verb in Jesus’ story have a different meaning.51 This claim ignores the fact that wfy is also used to mean something other than death.”
Prima Qur’an comments: This is a non-argument. None of the people he quoted are ignoring anything. They are astutely aware of the range of meanings.
Dr. Louay Fatoohi is trying to build an argument off of an objection that no one raised. What he did do correctly was to identify the reasons they felt it was translated as such.
He tries to make it look as if he has an argument based upon the trilateral verb of wfy, stating that almost 2/3 of its appearances in the Qur’an are not related to death. Only to follow that with the very revealing “The only form that is connected with death is the V of the verb, which appears 24 times as tawaffa, including once with reference to Jesus, as mutawaffi, which is the second time it is used in relation to him.”
Dr. Fatoohi says: “Allah yatawaffā the anfus (souls) at the time of their mawt and those that do not die during their sleep. Then He keeps those for which He has decreed mawt and releases the others for a specified term. (39:42) Unlike in death, where wfy donates the permanent taking of the nafs (soul), in the case of sleep, it identifies the temporary taking of the soul. In death, the soul is taken for good, whereas in sleep, the soul is sent back, with wfy used in both cases. This is why Muslim exegetes have identified and distinguished between these two different types of wafat, one of death and the other of sleep.”
Dr. Fatoohi says: “In summary, tawaffī appears in the Qur’ān in the sense of claiming the soul permanently, which denotes death, or claiming it temporarily, which refers to sleep.”
Prima Qur’an comments: But what is very curious is he does not follow through on the conclusion.
If a person’s soul is claimed during sleep and returned, where does the body go? It does not go anywhere. If a person’s soul is claimed during sleep and is not returned to the body, where does the body go? It does not go anywhere.
Keep this very important point in mind when moving forward.
Qur’an 39:42 -manāmihā we have the word for their sleep.
Note Dr. Fatoohi’s translation of Qur’an 6:61 above.
” He sends over you guardians until when mawt comes to one of you, Our messengers tawaffathu, and they do not fail [in their duties].”
The question has to be asked. If they (the messengers, presumably angels) take the soul, what happens to the body? Does it go some place?
On what basis does Dr. Fatoohi make the following claim:
“These multiple Qur’ānic assertations are mainly behind the view of most Muslim scholars that wfy does not mean “cause to die” in the case of Jesus, although aḥadīth about his return are also cited.”
Prima Qur’an comments: How does he know that is the reason why most Muslim scholars believe that wfy does not mean to die? Did we get a list or a chart or even a citation? We did not see any.
The sleepers of the cave.
In the Qur’an 18:9-26 we have the revelation concerning the sleepers of the cave. There is nothing there that indicates that the bodies went any place.
Uzair and the doneky.
Or the one who passed by a city which was in ruins. He wondered, “How could Allah bring this back to life after its destruction?” So Allah caused him to die for a hundred years then brought him back to life. Allah asked, “How long have you remained?” He replied, “Perhaps a day or part of a day.” Allah said, “No! You have remained here for a hundred years! Just look at your food and drink—they have not spoiled. look at your donkey! And ˹so˺ We have made you into a sign for humanity. And look at the bones, how We bring them together then clothe them with flesh!”1 When this was made clear to him, he declared, I know that Allah is Most Capable of everything.” (Qur’an 2:259)
This can not be understood as an ascension. The bodies decomposed and were resurrected.
Dr. Louay Fatoohi then turns his attention to the ascension of Christ Jesus.
“First, all seven verses that use rfʿ in the sense of raising a person in status, not spatially, include a word that makes this meaning abundantly clear. Six (2:253, 6:83, 6:165, 12:76, 43:32 and 58:11) of these verses use the plural word darajāt (ranks). The other verse (7:176) uses āyāt (signs) as the way God would have raised someone in status.”
Prima Qur’an comments: So Dr. Fatoohi informs us that Jesus is a special case and that raising is only used of a person in terms of rank, darajāt (degrees) or the other word that is used is āyāt (signs).
However, this assertion falls apart rather quickly upon further investigation.
“and elevated (wa rafaʿnā)your renown for you?” (Qur’an 94:4) There is no mention of either āyāt or darajāt.
Secondly, the most glaring example is the case of Idris (as) Dr. Fatoohi was too dismissive of the case of Idris.
“And mention in the Book, Idris. Indeed, he was a man of truth and a prophet. And We (warafa’nahu) raised him to a high station. ” (Qur’an 19:56-57)
makānan ‘aliyyan (a high station/place). Not even Jesus (as) has been given this honour. It is the only place in the Qura’n where this is mentioned.
Dr.Fatoohi states: “Also, the makān (place) to which Idrīs was taken is described as ʿaliyyā (high). Each of the three other occurrences of the word makān in the same Qur’ānic chapter of the Idrīs verse also denotes a physical location.”
While that may be true, this is the one place in the Qur’an where makanan ‘aliyyan is used.
Dr. Fatoohi bodly states:
“Expectedly, no attempt has been made by proponents of the metaphorical interpretation to explain what that supposed exaltation of Jesus by God means, as there is no mention of it in the Qur’ān.”
Well, actually there is. In the very first example that he gave to prove his analysis actually goes against him.
Dr. Fatoohi says:
“First, all seven verses that use rfʿ in the sense of raising a person in status, not spatially, include a word that makes this meaning abundantly clear. Six (2:253….)
So what does 2:253 state?
“Those messengers – some of them We caused to exceed others. Among them were those to whom Allah spoke, and He raised some of them in degree. And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit. If Allah had willed, those [generations] succeeding them would not have fought each other after the clear proofs had come to them. But they differed, and some of them believed and some of them disbelieved. And if Allah had willed, they would not have fought each other, but Allah does what He intends.” (Qur’an 2:253)
So in the very text that Dr. Fatoohi uses to prove that rf’ does not mean spatially but in status none other than Jesus (as) is the first prophet mentioned by name that follows the text!
Recall Dr. Fatoohi’s own words: “When analysing Qur’ānic terminology, the hermeneutical principle that the Qur’ān interprets itself remains the best option when the Qur’ān provides enough relevant information.”
Thus,
Qur’an 4:159 makes perfect sense of raising Jesus (as) in honour, given that an impailed person is, in the eyes of Rabbinical law, cursed.
Also, Allah has already declared that Jesus (as) would be an ayat unto men.
“He said, “Thus [it will be]; your Lord says, ‘It is easy for Me, and We will make him a sign āyāt to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter [already] decreed.’ “
Dr. Fatoohi’s conclusion was thus:
“The traditional, majority view is that Jesus was raised to heaven alive, continues to live there and will descend to earth close to the end-time. A minority view that developed in the last one and a half centuries argues that Jesus died naturally on earth, so he was not raised alive to heaven and will not come back. In this paper, I have argued in favour of a combination of the majority opinion that Jesus was raised alive to heaven and the minority view that he died naturally.”
Now we admire Dr. Fatoohi. We take him to be a serious researcher. However, we were not amused with the line:
“I have argued in favour of a combination of the majority opinion that Jesus was raised alive to heaven and the minority view that he died naturally.”
First. There is no natural scenario where a person is put to sleep, raised bodily to heaven and then dies. Not one! That is supranatural and not natural. Second. There is no minority view that states that Jesus (as) was put to sleep ,raised bodily to heaven and then died.
Dr. Fatoohi states:
“The traditional, majority view is that Jesus was raised to heaven alive, continues to live there and will descend to earth close to the end-time.”
Prima Qur’an what is the traditional view?
Jesus was raised alive in heaven.
Continues to live there.
Will descend at the end of times.
Dr. Fatoohi believes in which of these three? He believes in point 1.
What else can Dr. Fatoohi tell us about points 1–3 above?
“The support for the traditional view comes mainly from aḥadīth.”
Conclusion and Summary.
Fatoohi does not cite any scholar—classical or modern—who explicitly argues that Jesus died in heaven after being raised alive. The minority view he references (e.g., Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Muhammed Abduh, Rashid Rida) holds that Jesus died a natural death on earth, not in heaven. By combining the majority’s “raised alive to heaven” with the minority’s “died naturally,” Dr. Fatoohi creates a hybrid position that lacks clear precedent. This does not make it wrong, but it does mean he is not simply synthesizing existing views—he is proposing something new. His failure to acknowledge this novelty weakens his claim.
Heaven is not described in the Qur’an or Sunnah as a place where death occurs. If Jesus died in heaven, that would imply death exists in the afterlife realm, which contradicts the understanding of Jannah as dār al-ḥayawān (abode of life). Dr.Fatoohi does not address this tension. His reliance on Qur’an 39:42 (sleep vs. death) does not resolve it, because that verse concerns earth, not heaven.
The Hermeneutical Principle – Qur’ān Interprets Itself. Dr. Fatoohi appeals to the principle that the Qur’ān interprets itself. We counter that he then prioritizes the less common meaning of tawaffā (sleep/temporary taking) over the overwhelmingly common meaning (death).
Dr. Fatoohi admits that 20 of 23 occurrences of tawaffā in form V refer to death. Only two refer to sleep, and one refers to Jesus. To then argue that Jesus’ case follows the rare meaning requires external justification (e.g., the denial of crucifixion, the belief in his return). But Dr. Fatoohi claims to be setting aside ḥadīth. Without ḥadīth, why prefer the rare meaning? His argument becomes circular: he assumes Jesus was raised alive (from 4:158) and then reads tawaffā accordingly. That is not the Qur’ān interpreting itself; it is interpretation driven by a prior conclusion.
The Case of Idrīs and Qur’an 94:4. We point out that Dr. Fatoohi’s claim about raf‘ always requiring darajāt or āyāt for non-spatial raising is false, citing Qur’an 94:4 (“We raised your renown”) and the case of Idrīs.
Qur’an 94:4 uses rafa‘nā without any qualifier, and it clearly means elevation in status, not physical ascent. Dr. Fatoohi overstates his case when he says “no attempt has been made by proponents of is claimed to be the ‘metaphorical‘ interpretation” – we have now made that attempt, citing Qur’an 2:253 and Qur’an 94:4.
Qur’an 19:33 – “The day I will be raised back to life” We ask: If Jesus died in heaven, what is the point of a future resurrection? This is a serious problem for Dr. Fatoohi’s view. Qur’an 19:33 lists three events: birth, death, and resurrection. If Jesus already died and is in heaven, then his “death” refers to that heavenly death. But then “raised back to life” would refer to a second resurrection after that death. That would mean Jesus dies twice (once on earth? no – he didn’t die on earth in Dr. Fatoohi’s view; once in heaven) and is resurrected twice. The Qur’ān nowhere suggests such a sequence. The natural reading of Qur’an 19:33 is that death occurs on earth, followed by resurrection on Judgement Day. Dr.Fatoohi does not address this.
Nonetheless we are happy that another independent researcher, and a representative of the ʿAliyya Qādiriyya Kasnazāniyya tariqa no less, has confirmed that Jesus (as) is dead and he will not return to Earth.
“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 impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
These are some of our thoughts after an attentive listen of all 3 hours 36 minutes and 33 seconds on the Blogging Theology video entitled: ‘Jesus was not crucified: the evidence with Dr. Ali Ataie.’
You may see this here:
Paul Williams and Blogging Theology are still our number one favourite youtube channel.W
e also feel (for our interest) the most relevant in the English language.
Our thoughts are that Dr. Ali Ataie is almost there. The stand out from this, the absolutely commendable point is that Dr. Ataie is challenging what is considered to be a historical ‘fact,’ namely that Jesus of Nazareth was Crucified to death by the Roman Imperium.
That in and of itself is refreshing. We have been saying this for years. After looking at the so called “evidence” both biblical and extra biblical we haven’t found it convincing at all.
As we have pointed out in a previous article here: how does anyone read Qur’an 4:157 and walk away with the understanding that it is talking about Romans, Crucifixion or Cross at all?
