“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force.” “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” (Qur’an 18:79-81)
﷽
The Qur’an is sublime.
“Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.” (Qur’an 43:3)
In the Qur’an, in chapter 18, verses 65 to 82, we have information related to us by a figure that Islamic scholars have named ‘Khidr’.
Finally, when Prophet Moses (as) is no longer able to keep patient with this figure and the things that this figure does prompt Moses (as) on every occasion to question why he does the things that he does, he finally gets resolution.
“As for the ship, it belonged to some poor people, working at sea. So I intended to damage it, for there was a king ahead of them who seizes every ship by force.” “And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.” “And as for the wall, it belonged to two orphan boys in the city, and there was beneath it a treasure for them, and their father had been righteous. So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord. And I did it not of my own accord. That is the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.” (Qur’an 18:79-81)
None of the translations of the meaning can give justice to the Arabic Qur’an.
As regards the action of damaging the ship. The individual ascribes that action to himself.
So I intended to damage it. I intended: fa-aradttu 1st person singular verb.
“and we feared that he would pressure them into defiance and disbelief. So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.”
We feared:fakhashina 1st person plural perfect verb. The ‘we feared’ is better translated or understood as ‘we disliked’. Whatever displeases Allah (swt) displeases his loyal and faithful servants.
We hoped: fa-aradna