Dr. Ataie has a good opening preface that when it comes to issues like resurrection, and other miracles those are simply things that history cannot attest to. There could be a natural and supra natural explanation. Miracles are not considered by modern historians when looking at the past. That being said miracles are not unhistorical it’s just that being in the realm of the supranatural historians do not consider it.
This is a very fair and reasonable point raised by Dr. Ataie.
Again another reason why Muslims should not be too excitable over claims by historians and /or orientalist. At the heart of research are simply different epistemology.
Paul Of Tarsus conversion story for example, is non historical.
“I trust Allah and his Messenger.”-Dr. Ataie
We can only say that: “Ditto.”
@17:55 “If that man said that Jesus wasn’t crucified then I believe him. And I don’t care what Bart Ehrman…..”-Dr. Ataie
Prima Qur’an comments: You see dear reader for some reason Dr.Ataie, Dr. Shabir Ally, Dr. Fatoohi, all think the Qur’an is engaging with something called “crucifixion”
The Qur’an is neither affirming nor denying any crucifixion. The Qur’an is interacting with claims made by Jews about Jesus (as).
As regard to an event that is commonly called ‘The Crucifixion’ the Qur’an is simply indifferent. It simpy neither denies nor affirms it.
@19:34 Why in the world did he (Muhammed) deny the crucifixion of Jesus? -Dr. Ataie
Prima Qur’an comments: Again we have read the same Qur’an Dr. Ataie is reading and we simply do not see crucifixion any where in the Qur’an at all.
“The historical case for the crucifixion is not nearly as strong as what we have been lead to believe.” -Dr. Ataie.
@22:36 “It is axiomatic for Westerns that it has happened.”
@24:09 Dr. Ataie goes into the various theories Muslims have in regards to the “crucifixion” of Jesus.
Dr. Ataie is closet to the truth out of them all (Has he been reading Prima-Qur’an?).
@30:17 Dr. Ali Ataie comments that “Crucified victims were left on their crosses long after they expired.”
Dr. Ali Ataie still struggles with Divine Rapture Theory. As he does not find it to be in agreement with the Qur’an and/or historically plausible.
@32:26 Dr. Ali Ataie addresses the issue of Supranatural identity transference. @32:50 Dr. Ali says that most Muslim exegetes go with this idea that “Jesus was no where near a cross.”
A common trope that we hear from some atheist is that secular historians are objective, unbiased and inductive.
Dr. Ataie does an excellent job of going into an analysis of this. How historians have come up with different perspectives and have contradicted each other and how they may not be as objective or unbiased or even as inductive as they may lead themselves to believe.
Dr. Ataie, We owe you lunch! Well said. May Allah (swt) elevate him.
@40:28 Dr. Ataie states: “But I do believe that myth and legend has probably soo permeated the gospel accounts of Jesus passion narratives that it is not at all beyond reason to dismiss them completely as historical fiction!”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Allahu Akbar! There you go Dr. Ataie now that is the ticket! Than the idea that someone was “crucified” is likely based upon what? Myth and legend.
Dr. Ataie gets into his understanding of: Qur’an 4:157 “It was made to appear to them so.“
@53:38 “They did not have information. It did not come from a reliable source.” @54:11 “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some crucifixion event from non eye-witnesses….”
Prima-Qur’an comments: This is exactly what shubbiha lahum means. It is not shubi ha alayhim!
In fact because we love you the readers insh’Allah we will give you a sneak peak at one of the slides that Shaykh Hilal and those of us at Prima Qur’an have been working on.
Disagreements.
They are in doubt.
They have no knowledge about it.
They are following dhan (assumption or conjecture).
These are not things that we would describe eye witnesses to an event with.
@54:25 “When you say it was made to appear to them that it was so who is the implied actor there? Who made it appear to them it was so. Is this referencing God or some other-who is applied in that if you see what I mean?” -Paul Williams.
Prima Qur’an comments: Brother Paul asked a very great question. Very insightful. This is what was answered above. The whole event in which by the way is Allah (swt) addressing Jews and claims made by Jews is that they killed Jesus and impailed him.
This is based upon Jewish claims that were in orally in circulation in the time of the Prophet (saw).
There is absolutely nothing in Qur’an 4:157 about Romans, or about a cross or about a crucifixion which we will come to Insh’Allah
@1:00:53 “Is there any material evidence of any Jew who was ever crucified by the Romans in ancient Palestine? Apparently tens of thousands of Jews were crucified and all archeologist have ever found was a single heel bone of a man with a nail driven through it, they call him Yohanan. I don’t know how they know his name but that’s what they call him.” -Dr. Ataie.
@1:12:24 “Paul was the first one in recorded history to claim that Jesus was crucified.”- Dr. Ataie.
Prima-Qur’an comments: This is a genius point not because its clever but because it’s true and it is overlooked by way too many.
Paul lays down his theology in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
In fact, Allah-willing we will go ahead and lay out the systematic destruction of this group of text
“If the foundation is destroyed what shall the righteous do?” (Psalms 11:3)
Question: Just how important is the theology in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8?
Answer:
“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins.” (1st Corinthians 15: 12-14, and 17)
Prima Qur’an Comment: Two major points need to be deduced from the above proof text.
1) If Christ Jesus did not raise from the dead, Christianity is a fruitless endeavor in every respect. Muslims do not say that, the Bible says it.
2) If Christ Jesus is not raised from the dead, Christians are still in their sins; and the whole of Christian theology is fruitless. Muslims do not say that, the Bible does.
Note: (Paul does not try and prove his case on an emptied tomb.)
“For I determine not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1st Corinthians 2:2)
Note: Paul is not interested in the historical Christ.
In fact Paul never met the historical Jesus in his lifetime! He only claims to have met Jesus in a vision in Acts 9 , 22 and 26 and each and everyone of those text if juxtaposed contradict and conflict with one another.
“If the foundation is destroyed what shall the righteous do?” (Psalms 11:3)
How sound is that first account of the crucifixion that Paul is relating to us and the whole of Christian theology is hinging on?
How sound is it? Is the foundation solid?
Analyzing the foundation of Christian theology.
(1 Corinthians 15:3-8) <<< The Foundation of Christianity is built upon this text.
“For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures.” (1st Corinthians 15:3)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
Paul is referring to the Hebrew Scriptures because there were no New Testament writings at that time. However the fault in this text is that there is no place in the Hebrew scriptures that says a Messiah will die for our sins! Nowhere from Genesis to Malachi! There are allegories about other things.
“And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures.” (1st Corinthians 15:4)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
Again, nowhere in the Hebrew scriptures from Genesis to Malachi does it say that a Messiah will rise from the dead on the third day!
“For as yet they knew not the scripture that he must rise again from the dead.” (John 20:9)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
Even Jesus disciples did not know any scriptures about a Messiah rising from the dead.
There is a major contradiction in this narrative as well.
A Contradiction
“And although THEY found no cause of death in him, yet desired THEY Pilate that he should be slain. And when THEY had fulfilled all that was written of him THEY took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.” (Acts 13:28-29)
Note: (They the Jews who desired his death put him in the tomb, which is contradicted point blank by the Gospel of Mark.)
“And HE brought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulcher which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulcher.” (Mark 15:46)
Note: (Joseph himself put Jesus in the tomb not the Jews who desired his death as in Acts.)
Also, if they fulfilled all that was written of him there would be no “rose again the third day according to the scriptures.”
“And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve.” (Ist Corinthians 15:5)
PrimaQur’an Comment:
There the Greek word for seen is Opthe, and is used for spiritual seeing as in a vision. No where in the Bible does it say Peter had an independent sighting of Jesus n this order that Paul is giving?
Question: What does ‘opthe’ mean?
Answer: spiritual seeing a vision
Also “ appearing to the twelve” is wrong because Judas committed suicide. To say that twelve is just a terminology is not true! Jesus called them the 12 apostles and when Judas died the terminology changes to 11 until the election of Mathias in Acts 6:2!
Catholics, however, got it right. The Douay-Rheims which was diligently compared with the original Greek’ text they say 11! So Somebody’s Greek text is wrong!
Source: (The Douay-Rheims New Testament (published by Tan Books and Publishers, INC. P.O. box424 Rockford, Illinois 61105)
“After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto the present, but some are fallen asleep.” (1st Corinthians 15:6)
This is contradicted by the following text.
“This man God raised on the third day and granted that he be visible, not to all the people, but to us, the witnesses chosen by God in advance, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.” (Acts 10:40-41)
From Emmaus to Jerusalem Paul wedges in 500 people who he says saw Jesus, and then Jesus ascends up into heaven that day.
“And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.” (Luke 24:51)
This is in contrast to the following
“Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:2-3)
The “Third Coming of Jesus”?
So if Jesus really did go up into heaven after he was raised again and then ‘beamed’ back down to hang around for 40 more days only to ‘beam’ back up this would mean that Christians are awaiting the 3rd coming of Jesus, and that just doesn’t sound too illustrious.
“After that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.” (1st Corinthians 15:7)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
No where in the Bible does it say James had an independent sighting of Jesus in this order Paul is projecting. The Epistle of James has no account of a risen lord. What an encounter to leave out!
Again when all the apostles are mentioned are there 11 or 12? Which Greek text?
“And, last of all, he was seen of me also, as one born out of due time.” (1st Corinthians 15:8)
Prima Qur’an Comment:
Finally, Paul insert himself in the picture!
Note: Paul has been using that same word seen in Greek (OPTHE) all the way through to apply to all the apostles. Paul did not have a physical encounter with Jesus.
Paul also believes that the disciples did not have a physical encounter with Jesus as he uses the Greek word Opthe-seen all the way through 1 Corinthians 15:3-8.
Paul’s First account is thus discredited and the ‘foundation has been destroyed’.
We can stop right here and disregard everything else since the source of this crucifixion business is found to be incredible. However, we will pursue this in hopes that some people who did not grasp the argumentation above will find other evidence, Insha’Allah, conclusive.
Our apologies dear reader for the detour; we will continue with Dr. Ataie’s presentation.
Dr. Ataie continues also building his case upon what Paul has presented.
Namely that Paul says:
“I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11)
The isnaad-the chain of transmission of the Christian account of the crucifixion it begins with Paul.
@1:30:34 Dr. Ataie is quoting a statement of Bart Ehrman which is “Who would make up a crucified Messiah?”
Dr. Ali Ataie makes some good points butwe are not sold on the idea of the Jews expecting a Crucified Messiah. We do believe that the gospels are literary fiction to create a counter-Jesus narrative.
Also, important to note that the Qur’an no where states that no one killed Jesus. There is however, a specific text addressed to a group of Jews who claimed to have either killed or impailed Jesus.
Allow us to share with you a very interesting text from the Qur’an.
The Injil or Gospel is mentioned 12 times in 12 verses of the Qur’an. In one of those verses we have the following:
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.” [Qur’an 9:111]
Qur’an Comment: Out of all the teachings that Allah could inform us about concerning what Jesus taught in the Injil, why did Allah mention the teaching concerning martyrdom? Why would Jesus teach about ‘killing and being killed’ if he was simply a pacifist?
@1:34:38 “The Qur’an says there was ikhtilaaf among the Christians?” -Dr. Ataie
Prima-Qur’an comment: Wait what??!
Can Dr. Ataie show us in the Qur’an 4:157 where there is mention of Christians? There is no mention of Christians. Allah (swt) is clearly addressing claims made by some Jews.
Dr. Ataie please be more careful in your handling of the text!
Dr. Ataie makes an interesting point that Q: The Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection narratives.
Dr. Ataie twice during the presentation used language of obfuscation.
@2:04:09 “impailed on the cross” -Dr. Ataie
Prima-Qur’an comment: crucifixion and Impailment are suspension punishments but they are not the same thing. It is possible that Prima Qur’an is gaininig traction and that some people want to use language that obfuscates the issue.
A) Impailment is a punishment where a pike/spike or other sharpened object is shoved through the loins/lubmus region of the body. The spine is used to hoist the individual. Depending upon the technique used it is designed to be a quick death struggle after. After the hapless victim cannot use their feet or hands to keep the impale device from reaching vital organs due to exhaustion. The impale device pierces vital organs and the victim dies an excruciating death.
B) Crucifixion is a punishment where an individual is put on a patibulum which is than affixed to a crux (a pole or beam). There is no nothing driven through the spine and the spinal column is relatively left intact. This suspension punishment focuses on putting nails through the hands and feet and meant to be a prolonged death struggle. Death is usually from asphyxiations. No vital organs are pierced. In fact people could survive being crucified for days. Hence, Christians make a huge ordeal about Jesus being scourged before Crucifixion.
@2:39:11 Dr. Ataie is quoting the Sefer Toledoth Yeshu, the Aramaic version and yet quotes the following to us in English:
“The Rabbi says Jesus was executed for sorcery by stoning and then crucified his body was than removed from the cross and dragged through the streets.” -Dr. Ataie
Prima-Qur’an comment: We are very curious to know the source that Dr. Ataie is quoting from.We are very doubtful that the Aramaic words are cross and crucify just as we know that the Qur’an 4:157 does not say crucify or cross.
In fact, Jews do not crucify anyone either. But they do impail!
The Sefer Toledoth Yeshu (The Book of the History of Jesus)
You could read other versions that would describe how the Romans convicted him; how he died a charlatan’s death (hanging not even on a tree, but on a cabbage stalk); and suffered a criminal’s burial.
@2:49:21 Dr. Ali Ataie gives his version of events that he thinks happens.
Prima-Qur’an comments: Dr. Alie believes that Jesus Barabbas is crucified instead of Jesus by the Romans. A different take to the substitution theory with the key differences being that no miracles happened and no one was made to look like Jesus. Jesus miraculously ascended into heaven where it is presumed here is there even until this day.
@2:58:44 “wa lakun shuba lahum” Was made to appear to them so by the evangelist it was precisely their passion narratives that made people to think that Jesus was crucified.
“For we did not follow cleverly contrived myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ; we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16)
@3:23:50 “Perhaps what Paul meant is that the Jews killed him by Crucifixion but historically and legally how would the Jews have executed Jesus? If he was found guilty of blasphemy or sorcery which is actually what the Toledoth Yeshu and Qur’an suggest the charges were. “This is evidence sorcery.” If that’s the case they would have stoned him and than crucified his body post mortem.” and thus the Qur’an says wama qataluhu wama salabuhu nor crucify him post mortem.”
Prima-Qur’an comments: Oh Dr. Ataie so close so close. If Dr. Ataie would have simply consulted Jewish legal works he would have found the answer to his question. A very good question btw.
“but historically and legally how would the Jews have executed Jesus?”
Once you figure that out Dr. Ataie welcome to the Ibadi position on Qur’an 4:157. Welcome home!
It is not crucifixion it is impalement.
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 impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
Notice that the context Qur’an 4:157 is speaking about Jews. There is no mention of Romans in the text. You may start at Qur’an 4:154 for context.
There is a double denial. They did not kill him nor did they (ṣalabūhu) him.
Why the seemingly redundant text? Is it not sufficient to say “And they did not kill him?” Surely that covers everything?
Why would Allah (swt) deny that Jews “Crucified” Jesus? Especially if Allah (swt) is aware of Jewish laws?
Jews do not crucify anyone nor do they put people on crosses.
Jews do however impale people. So translating (ṣalabūhu) as impale makes complete sense.
The phrase “but it was made to appear to them” does not indicate that this was something Allah (swt) did.
Now what happens is for some reason Muslims look at Qur’an 4:157 and they see Romans! The whole context of the text is that Allah (swt) is talking about Jews.
If Allah (swt) wanted to say Romans he certainly he could have. Yet, Qur’an 4:157 mentions nothing about the Romans.
“The Romans have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:20)
So where than do Muslims gets Romans or Crucifixion or Cross in Qur’an 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 impale (ṣalabūhu) him; (وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلَٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)but it was made to appear to them so. Those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no certain knowledge of it, but only follow conjecture. For certainly, they did not kill him.” (Qur’an 4:157)
﷽
In today’s entry on Prima-Qur’an we will be going through this paper by Dr. Louay Fatoohi and sharing some thoughts on what he has written.
So now to the topic at hand: The Non-Crucifixion Verse: A Historical, Contextual, and Linguistic Analysis by Louay Fatoohi.
We read from his article:
“In the Qur’an, though, there is little interest in how and when false beliefs appeared, what their historical development was, or whether they were traceable to oral or written tradition. When certain beliefs are rejected in the Qur’an, this comes in the form of asserting that these were not communicated by God through prophets but distortions of the revelations and/or total fabrications by people.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: We would agree that the Qur’an is not “speaking to the wall.” It is certainly addressing claims. In this case, we would both agree with claims made by Jews.
“It sounds unrealistic and farfetched to think that if an average Jew at the time was asked why they thought that the Christian Messiah was false, they would have pointed to one of those few passages in a polemical book that they probably had never read any part of!” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: Again we agree. Though it seems rather obvious that the Qur’an 4:157 at least addresses some claims made by some Jews as to a possibility of why they would reject Jesus as the Messiah.
“Also, if 4:157 is to be linked to the known claim that the Jews killed Jesus, then the logical source of choice should be the Gospel narratives, not a passing and vague reference in the Talmud.”-Dr. Louay Fatoohi.
Prima Qur’an: Yeah, so at this point we are glad that Dr. Fatoohi has made his statement conditional. “If 4:157 is to be linked.” Because it begs the question: Why would the Gospel be a logical source of evidence for Jews? Dr. Fatoohi doesn’t quite flesh that out for us.
“Had the Qur’an engaged with the Talmud, it would have probably attacked it and accused the Jews of creating a book that was not revealed by God.” -Louay Fatoohi
Prima Qur’an: Much like the hadith, it is considered a second source of revelation for Muslims. Perhaps Dr. Fatoohi had not considered that the Talmud acts in much the same way. The Rabbis believe their teachings go back in direct transmission to an oral Torah received by Moses (as).
There is also this verse where Allah (swt) could have plainly stated the word Torah. The Torah is never used in a disparaging way in the Qur’an.
“How terrible it is to those who write the Book with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” to sell it for a little money. How terrible it is for them for what their hands have written, and how terrible for them what they have earned.” And they say, “The fire will most certainly not touch us for more than a limited number of days.” Say [unto them]: “Have you received a promise from Allah- for Allah never breaks His promise – or do you attribute to Allah something which you cannot know?” (Qur’an 2:79-80)
Prima Qur’an:We want to re-emphasize that we are in complete agreement with Dr. Fatoohi’s statement here:
“In the Qur’an, though, there is little interest in how and when false beliefs appeared, what their historical development was, or whether they were traceable to oral or written tradition. When certain beliefs are rejected in the Qur’an, this comes in the form of asserting that these were not communicated by God through prophets but distortions of the revelations and/or total fabrications by people.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima Qur’an: So coming to the verse in question under the section titled: The Non-Crucifixion Verse in Focus, Dr. Louay Fatoohi states:
“In this section, I aim to show that both the language and context of 4:157 repeatedly and unambiguously indicate that this verse can only be a denial of both the killing and the crucifixion of Jesus. This is what underpins the consensus of Muslim exegetes in their understanding of this verse. Conversely, rejecting this ubiquitous interpretation is driven by a priori views and convictions, which I have already quickly reviewed, that are extraneous to the Qur’anic text.” – Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an:We are going to strongly suggest that this is what Dr. Louay Fatoohi and early Muslim exegetes did. In fact, quoting Dr. Louay Fatoohi:
“In his historical tome Tārīkh al-umam wal-mulūk, al-Ṭabarī quotes Wahb Ibn Munabbih (d. 114/732) on the crucifixion. The latter is known for introducing Jewish and Christian narratives into Islamic tradition.” – Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Dr. Louay Fatoohi then beautifully demonstrates that the Qur’an 4:157 when taken into context is addressed to Jews.
“More specifically, we will focus on the four verses leading to 4:157 and the verse that follows it, as they provide immediate contextual information that is useful for avoiding any misunderstanding of 4:157. We will start with verse 4:153 as it commences a new context in which the Jews, and later Jesus, are the main subject.”-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: So this is where our frustration with Dr. Fatoohi and the popular view on these verses comes in. Again, no blame on Dr Fatoohi because he seems to be following those early Muslim commentators who tried to fill in the void by relying upon extraneous material.
Point 1. When reading the verses in context. Where is there any mention of Romans?
Allah (swt) is not unfamiliar with the Romans.
“The Romans (l-rūmu) have been defeated.” (Qur’an 30:2)
There is no text in the Qur’an that connects Romans (l-rumu) with an act known as salabu.
Point 2. There is no text in the Qur’an that connects Christians (nasara) with an act known as (ṣalabū)
Point 3. Because Allah (swt) is addressing Jews, salabu cannot be a reference to a cross or a crucifixion! Why? Because Jews simply do not crucify people. Dr. Louay Fatoohi, or anyone under the sun, has given us a shred of evidence that they do!
How could we explain this away if we were a Muslim apologist? Aha! This particular group of Jews were already rebellious, so they crucified him in violation of their laws! Then we thought about it some more and said that doesn’t make any sense.
Think about it. Allah (swt) is addressing claims made by Jews against Jesus (as). Among their boast is a claim tantamount to saying: “We did something to Jesus that is not prescribed by Jewish law!”
It is among the most bizarre claims we have ever come across.
In fact, as Dr. Fatoohi quoted John of Damascus, who rightly critiques this view.
“A much more detailed early Christian account of the Muslim belief about the crucifixion comes from the monk John of Damascus, around a century after Muḥammed’s time. Having accused the Prophet of authoring the Qur’an by plagiarizing the Old and New Testaments with help from an unnamed Arian monk, he goes on to say the following: And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the Law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven.” -Louay Fatoohi
Dear readers, this error is so serious that this one issue would be enough to make anyone reconsider their Islam! How could Allah (swt) not be aware of Jewish methods of execution?!
We have two options.
1. Imputing ignorance to Allah (swt) concerning Jewish methods of execution.
2. Muslim exegets being mistaken by relying upon extraneous material and imposing meaning upon the plain text of the Qur’an.
It is clear that the first option is not an option for the believing Muslim. Besides, is there any proof that these early Muslim exegetes were well versed in the laws of the Jews?
Ironically, the verse that Dr. Fatoohi calls ‘The Non-Crucifixion Verse’ actually is a crucifixion verse, not just the crucifixion of Jesus.
Point 4. Dr. Fatoohi seems comfortable to translate (ṣalabū) as crucifixion!
Though Dr. Fatoohi has stated:
“Finally, I should add a note about the Arabic word root ṣ-l-b, which is ubiquitously translated as “crucify.” This word appears in the Qur’an in a verbal form six times (al-Nisāʾ 4:157; al-Maʾida 5:33; al-Aʿrāf 7:124; Yūsuf 12:41; Ṭāhā 20:71; al-Shuʿarāʾ 26:49). In one instance, Pharaoh makes this threat to the magicians who accepted Moses’ claim to being God’s messenger.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: This is frustrating because usually wefind Dr. Fatoohi to be circumspect but he did the exact same thing that Todd Lawson did. Which is to ignore an analysis of the use of the word with the text of the Qur’an. Dr. Fatoohi also left out that this root word s-l-b is used twice as a noun form. Something Lawson at least did not leave out. Such a crucial word is treated by Professor Todd Lawson and Dr. Fatoohi as nothing more than an afterthought.
““It occurs in the Qur’an eight times (4:157; 12:41; 7:124; 20:71; 26:49; 5:33; 86:7;4:23). Six of these are as a verb with the accepted meaning of ‘to crucify’. The others are as a noun meaning ‘back’ or ‘loins’ (86:7; 4:23). ”
Source: (pg 31 The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought)
“This use may indicate that ṣ-l-b means some kind of execution by suspension.“-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: Dr. Fatoohi goes into a discussion about some debate over the form of Jesus’ crucifixion.
“There is some debate about how Jesus was crucified, whether he was nailed to a cross, and what shape it had, or was suspended until he died.”-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: Actually, this need not be a mystery for us at all. As Dr. Fatoohi has pointed out in the text of Qur’an 4:153-157 the whole focus is on the Jews. So why the curious fixation with the Romans?
Let us see what Jewish sources of punishment there are:
Notice that in the above text the culprit is killed first, and then they are impaled on a stake.
Notice that when Dr. Fatoohi dismisses the swoon theory, he states:
“Any claim that Jesus suffered a non-fatal crucifixion is also dismissed. The verse unambiguously states that Jesus was not killed or even non-fatally crucified.” -Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: There is a double denial. They did not kill him nor did they (ṣalabūhu) him. Which means he was not even impaled. (If we are being consistent). They didn’t kill him (which covers every type of death under the sun) nor did they impale him—which would be a post-mortem suspension. Seems quite consistent with what we are seeing from Jewish law.
Or as Dr. Fatoohi states: “not crucified” if we have some strange fixation on the Romans.
So, since Dr. Fatoohi believes the Qur’an is denying that Jesus was even on the cross, then it would be worth asking Dr. Fatoohi. The following: “Do you believe whoever was “crucified” was this crucifixion post-mortem (occurring after death) or an ante mortem (occurring before death)?
After all, Dr. Fatoohi does not seem certain when he says:
“This use may indicate that ṣ-l-b means some kind of execution by suspension.”-Louay Fatoohi.
Prima-Qur’an: This would seem to argue that he is on board with the idea of ante mortem crucifixion. However, I am in agreement with Dr. Fatoohi when he states:
“I would argue that such disregard for the basics of Arabic would make the Qur’an unintelligible.” -Louay Fatoohi.
Prima Qur’an: However, such obfuscation is wholly unnecessary, if we allow the context of the Qur’an to speak, and it is clear that Jews practice post-mortem suspension.
“By the time of the Qur’an, the classical interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus using a T-shaped cross or a variation of it was already long-established. So, the crucifixion that is rejected in 4:157 seems to be the commonly accepted image of the execution of Jesus.”-Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: commonly accepted image according to whom? Since Jews are being addressed, why not reference what (salabu) would look like to them? Again, why the fixation with the Romans and the Christians when there has already been an admission that the immediate text and the context is a response to Jews?
Remember the fixation with Christian beliefs in the Qur’an, according to Dr. Fatoohi, is:
“The human nature of Jesus is repeatedly stressed in the Qur’an and his divinity is rejected in unambiguous terms.”-Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Agreed! Obviously, there is a different agenda when dealing with Christian objections to Islam. If becoming a Muslim meant that a Jew had to accept Jesus as Messiah, then Allah (swt) would have a different agenda when dealing with their objections.
“But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:23)
“These scholars suggest that the majority consensus is based on a misunderstanding of the Qur’an, which Muslims have failed to correct for fourteen centuries.” -Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Well, actually, these 1400 years of scholarship is really based upon copy and paste now, isn’t it? To pretend that every Muslim exegete independently researched every single verse of the Qur’an is just simply presumptuous. What we have is a majoritarian belief based upon individuals incorporating extraneous material from oral traditions without connected chains of narrations going back to the source that contain conflicting accounts.
We are also surprised by Dr. Louay’s appeal to the consensus of scholars when he himself does not believe in the return of Christ Jesus. This is certainly the position of the consensus of scholars. So we can take Dr. Louay’s appeal to consensus as not being serious.
We mean on what consistent basis does Dr. Louay Fatoohi dismiss the second coming of Jesus (as) which is mentioned in quite a number of hadith that do have connected chains and yet expect that we should not dismiss outright beliefs based upon individuals incorporating extraneous material from oral traditions without connected chains of narrations going back to the source that contain conflicting accounts?
None of what has been shared is from the canonical gospels. Would have been great if Dr. Fatoohi would have shared with us an exact quote from the tafsir literature of the tale of substitution. Because it sure the heck would have been very interesting reading a word-for-word detailed account of how the Jews (not the Romans) crucified stealth Jesus. Or about how the Jews killed and then crucified stealth Jesus.
Perhaps in a future article Dr. Fatoohi may give us a detailed quote of these narratives.
However, one central theme stands out. Someone was made to appear to look like Jesus.
This seems to be the understanding of: was made to appear to them so/walākin shubbiha lahum
Note the following:
“Third, the denial of the crucifixion in 4:157 is followed in 4:158 by a second action that is explicitly attributed to God, which is raising Jesus.”-Louay Fatoohi
Prima-Qur’an: Yet, this was made to appear to them so/walākin shubbiha lahum is not an action attributed to Allah.
Another example is the following:
“And the answer of Ibrahim’s people was not but that they said, “Kill him or burn him,” but Allah saved him (fa-anjaynāhu) from the fire. Indeed in that are signs for a people who believe.” (Qur’an 29: 24)
Why don’t we see that language, ‘Allah saved him (fa-anjaynāhu) from ‘salabu’ ?
This much is clear when The Ashari in aqidah and Shafi’i in Fiqh, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who was not satisfied with the substitution theory, was absolutely merciless in his take-down of this concept when he pins:
“This opens the door of sophistry, So that if we saw Zayd it would be possible that it was not really Zayd but that the likeness of Zayd had been cast upon another. This would imply the nullification of social contracts such as marriage and ownership. Also it would lead to the impugning of the principle of tawatur, bringing into serious doubt all transmitted historical knowledge. This principle should be upheld as long as it is based on perceived phenomena (al-mahsusat). Such confusion about perceived phenomena would threaten the foundations of all religious laws (shar-iya). Neither is it permissible to argue for such transference of identity by appealing to the tradition that allows for miracles during the time of prophecy. Such a provision would bring into question the identity of the prophets themselves, which in turn would call into question the probity of the sources of religious knowledge.”
So it is obvious that ‘made to appear to them’ is not something one can attribute to Allah.
Allah (swt) tells us about his sublime revelation:
“It is a blessed Book which We have revealed for you so that you will reflect upon its verses and so the people of understanding will take heed.” (Qur’an 38:29)
“Surely We know well that they say about you: “It is only a human being who teaches him,” (notwithstanding) that he whom they maliciously hint at is of foreign tongue, while this (Qur’an) is plain Arabic clear.” (Qur’an 16:103)
There really is no need for so much confusion and obfuscation over this verse. We do not need to appeal to extraneous material that is not divine in authority, has no connected chain back to the original sources, is confused in its reports and proclaims some supra natural event that Allah (swt) himself did not claim.
“It was made to appear to them so” is not a text addressed to anyone who witnessed anything at all!
ٱخْتَلَفُوا۟ Tells us that there are disagreements
شَكّ Tells us that they are in doubt
مَا لَهُم بِهِۦ مِنۡ عِلۡمٍ Tells us they are not basing this upon knowledge
ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّۚ Tell us they are following dhan (assumption or conjecture)
“And indeed, those who differ in it surely are in doubt about it. Their knowledge is based upon the following of dhan assumption or conjecture.”
In other words, those who are saying: “We killed Christ Jesus the Son of Mary the Messenger of Allah.” Are not eyewitnesses to anything. They are only following the traditions of those who make claims based upon conjecture and no knowledge.
ٱتِّبَاعَ ٱلظَّنِّۚ it is this same following of dhan (assumption and conjecture) taken from the very same people whom Allah (swt) tells us are in disagreements, are in doubt, not based upon knowledge that we get ultra bizarre translations of the Qur’an an like the following:
And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” – but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not (i.e. Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ) (Qur’an 4:157) –Muhsin Khan & Muhammed al-Hilali
Does that make a lick of sense to anyone?
So let’s get this right. Wahb Ibn Munabbih takes his knowledge from people whom Allah (swt) tells us are in disagreements, are in doubt, not basing information upon knowledge, only following conjecture, and they get to inform us about what Allah’s revelation says?
“So if you are in doubt, [O Muhammed], about that which We have revealed to you, then ask those (ahla l-dhik’ri) who have been reading the Scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord, so never be among the doubters.” (Qur’an 10:94)
Notice the phrase: ahla l-dhik’ri and not ahla l-kitābi
The above verse is only applicable in those matters where they themselves do not have doubts about the matter and has to be taken into context with what Allah (swt) has description of those in (Qur’an 4:157)
May Allah (swt) bless Dr. Louay Fatoohi for his sincere and noble efforts. For the most part, he is only defending the indefensible. 1200 plus years of fuzzy logic and copy-and-paste scholarship. Statements by converts to Islam which are based upon conjecture and have no connected chain of transmission going back to the companions of Jesus.
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.” (Qur’an 9:111)
﷽
Today we examine the evidence for the alleged Crucifixion from the prima facie evidence itself, namely the New Testament. There are many texts in the New Testament that state after the fact, that Jesus died. What we want to do is look at the event itself, the language used as well as the words that are attributed to Jesus in regard to the alleged event.
Every once in awhile a Christian gets the idea that he wants to experience the suffering that Jesus endured on the so called double-cross. So this person will lay down half naked on a beam of wood and gets someone to nail the palms of his hands (or the wrist) and his feet to the beam. When the beam of wood is stood up on its end, the persons’ body weight immediately tears his hands and the feet loose and they slide off the beam in degradation and humiliation.
This happened all to often, and people began to really wonder if the ecclesiastical images of Jesus inspired by painters, having him on the double cross were really true.
Thus, in all effort to make sense of the ecclesiastical images, made popular by paintings, the all too familiar “nailed to the double cross” method, along came the idea that the hands were not only nailed to the cross, but ropes were used to bind the forearms to the horizontal beam. This satisfied the world that such a method would prevent a body from falling off the cross and everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
LOOK AT ALL THE ROPES AND BONDS !!
The below video is a ‘Crucifixion’ that happened on Friday April 29th 2025 in Indonesia, the country with the world’s largest Muslim population.
We are simply fascinated by all the ropes and bonds used to hold the body in place.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE NAILS???
Matthew, Mark, Luke mention nothing at all about nails in the hands and/or feet.
Remember none of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) mention anything at all about nails.
“Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit des not flesh and bones, as you see me have.” (Luke 24:39)
Only in John’s Gospel do we get:
“Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.” (John 20:25)
Nothing about nails in the feet!
We also get this vague passage in Colossians:
“Having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the σταυρῷ (staurō) . (Colossians 2:14)
If the etymology of the verse is stressed, this verse is the only direct indication of any nails used to attach Jesus to the stauros.
“They pierce my hands and feet.” (Psalm 21:16)
Nothing about nails in the feet!
WHAT DOES JESUS SAY ABOUT THE FORM OF HIS EXECUTION?
Quite curious when Jesus begins to speak of the passion (according to the evangelist) he does not say much regarding the execution form. He is surprisingly vague.
IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK JESUS DOESN’T MENTION (σταυρόω) stauroó IN CONNECTION TO HIS DEATH AT ALL!
“And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” (Mark 8:31)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
“For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day”. (Mark 9:31)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?And he answered and told them, Elias verily come first, and restore all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be held in contempt.” (Mark 9:11-12)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
“Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him: and the third day he shall rise again.” (Mark 10:33-34)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
IN THE GOSPEL OF LUKE JESUS DOESN’T MENTION (σταυρόω) stauroó IN CONNECTION TO HIS DEATH AT ALL!
“Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.” (Luke 9:22)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
” Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.” (Luke 9:43-44)
This is certainly the writing of a redactor. It is third person. Here the writer is emphatic that they did not understand this statement. It was hid from them and that they did not perceive the meaning of it. Why not just ask him to explain it? Well apparently, “they feared to ask him about“. It is not explained.
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
We get much the same in the following passage:
“Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. For he shall be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully entreated, and spitted on: And they shall scourge him, and put him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about. (Luke 18:31-34)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN JESUS DOESN’T MENTION (σταυρόω) stauroó IN CONNECTION TO HIS DEATH AT ALL!
JESUS COMPARES HIMSELF TO THE SNAKE BEING LIFTED UP (EXALTED)
“And as Moses lifted up (exalted) the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up(exalted).”(John 3:14) This saying may imply some kind of suspension, but nothing more.
The the right is the god Asclepius. The god of medicine, healing, and rejuvenation. Here he is pictured with is serpent entwined staff. On the left is a depiction of the Prophet Moses exalting the snake on a staff. You will find this incident in Numbers 29:6-9
Christians seem to be embarrassed by the idea of Jesus comparing himself to being exalted like the healing snake that Moses put on the pole. However, that healing snake obviously is not the Satan snake of Genesis, as that Satan snake was cursed by God, and the healing snake on Moses pole was directed by God.
Just like Jesus was taken to be worshipped as a false god, so too the snake on the pole was taken to be worshipped. So King Hezekiah did the following:
“Over time that He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan.)” (2 Kings 18:4)
THE ONLY GOSPEL WHERE JESUS MENTIONS (σταυρόω) stauroó TWICE IN CONNECTION TO HIS DEATHIS THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW!
“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” (Matthew 16:21)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
“And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of men: And they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised again. And they were exceeding sorry.” (Matthew 17:22-23)
No mention of the ecclesiastical double-cross!
“Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill AND; σταυρώσετε stauosete others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.” (Matthew 23:34)
Notice that it says here: “Some of them you will kill AND stauosete.”
ἀποκτενεῖτε (you will kill) καὶ (and) σταυρώσετε (?)
The prophets, sages, and teachers will be killed and some type of suspension/impaling will follow this killing.
Also note that this is an act that the religious Jews carry out. Jesus does not connect σταυρώσετε stauosete to himself here.
What ever σταυρώσετε stauosete means it has to be a punishment that religious Jews would carry out. Otherwise Jesus, would be ignorant of Jewish law!
Jew’s don’t crucify people! They do not suspend people on a double cross! It is not in the TNCH and it is not in the Talmud.
“Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him staurosai σταυρῶσαι : and the third day he shall rise again.” (Matthew 20:18-19)
Matthew adds here for the first time that the end of Jesus life will be connected with an act referred to with suspension/impaling.
“And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, You know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be staurothenai σταυρωθῆναι . Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas. And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.” (Matthew 26:1-4)
The second time that the end of Jesus life will be connected with an act referred to with suspension/impaling
THE CONCLUSION:
In the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John Jesus does not connect his death with (σταυρόω) stauroó at all!
Only in Matthew do we see two passages where Jesus connects his death with (σταυρόω) stauroó.
We also know that what ever (staurothenai σταυρωθῆναι) means in Matthew 26, and (staurosai σταυρῶσαι) in Matthew 20, Jesus connects (stauoseteσταυρώσετε) in Matthew 23 with an act that the Jews do!
Juxtapose the text and do the math!
HOW THE WORD (σταυρόω) stauroó IS USED IN CONNECTION WITH JESUS TRIAL
As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “CrΣταύρωσον! CrΣταύρωσον !” (Stauroson) But Pilate answered, “You take him and σταυρώσατε (staurosate) him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.” (John 19:6)
Why would Pilate tell the chief priest and their officials to “crucify” or σταυρώσατε (staurosate) Jesus if:
They had no power to do so.
Pilate was aware of their laws?
Meaning: Jews don’t crucify people! They do not suspend people on a double cross!
Had the Jewish authorities been directly involved, Jesus would have been stoned, or he would have been killed and then impaled.
“Was there ever a prophet your ancestors did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him.” (Acts 7:52)
“While they threw stones at Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” After that he fell on his knees and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he died.” (Acts 7:59-60)
“However, biblical law prescribes hanging after execution: every person found guilty of a capital offense and put to death had to be impaled on a stake (Deut. 21:22); but the body had to be taken down the same day and buried before nightfall, “for an impaled body is an affront to God” (ibid., 23).”
“Then said Pilate unto him, Why do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to (σταυρῶσαί) staurōsai you, and have power to release you?” (John 19:10)
“But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, (σταύρωσον) staurōson him. Pilate said to them, Shall I (σταυρώσω) staurōsō your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he over to them to be (σταυρωθῇ) staurōthē. And they took Jesus, and led him away.” (John 19:15-16)
“Pilate said unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all said to him, Let him be (Σταυρωθήτω) Staurōthētō. And the governor said, Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be (Σταυρωθήτω) Staurōthētō.” (Matthew 27:22-23)
“Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be (σταυρωθῇ) staurōthē.” (Matthew 27:26)
“And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to (σταυρῶσαι) staurōsai him.” (Matthew 27:31)
“And they cried out all at once, saying, Away with this man, and release unto us Barabbas: (Who for a certain sedition made in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.) Pilate therefore, willing to release Jesus, spoke to them again.But they cried, saying, (Σταύρου) Staurou (σταύρου staurou).And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil has he done? I have found no cause of death in him: I will therefore chastise him, and let him go. And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be (σταυρωθῆναι) staurōthēnai. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed.” (Luke 23:18-23)
And Pilate gave sentence that it should be as theyrequired.
“And he released unto them him that for sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had desired; but he delivered Jesus to their will.” (Luke 23:24-25)
“And they cried out again, (Σταύρωσον) Staurōson him. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil has he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, (σταυρωθῇ) staurōthē him.” (Mark 15:13-14)
“And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to σταυρώσωσιν staurōsōsin him.” (Mark 15:20)
THE CONCLUSION: It is clear from this narrative that the Roman authorities are looked upon as reluctant and even sympathetic to Jesus. Where as the Jews are being looked at as antagonist. If the above accounts are to be harmonized than what ever one understands the terminology for (σταυρόω) stauroó to mean it must be understood in light of Pilate’s statement. “You take him and σταυρώσατε (staurosate) him. (John 19:6)
WHO CARRIED THE (σταυρὸν) stauronAND WHY?
The general public thinks that Jesus carried the cross-shaped execution tool († or T), influenced by ecclesiastical paintings and art-history. The common interpretation that Jesus was carrying the crossbeam (patibulum) is not supported by the Biblical text. The theory may be based on the centuries of ecclesiastical paintings, and/or other art work that would lead to the seemingly logical conclusion that a solid pole together with a solid crossbeam out would be too heavy to be carried. Thus, according to this view Jesus must have been carrying only a part (assumed to the crossbeam) of the execution tool (the assumed cross).
“And they compelled one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his (σταυρὸν) stauron.” (Mark 15:20-21)
“As they were going out, they met a man from Cyrene, named Simon, and they forced him to carry the (σταυρὸν) stauron.” (Matthew 27:32)
“As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the (σταυρὸν) stauronon him and made him carry it behind Jesus.” (Luke 23:26)
When it comes to the walk towards Calvary, the gospels do not say that Jesus fell or struggled under the weight of the stauros, contrary to the common assumption. The synoptic gospels say that Simon was forced to carry the staturos, without saying why. The synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke have Simon carrying the stauros. Where as the Gospel of John has Jesus carrying his staturos:
“And he bearing his (σταυρὸν) stauronwent forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha.” (John 19:17)
Now notice the synoptic Gospel of Matthew, Mark and Luke do not have Jesus bearing his (σταυρὸν) stauronto being with. Where as John says that Jesus bares it himself. Christians imagine scenarios where Jesus carries the (σταυρὸν) stauron and suddenly he cannot.
HOW DID CHRISTIANS TRY TO DEAL WITH THIS DILEMA?
This is an example of how Christian evangelist try and make sense of this:
“Well, John 19:17 does say Jesus bore his own cross to Golgotha. And the synoptics say Simon of Cyrene helped part of the way (Mark 15:21; Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26).
This is because of Jesus’ weakened state from being flogged. However, John does not say only Jesus carried the cross the whole way, or that Simon of Cyrene did not help him. That is read into the text. John just chose to omit this part of the journey to Golgotha because it was distracting from the themes of his gospel, such as God’s sovereign plan.”
My Response:
Where does (Mark 15:21; Matthew 27:32; Luke 23:26) mention: “helped part of the way“?? That is correct that John does not say that “only Jesus carried the (σταυρὸν) stauronthe whole way or that Simon of Cyrene did not help him.” However, the text also does not say that Simon did help him, or that he carried it part way! That is actually ‘reading into the text‘. You have to wonder what prevented Simon from carrying the (σταυρὸν) stauron all the way?
THE CONCLUSION:
The whole account of the gospels so far rest solely on the meaning of the diversely used verb stauros. So far nothing has been said about the notorious crossbeam-neither on Jesus (and/or Simon’s) shoulders nor attached to the pole. In fact, nothing is said about the shape or the nature of the execution tool, other than that it was a staturos. As has been seen, the texts describing Simon of Cyrene carrying Jesus stauros do not even indicate that the carried device was a patibulum and are thus futile to use as evidence that the stauros of Jesus resembles the assumed shape of a cross.
THE ACTUAL EVENT CALLED (σταυρωθῆναι) staurothenaiPOPULARLY KNOWN AS “CRUCIFIXION”
“And they (Σταυρώσαντες) Staurōsantes him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” (Matthew 27:35)
It is perhaps surprising that the act called “crucifixion” by the masses itself is mentioned only in passing.
On the matters of what sort of “cross” was used to “crucify” Jesus and how he was supposedly fastened, suspended, impaled, hung upon it Matthew is absolutely silent. This becomes all the more interesting when you consider that Matthew is the only book in the entire New Testament where Jesus is actively participating in an act called (staurothenai) σταυρωθῆναι
“Where they (ἐσταύρωσαν) estaurōsan him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the middle. And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the (σταυροῦ) staurou. And the writing was Jesus Of Nazareth The King Of The Jews.This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was (ἐσταυρώθη) estaurōthē was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.” (John 19:18-20)
“Then the soldiers, when they had (ἐσταύρωσαν) estaurōsanJesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.” (John 19:23)
“Now in the place where he was (ἐσταυρώθη) estaurōthē there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.” (John 19:41)
“And when they had (σταυροῦσιν) staurousin him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. And it was the third hour, and they (ἐσταύρωσαν) estaurōsan him.” (Mark 15:24-25)
THE CONCLUSION: There is no mention of nails. There is no mention of ropes. There is not much of a description to label what took place as a “historical account.”
The ecclesiastical tradition that many have taken to be accurate and true cannot be substantiated from the aforementioned text!
DEATH BY ROMAN SPEAR OR (σταυρωθῆναι) staurothenaiPOPULARLY KNOWN AS “CRUCIFIXION”
“But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.” (John 19:33-34)
Comments: Now if they saw that Jesus was already dead, they didn’t have any reason to pierce his side! He was dead already! If they were not sure, what would they have done? They would have broken His legs!
This is the version of Matthew most of you read in your bibles
“The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” (Matthew 27:49)
There is surprising silence about the fact that two of the best manuscripts of the New Testament, the Codices Sinaitcus and Vaticanus, describe Jesus as being killed by a soldier’s spear instead of the suspension per se. Matthew 27:49 according to condex Sinaticus: “The other said, Let [him] be, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. Another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood.”
In fact so troubling is this text that Dr. Daniel B Wallace (a prominent defender of the idea that the Bible is inerrant) landed himself in some hot soup!
“Dr. Wallace wrote, “In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences.” Elsewhere he has adjusted this claim by referring to “cardinal” doctrine and “plausible” variants. I wonder if Dr. Wallace included the doctrine of inerrancy among the doctrines to which he refers. In the same manuscripts that he considers the most reliable (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus), the text of Matthew 27:49 says that Jesus was speared before He died. This textual variant introduces a contradiction with the timing presented in John 19:33-34, where Jesus is speared after His death. I welcome Dr. Wallace to explain how this variant in the “best” manuscripts – a variant which Hort (the most influential compiler of the Revised Text in the 1800’s) regarded as plausibly original – can be embraced without abandoning the doctrine of inerrancy.”
In the synoptic accounts of the gospels, the spear thrust occurs after Jesus has expired on the supposed “cross”, therefore the Jews who came to see Pilate about the bodies evidently assumed that Jesus and the two thieves would still be alive at that time.
THE WORD (σταυρόω) stauroóIN CONNECTION WITH THE TWO THIEVES.
THIS WORK OF ART AND WORK OF FICTION IS WHAT MOST CHRISTIANS IMAGINE WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT JESUS AND THE THIEVES
Most Christians envision in their minds that there were three “crosses” at Calvary. There is nothing in the Gospels that would suggest that the thieves (or revolutionaries) were dealt with in a manner different from Jesus. That is to say there is nothing to suggest three separate “crosses”.
“And with him they (σταυροῦσιν) staurousin two thieves; the one out of his right hand, and the other out of his left. (Mark 15:27)
“Then were there two thieves (σταυροῦνται) staurountai with him, one out of the right hand, and another out of the left.” (Matthew 27:28)
“And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they (ἐσταύρωσαν) estaurōsan him, and the malefactors, one out of the right hand, and the other out of the left.” (Luke 23:33)
“Where they (ἐσταύρωσαν) estaurōsan him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the middle.” (John 19:18)
Now before you dear reader I would suggest you to look at these disparate Christian translations and watch as some of them try to deceitfully pull the wool over your eyes.
“Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the BODIES [PLURAL] would not remain on THE (σταυροῦ) STAUROU [SINGULAR] on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that THEY [PLURAL] might be taken away. So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the FIRST MAN, and then the legs of the OTHER ONE who had been (συσταυρωθέντος systaurōthentos) together with him. But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.” (John 19: 31-33)
You see the Christian translations attempts to cover up the obvious? Doesn’t John say that there were BODIES (PLURAL) on a [SINGULAR] STAUROU?
What these verses tell us is that three men were attached/suspended to ONE staurou!
John 19:32 further substantiates this fact: The Greek word systaurōthentos not only means that the two criminals were simply “with him,” but that both of them were also suspended/impaled “togetherwith him” -“together with him” on the SAME STAUROU!
One more final point as the icing on the cake. Now imagine the popular ecclesiastical images of Jesus with the two thieves, one to his right and one to his left. For example the image posted above. If one robber was crucified on a separate cross on Jesus LEFT side and the other robber was on his RIGHT (THREE crosses, placed side by side by side) with Jesus in the MIDDLE, then this becomes a huge problem with the deaths of the two robbers. This is because the soldiers who killed FIRST the two robbers and LAST they came to Jesus in the MIDDLE to kill him. Jesus being in the MIDDLE would have made him the SECOND to be killed!
HOW DID CHRISTIANS TRY TO DEAL WITH THIS DILEMA?
First was deception through translations which we saw on display above.
Realizing that not everyone has the I.Q of a Turnip they had to come up with some strategies.
Since the New Testament called those “crucified” with the Messiah both robbers (Matthew 27:38) and also malefactors (criminals) (Luke 23:32), One Christian scholar, proposed that there were two malefactors and also two robbers! So we now have a row of five crosses!
The Roman soldiers came to the first one broke his legs, then the second broke his legs and than to Jesus, didn’t break his legs and proceeded on down the row. Even though this interpretation is a valiant effort it still goes against the fact that the two malefactors were two robbers. Also, when we go back and look at the four text in the first section, it is obvious there is only two mentioned; one on each side.
To this Christian scholar’s credit he realized the problem. How could the soldiers first break the legs of the two robbers and then come to Jesus who was in the middle of them?
Actually, the answer is quite simple! They walked AROUND the (σταυροῦ) staurou breaking legs as necessary to hasten death!
THE CONCLUSION:
It is clear from reading these text we do not get the ecclesiastical images of Jesus inspired by painters, having him and two thieves beside him on the double crosses.
HOW THE WORD (σταυρωθῆναι) staurothenaiIS USED IN CONNECTION WITH JESUS POST DEATH
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spoke unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be (σταυρωθῆναι) staurōthēnai, and the third day rise again. (Luke 24:6-7)
Not spoken by Jesus. Spoken by two super natural beings (angels) about Jesus.
“And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have (ἐσταύρωσαν) estaurōsan him.” (Luke 24:20)
Not spoken by Jesus. Spoken about Jesus.
“And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not: for I know that you seek Jesus, which was (ἐσταυρωμένον) estaurōmenon.” (Matthew 28:5)
Not spoken by Jesus. Spoken by a super natural being (an angel) about Jesus.
“And he said unto them, Be not affrighted: You seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was (ἐσταυρωμένον) estaurōmenon: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.” (Mark 16:6)
Not spoken by Jesus. Spoken by a super natural being (an angel) about Jesus.
THE CONCLUSION: In his post death appearances. Jesus does not use the word(σταυρωθῆναι) staurothenai in connection to his death at all!
THE USE OF (σταυρόω) stauroó IN OTHER NEW TESTATMENT WRITINGS
Well, we don’t even get passed the first book of Acts without the crafty Christians up to their old tricks.
“He was delivered up by God’s set plan and foreknowledge, and you, by the hands of the lawless, put Him to death by nailing Him to the cross.” (Acts 2:23)
However, is that what it really says?
“This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death byπροσπήξαντες (prospēxantes)“ (Acts 2:23)
“So they cast off the anchors and left them in the sea. At the same time they loosened the ropes that tied the steering-oars; then hoisting (ἐπάραντες) eparantes the foresail to the wind, they made for the beach.” (Acts 27:40)
Actually all the term means is to fasten to, to impale. There is no mention of (σταυρόω) stauroó in Acts 2:23. There is no mention of nails at all!
Hence the added bracketed words (on a cross) in the picture above.
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made the same Jesus, whom you have (ἐσταυρώσατε) estaurōsate, both Lord and Christ.” (Acts 2:36)
“Knowing this, that our old man is (συνεσταυρώθη) synestaurōthē with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” (Romans 6:6)
From sun and stauroo to impale in company with (literally or figuratively) — crucify with.
“(συσταυρωθέντος systaurōthentos) together with him”- (John 19:32)
THE USE OF(κρεμάσαντες) kremasantes ON A (ξύλου) xylouIN THE NEW TESTAMENT
“The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew (κρεμάσαντες) kremasantes on a (ξύλου) xylou tree.” (Acts 5:30)
“And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom (κρεμάσαντες) kremasantes on a (ξύλου) xylou tree.” (Acts 10:39)
“And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the (ξύλου) xylou tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.” (Acts 13:29)
“Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the (ξύλου xylon) tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes you were healed.” (1 Peter 2:24)
“But we preach Christ (ἐσταυρωμένον) estaurōmenon, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness.” (1 Corinthians 1:23)
Question: Why would a Messiah who was (ἐσταυρωμένον) estaurōmenon be a stumbling block to the Jews?
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, “Cursed is every one that (κρεμάμενος) kremamenos on a (xylou) ξύλου tree.” (Galatians 3:13)
“And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and you hang him on a (עֵֽץ) es tree; his body shall not remain all night upon the (הָעֵ֗ץ) ha es tree, but you should surely bury him the same day; for he that is (תָּל֑וּי) ta-lui hanged is accursed by God; that you defile not the land which God gave you gives you for an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 21:22-23)
Paul’s usage of the text puts the definitive question in focus. The implied definition of the present investigation. Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is OUTSIDE the boundaries of the ecclesiastical “crucifixion.”
To put it in other words, Jesus, was executed by some type suspension or impalement. That is not what Deuteronomy 21:22-23 describes. Paul nevertheless connects the text of Deuteronomy with the death of Jesus.
Thus, Paul connects the death of Jesus, as an ante-mortem suspension, with the text of Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which describes a post-mortem suspension. He connects an event with the boundaries of the definition of the ecclesiastical label “crucifixion” with a text that describes an event that fall out side those boundaries!
Is it then possible to uphold a definition that contradicts the view of Paul?
The present day reader sees a distinct punishment form called the ecclesiastical “crucifixion” which is not compatible with Deuteronomy 21:22-23.
For Paul refers to a diverse suspension punishment in which a person is suspended/impaled as a corpse after an execution (as in Deut 21:22-23).
Paul’s point of view in Galatians 3:13 is that Jesus could have been stoned before being suspended/impaled -post mortem. He would be a curse anyhow.
Remember a few previous points!
“Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and ; σταυρώσετε stauosete others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.” (Matthew 23:34)
As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “CrΣταύρωσον! CrΣταύρωσον !” (Stauroson) But Pilate answered, “You take him and σταυρώσατε (staurosate) him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.” (John 19:6)
“However, biblical law prescribes hanging after execution: every person found guilty of a capital offense and put to death had to be impaled on a stake (Deut. 21:22); but the body had to be taken down the same day and buried before nightfall, “for an impaled body is an affront to God” (ibid., 23).”
Do you understand what the Jews (who know their text better than any Christian or Muslim) are saying?
SO HOW MIGHT HAVE JESUS ACTUALLY DIED?
Keep in mind this speculation from us based upon reflecting on a plausible scenario.
We drew the conclusion that the Jews did not kill Jesus, the Romans did. The text are written to make the Romans look reluctant to kill Jesus. We believe the Romans wanted Jesus dead. The Jews are portrayed as the ones who killed Jesus. I do not believe that Jesus was some type of pacifists teacher either. Out of all the references to the Injeel in the Qur’an, Allah (swt) informed us that Jesus preached martyrdom!
“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.” (Qur’an 9:111)
So, allow us to clarify, the concept that Jesus died on, The “cross” or the “double cross” rather, as a cross would actually be one beam and a double cross would be two beams; this it did not happen. The most revered ecclesiastical icon of all of Christianity is a historical fraud.
Jesus didn’t die with relative dignity hanging from the cross. He died, suspended on one single pike penetrating his body: he was impaled. There were no nails in his hands or feet. He did not die on a cross-shaped execution tool († or T). Just a sharp stake shoved right into his body upon which he was suspended – that is the most logical and plausible form of execution of Jesus by far…
Furthermore, one of the alleged witnesses, St. Mark, tells us that at the most critical juncture in the life of Jesus — “All his disciples forsook him and fled“- (Mark 14:50).
The Roman spectacle of impalement was meant to be as savage and tortuously cruel as possible because it had to accomplish two things.
To act as a visual deterrent to crime and in the case of Jesus -uprising against an oppressive regime.
To provide a theatre of gore to satisfy the blood lust of those who came to watch. The spike was the centerpiece of this typically gruesome Roman conception. That is why they didn’t just kill Jesus with a sword and be done with it.
Most likely the Romans introduced the tip of the spike into the victims back side and continued hammering it, pushing it in far enough to where it passed under the pelvic bone so it would support the body on the impale.
The two thieves if they were real, (most likely really guilty of sedition) get the same treatment. When the impale device was upright it kept the victims body from being torn loose by his own weight and sliding off. That was its practical use.
But there was also a kind of diabolical sideshow, something to further attract the viewer interest in the impalement process. With the spike thrust under the pelvic bone, but not yet coming out of the body a man could use the leverage of his arms and his legs to project his body outward, curving it away from the impale and thus preventing the spike from penetrating any further up into the bowels. But as one’s arms gave out, one’s body would slowly sink down on the spike, causing the spike to penetrate further along through one’s maze of intestines.
Eventually, after the leg strength also gave out, all leverage was lost and the body, of its own weight, would slump/slide back against the vertical beam, driving the spike slightly upwards through the body’s maze of vital organs until it pierced the stomach lining from the inside out, spewing blood and guts all over the ground.
Mercifully, death usually followed in a short time thereafter. When it came to devising fiendish methods of torture and death, the Romans were absolutely without equal. They left no sadistic, bloodthirsty detail behind. The Romans were filthy beast!
It is also reasonable that Jesus hastened his own death by forcing his body down on the spike an extremely awesome and heroic achievement! It indicates that Jesus had no fear of death. We imagine Jesus looking on at the Romans, with a certain look in his eye as if to say, “Go ahead make my day!“
Where as the two thieves, if they were real, (most likely rebels) used all their strength to cling to life as long as possible. Hence, the breaking of the legs!
During his death: When the Romans impaled Jesus the following was revealed to him as reassurance:
“Allah said, O Jesus, I shall cause you to die and will exalt you in my presence and shall purify you of the ungrateful disbelieving people, and shallplace those who follow you above those who deny the truth, until the Day of Judgement; then to Me shall all return and I will judge between you regarding your disputes.” (Qur’an 3:55)
This is also what is meant by:
“The Day when Allah will say, “O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My favor upon you and upon your mother when I supported you with the Holy Spirit.” (Qur’an 5:110)
Thus, to the onlookers what looked like a gruesome death display was for Jesus (as) a rather tranquil experience.
“Allah said, “O fire, be coolness and safety upon Ibrahim.” (Qur’an 21:69)
AND ALLAH (SWT) KNOWS BEST!
“Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the (ξύλου) xylou tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.” (Revelation 2:7)
“And do not say of those who are killed in the way of Allah that they are dead; they are alive even though you do not perceive it.” (Qur’an 2:154)
In the end all this is speculation. The Qur’an does not address the event known as the Crucifixion. It neither denies it nor affirms it. The Qur’an addresses Jewish claims and Jewish methods of execution.
Indeed if the Qur’an did try to connect the Jews to any attempt to Crucify Jesus then the Qur’an itself would be a patently false revelation. This would make Allah (swt) unaware of Jewish methods of execution and this is totally unacceptable.
“Do they not consider (yatadabbarūna)the Qur’an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.” (Qur’an 4:82)
“Then do they not reflect (yatadabbarūna) upon the Qur’an, or are there locks upon [their] hearts?” (Qur’an 47:24)
﷽
Today we ask the question. Does it make sense to interpret one verse in light of 10 verses or to interpret 10 verses in the light of one verse?
In general, it makes more sense makes more sense to understand one verse in light of ten verses — that is, to interpret a smaller unit in view of the larger context — rather than the reverse.
Here’s why:
Context gives meaning. A single verse can be ambiguous or even misleading when read in isolation. The surrounding verses (the immediate context, the chapter, the book, and the broader canon) provide the framework that clarifies the author’s intended meaning.
Scripture interprets Scripture. Interpreting obscure or condensed passages in light of clearer, more developed passages elsewhere is a longstanding hermeneutical principle. The “ten verses” (a larger passage) often help explain the “one verse” (a smaller or more difficult unit).
Authorial intent. The author of a text intended the whole discourse to be understood as a unified argument or narrative. Isolating one verse can distort that intent; understanding it within the larger flow respects the author’s design.
As a Hermeneutical Principle
The rule that “the part should be interpreted in light of the whole” is classically a hermeneutical principle. This is often called in Latin contextus regit intellectum (context rules interpretation).
Hermeneutics deals with the methodology of interpretation—the “how” of deriving meaning from a text. So when we say “understand one verse in light of ten,” we are articulating a procedural rule for correct interpretation. It assumes that meaning is discovered by attending to context, authorial intent, and textual unity.
The Epistemological Underpinning
Why should context govern meaning? That’s where epistemology enters.
The principle assumes certain epistemological claims:
Coherence theory of meaning: Meaning is not atomistic (self-contained in isolated units) but is determined by relationships within a larger system. A proposition’s meaning is shaped by its place in a network of propositions.
Authorial intent as knowable: It assumes that a text has a unified communicative purpose and that readers can, through careful attention to the whole, approximate the author’s intended meaning.
Holism in interpretation: Epistemologically, this reflects a kind of hermeneutical holism—the idea that we understand parts only through a tentative grasp of the whole, and revise our understanding of the whole through scrutiny of parts (the hermeneutical circle).
So while the “part–whole” rule is taught as a method (hermeneutics), it is grounded in an epistemological view that understanding is holistic, contextual, and coherence-oriented rather than atomistic.
To ignore the ten verses in favor of the one isn’t just poor method; it’s a misunderstanding of how language and texts convey meaning in the first place.
This becomes evident in how the Ibadi school approaches the Qur’an and why we have such strong foundation in creed.
You can see this in our position on the eternality of those who enter hellfire:
Or even in how we understand the word كفر or kufr in Arabic. This ensures us that we have a creed that is based upon the Qur’an, the primary source of Islam, the revelation Allah sent to his Blessed Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) never defined كفر as exit from the religion of Islam.
Rather than a creed that says if you sin and the text defines that sin as kufr, it is not kufr as long as you believe the sin you are doing is wrong. This seems more theologically imposed. A make things up as you go along approach.
“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
﷽
There is no denying the light that cascades across the floor. Indeed, many cathedrals are beautiful and breathtaking. Yet, no Muslim would deny that the teachings that take place in such buildings are teachings that mix light with darkness. It mixes haqq with batil. It mixes truth with falsehood.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
“They say, The Most Compassionate has offspring. You have certainly made an atrociousclaim, by which the heavens are about to burst, the earth to split apart, and the mountains to crumble to pieces. in protest of attributing children to the Most Compassionate.” (Qur’an 19:88-91)
There is a shared conceptual structure between Christian Logos theology, Neo-Platonic emanationism and the Sufi/Shi’i doctrines of Nūr i Muḥammed.
This is something alien to Islam.
Nūr i Muḥammed is a concept primarily within Sufi and some Shi’i traditions, designating Prophet Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and the primordial light from which the universe was created. It represents his inner, transcendent reality and spiritual essence rather than his physical humanity.
We see in the sacred text of the Christians the following beliefs.
Part of the Nicene Creed reads as follows:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”
“For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” (Colossians 2:16-17)
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. (John 1:1-8)
Contrary to what people think that the Qur’an being created is from Greek philsophy far from it. It is quite the opposite.
The position of the Sunni/Neo-Platonists. The Monad & the Logos
An uncreated ‘Kun’ by which everything else is created. The ‘kun’ acts as the intermediary between Allah, the transcendant and the material world.
However, the Sunnis believe that this uncreated ‘kun’ is not identical to the essence of Allah nor other than Allah’s essence. In our view, this is a step away from monotheism and a bridge towards Christology and logos theology.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)
“Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” (John 1:3)
In our article here, we have shown that Jesus is not the eternal word of Allah. Jesus is the created word of Allah. Created from nothing “dust” and that which is created from dust or nothingness is not an attribute of Allah at all.
It is historically accurate to say that Christian theology has been heavily influenced by Platonic philosophy. We know this was the downward road in regard to their creed. So we now want to look at how such beliefs influenced certain strands of Islam.
As a reminder, our aqidah needs to be built upon the verses of the Qur’an. Those that are clear. Or it needs to be built upon the tawatur from the hadith.
And it dazzles the mind how those Muslims get accosted who say that Muhammed (saw) is only a man. They get accosted by those who hold fast to batini and esoteric doctrines. Well, if Muhammed (saw) is not only a man, then what is he? An angel? A demigod? A deity?
The same people do not seem to mind when we say about Jesus (as) that he is only a man. Even though Jesus (as) was born without a father.
“Say, “I am only a (basharun) man (mith’lukum)like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord – let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone.” (Qur’an 18:110)
“But now you seek to kill me, a man (anthropos) who has told you the truth which I heard from.” (John 8:40)
Question: What does the word Anthropos mean?
Answer: It means a mortal human being, full man. It distinguishes man from the animal kingdom on one hand and distinguishes man from a deity and divine essence on the other.
Anthropos is where we get the word anthropology, which means the study of man.
So this has not deterred those who wanted to bring Platonic Philosophy into Islam. In fact, it emboldens them. They reason well, Jesus (as) is anthropos, but he pre-existed as the word. So they reason that even if Muhammed (saw) is bashar, they can make him pre-exist as some eternal light.
What is interesting to note here is that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus (as) say: “I am a man like you.” However, the text of the Qur’an is explicit. Muhammed (saw) is a man like us.
“And We sent not before you except (rijalan) men to whom We revealed [Our message]. So ask the people of the message if you do not know.” (Qur’an 16:43)
And We sent not before you, except men(rijalan) to whom We revealed [the message], so ask the people of the message if you do not know. We gave them not bodies that would not eat food, nor were they (khālidīna)immortals. (Qur’an 21:7-8)
khālidīna -this also means eternal. Jesus (as) is not the eternal word. Muhammed (saw) is not eternal light. Neither of them is eternal.
“The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger. messengers had gone before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They both ate food. See how We make the signs clear to them, yet see how they are deluded!” (Qur’an 5:75)
“And they say, “What is this messenger that eats food and walks in the markets? Why was there not sent down to him an angel so he would be with him a warner?” (Qur’an 25:7)
In fact, if we do not accept the fact that Muhammed (saw) is a man like us, then we are accepting the belief of the Mushriks, who are surprised that Allah (swt) sends a man that eats food and walks among them.
“They say, “Why has no angel come with him?” Had We sent down an angel, the matter would have certainly been settled, and they would have never been given more time. And if We had sent an angel, We would have certainly made it a man—leaving them more confused than they already are.” (Qur’an 6:8-9)
The verse above has the Mushrik asking why no angel was sent with Muhammed (saw). So they are making a contrast between the two.
If Allah (swt) sent an angel, there would be no more room to debate about anything. This clearly tells us that Muhammed (saw) is not an angel. Angels are those beings which are created from light.
And nothing has prevented people from believing when guidance comes to them except their protest: “Has Allah sent a (basharan) human as a messenger?” (Qur’an 17:94)
“They challenge, “We will never believe in you until you cause a spring to gush forth from the earth for us, or until you have a garden of palm trees and vineyards, and cause rivers to flow abundantly in it. Or you should cause the heaven to come down upon us in pieces as you think, or bring Allah and the angels face to face (with us). Or you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read.” Say, “Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?” (Qur’an 17:90-93)
They asked Muhammed (saw) the following:
Bring a spring to gush forth from the earth.
Bring forth gardens, palm trees and vineyards.
Cause rivers to flow.
Bring the heavens down.
Bring Allah and the angels face to face.
Have a house made of guild.
Ascend into the sky. -it is clear that Jesus did not do this either.
Bring us down a book.
Muhammed (saw) replied to this by saying: He was only a human (basharan) messenger.
“Say: I am no (bid’an)new thing among the messengers (of Allah), nor know I what will be done with me or with you. I do but follow that which is inspired in me, and I am but a plain warner.”(Qur’an 46:9)
If Muhammed (saw) is the first creation and primordial light, then he certainly is a new thing among the messengers, as this cannot be said about any of the messengers who have come before him.
Verses from the Qur’an that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
“O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.” (Qur’an 5:15)
mina l-lahi nurun wakitabun mubinun yahydi bihi from Allah a light and a book clear guides with it
The Qur’an is the light and a clear book. Allah guides with it, not with them(plural)
You may see how disparate translations render the Arabic into English.
“O mankind, there has come to you a conclusive proof from your Lord, and We have sent down to you a clear light.” (Qur’an 4:174)
bur’hanum min rabbikum wa-anzalna ilaykum nuran mubinan convincing proof from your Lord sent down to you a light clear
The Qur’an never references nazzala (sending down) to a human being ever! For example:
“Indeed, We have anzalna sent down to you the Book, in truth. So worship Allah , [being] sincere to Him in religion.” (Qur’an 39:2)
Rather, when speaking about prophets as messengers, Allah (swt) uses the word arsala (sent).
See: Qur’an 21:07Qur’an 33:45 and Qur’an 47:2
Allah (swt) tells us that the Qur’an is that light from Allah.
“And thus We have revealed to you an inspiration of Our command. You did not know what is the Book or [what is] faith, but We have made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. And indeed, you guide to a (siratin mus’taqimin) straight path.”(Qur’an 42:52)
“Believe then in Allah and His Messenger, and in the light which We have sent down. Allah is fully aware of all that you do.”(Qur’an 64:8)
Notice the text says believe in Allah and his Messenger and in the light. The text does not say believe in Allah and his Messenger, who is the light! Just as the wa distinguishes the Messenger from Allah, the wa also distinguishes the nur from the Messenger!
First it should be said that the Qur’an is sufficient in this regard. Anything that one would bring from the hadith would come to clash with the overwhelming flood of evidence that the Qur’an has established.
Secondly, it should also be stated that none of the evidence brought from the hadith amounts to tawatur and, therefore, it cannot be established as an aqidah point.
Nonetheless, we will look at the evidence one tries to establish from the hadith for Nur-Muhammed. The idea of Muhammed (saw) as the first creation and/or the primordial light from which the universe was created.
It would also clash with other lone narrator reports.
Umm Salamah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
“Indeed you come to me with your disputes, and I am only a human being, perhaps one of you is more eloquent at presenting his argument than the other. If I judge for one of you, giving him something from the rights of his brother, then it is only a piece of the Fire that I am giving him, so do not take anything from it.”
The Messenger of Allah (saw) said prayer and he omitted or committed (something). Ibrahim (one of the narrators of this hadith) said: It is my doubt, and it was said: Messenger of Allah, has there been any addition to the prayer? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Verily I am a human being like you. I forget just as you forget so when any one of you forgets, he must perform two prostrations, and he (the Holy Prophet) was sitting and then the Messenger of Allah (saw) turned (his face towards the Qibla) and performed two prostrations.
It also contradicts other information from the Blessed Prophet (saw) about what was the first created thing.
Abdul-Wahid bin Sulaim narrated:
“I arrived in Makkah and met ‘Ata bin Abi Rabah. I said to him: ‘O Abu Muhammed! The people of Al-Basrah speak about Al-Qadar.’ He said: ‘O my son! Do you recite the Quran?’ I said: ‘Yes.’ He said: ‘Then recite Az-Zukhruf to me.’” He said: ‘So I recited: Ha Mim. By the manifest Book. Verily, We have made it a Qur’an in Arabic that you may be able to understand. And verily, it is in the Mother of Book with Us, indeed exalted, full of wisdom. Then he said: ‘Do you know what Mother of Books is?’ I said: ‘Allah and His Messenger know better.’ He said:’It is a book that Allah wrote before He created the Heavens, and before He created the earth. In it, it is (written): Fir’awn is among the inhabitants of the Fire, and in it is: Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab, and perish he!’Ata said: ‘I met Al-Walid the son of ‘Ubadah bin As-Samit the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and asked him:’What was your father’s admonition when he died?” He said:”He called me and said: ‘O my son ! Have Taqwa of Allah, and know that you will never have Taqwa of Allah until you believe in Allah, and you believe in Al-Qadar- all of it-its good and its bad. If you die upon other than this you shall enter the Fire. Indeed I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying: “Verily the first of what Allah created was the Pen. So He said: ‘Write.’ It said : ‘What shall I write?’ He said : ‘Write Al-Qadar, what it is , and what shall be, until the end.’”
The Pen is presented as a created instrument for recording destiny. That is all.
The very first of what Allah created was the Pen.
None of the information that has been supplied mentions anything about spatiality.
So this leaves us with some points of discussion.
If spatiality is not a creation but something that co-exists with Allah. Then who or what creates spatiality? How do we square this with the belief that Allah creates all things?
If spatiality is a creation and the first thing that was created before spatiality was either the Pen or the Throne. This means that the Pen or the Throne existed prior to spatiality. Since we do not posit a place for Allah (swt), then one could conclude the Pen is like Allah (swt) in existing without a place.
The unresolvable tension in Neo-Platonic emanationism.
Neo-Platonic emanationism: The One is absolutely transcendent, beyond being, beyond space, beyond time. The first emanation (the Nous/Intellect) is the first thing that has being, but it exists in a framework of emanation that presupposes the One’s transcendence.
The Islamic doctrine of tawhid: “There is nothing like unto Him” (Qur’an42:11). Allah alone is eternal, uncreated, without beginning. Everything else—everything—is created, contingent, and shares no attributes of divinity.
If the Muhammedan Light or the Pen was created before space and time, then:
It exists in a state of non-spatial, non-temporal existence.
This is precisely the definition of divine transcendence—existing without being located in space or time.
Something now shares this attribute with Allah.
“There is nothing like unto Him” is compromised.
When the Nūr Muḥammed doctrine claims:
“The first thing Allah created was the light of Muhammed”
It must then answer: Where did this light exist before space and time?
There are three possible responses, all of them problematic.
It existed in Allah. Something created existed within the divine.
It existed in a place. Which mean space is either uncreated (co-eternal with Allah) or the light created its own container (nonsensical).
It existed in no place and no time. The light shares with Allah the attribute of existing without spatial or temporal location. There is nothing like unto him now has an exception. The light is, in this crucial respect, like Allah.
There is no escape.
The Neo-Platonic Framework Collapses Under Islamic Premises
Neo-Platonism works because:
The One is beyond being, beyond even the category of “existence”
The Nous is the first being—but being is already a category that the One transcends.
The Nous is divine, and the system is not radically monotheistic.
But Islam does not allow:
Degrees of divinity.
A hierarchy of being where the first emanation shares in transcendence with that which is beyond being.
Anything that shares attributes with Allah.
When Sufi metaphysicians attempted to import the Neo-Platonic structure while claiming to preserve tawhid, they created an unstable hybrid.
Evidences from the hadith that are used to try and prove Nūr Muḥammed.
The first hadith evidence that is used.
Narrated Abu Hurairah:
“They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! When was the Prophethood established for you?’ He said: ‘While Adam was between (being) soul and body.'”
This above hadith mentions nothing about when the Prophet (saw) was created or what he was created from. It simply establishes that the office of Prophethood was ordained for him.You are right. Th is the more straightforward and textually responsible reading. The plain sense of the text is about foreknowledge and divine decree, not ontological pre-existence.
The second hadith that is used.
He relates from Jabir ibn Abdullah who stated:“I said, ‘O Messenger of Allah (saw)! May my mother and father be sacrificed for you, tell us of the first creation which Allah created before everything?’ The Prophet saw answered, ‘O Jabir! Indeed Allah created before everything the light of your Prophet from His light.”
Source: (Al-Musannaf Abdur Razzaq, pp. 63, Hadith 18)
This hadith is fabricated (mawḍūʿ)
The consensus is that it has no sound chain of transmission (sanad) and was falsely attributed to the Prophet (saw).
Bring us an authentic chain for this hadith.
The most dangerous aspect of the above hadith is the wording, “from His light” (min nūrihī). This can be dangerously understood to imply that the Prophet (saw) is a part of Allah or that Allah’s essence is divisible—a concept fundamentally opposed to Islamic monotheism (tawhid).
It is challenging to take seriously the claims of anyone who says they defend (tawhid) and expresses the above view.
Such groups who advocate this are like the mysterion cults. They hold that such sacred truths are revealed but cannot be fully understood by reason. They need esoteric (obscure) explanations or can only be explained via esoteric rituals that are not within the grasp of the uninitiated. The contradictory nature is laid bare for all to see. If that is the case, then you do need recourse to proof text. You simply need aprior convictions.
One of our team members was introduced to a Sufi Tariqa in which one of its members approached them asking about how they understood Nur i Muhammed. The follower of this Tariqa said: “The light of Allah is Allah!”
So how does this Nur of Muhammed (saw) actually work?
If you are involved in Sufism or Sufi Metaphysics, it is usually taught that this light enters into Adam.
Then it is passed from Adam to his son Seth. It goes all the way to Nuh. Then, at this point, something crucial happens. The light is passed onto Nuh’s son Sam (Shem). The Semetic people and his other son, Ham (Hamitic) people, receive a curse—physically portrayed by being black-skinned.
It continues until it reaches Abrahams son (Isma’il). Now we get into a conundrum here. It cannot go through the son Ishaq because this line stops at Jesus (as) who had no children.
So it now passes through (Isma’il). But now we face another problem.
Historically speaking, there is a span of approximately 2,500 to 2,700 years between Isma’il, peace be upon him (born c. 2000s B.C.E.) and Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him(born 570 C.E.). While Islamic tradition holds that Muhammed is a direct descendant of Isma’il, historians and early genealogists note that there is no continuous, verified, or documented written record for this connection.
Also, on top of that, it must be affirmed that for that span of 2,500 years, that entire line maintained a belief in perfect monotheism.
Critique of Esoteric Cults and Genealogy
Where this becomes a source for cults and manipulation. If you continue to hold that this nur i muhammed travels through his descendants, then not only are the descendants superior to you via bloodline, but they are metaphysically superior to you based upon this esoteric reality.
This has become a source of manipulation and abuse in many circles. A person who is claimed to possess such attributes becomes a deity in their circle. Unchallenged and unquestioned. The least infraction can bring wrath and damnation down upon one. If the Imam, Qutb (or Ghawth) is caught up in sexual impropriety, molestation, physical abuse and or squandering of funds, any whistleblowers would be shamed into silence.
The Ibadi school shuts the doors to these esoteric beliefs which have no firm basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Exploitation of people cannot come about through presumed superior metaphysical personages.
Put yourself for a moment in the position of a 7th century Bedouin hearer, the idea that Muhammed (saw) pre-existed as a cosmic light, or that there exists a “Muhammedan Reality” that is the first emanation and the instrument of creation, would have sounded unfamiliar—perhaps dangerously close to what they had just been taught to reject about Arab polytheism (where lesser deities mediated between the high God and the world) and Christianity (where the Logos became flesh).
In the end, what is needed for the Muslims is a return to purity in creed. A creed based upon the firm and clear text of the Qur’an and the mass transmitted testimony of the Blessed Prophet (saw).
You may also be interested in reading the following:
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or hide the truth knowingly.” (Qur’an 2:42)
﷽
Remember in school how we were taught that there were these big fantastical reptilian creatures known as dinosaurs? That apparently, when they died, they decided to dig big deep holes and just ya know …die there.
Notwithstanding the nasty asteroid that hit the Yucatán Peninsula and seemed to do them in, via a worldwide winter.
This book is an eye-opener. There is a growing body of evidence to support this. Such as why some oil wells seemingly become dry only to then refill.
There is also possibly the world’s largest ecosystem buried deep in the ocean’s crust and/or under the ocean “floor”.
This book sets forth a set of truly controversial and astonishing theories:
First, it proposes that below the surface of the earth is a biosphere of greater mass and volume than the biosphere, the total sum of living things on our planet’s continents and in its oceans.
Second, it proposes that the inhabitants of this subterranean biosphere are not plants or animals as we know them, but heat-loving bacteria that survive on a diet consisting solely of hydrocarbons, that is, natural gas and petroleum.
And third and perhaps most heretically, the book advances the stunning idea that most hydrocarbons on Earth are not the byproduct of biological debris (“fossil fuels”), but were a common constituent of the materials from which the earth itself was formed some 4.5 billion years ago.
The implications are astounding.
The theory proposes answers to often-asked questions: Is the deep hot biosphere where life originated, and do Mars and other seemingly barren planets contain deep biospheres? Even more provocatively, is it possible that there is an enormous store of hydrocarbons upwelling from deep within the earth that can provide us with abundant supplies of gas and petroleum?
However far-fetched these ideas seem, they are supported by a growing body of evidence, and by the indisputable stature and seriousness Gold brings to any scientific debate. In this book we see a brilliant and boldly original thinker, increasingly a rarity in modern science, as he develops potentially revolutionary ideas about how our world works.
Hopefully, this book as well as the research contained will be an eye-opener into how global markets, as well as we the people, are being manipulated.
Prima Quran 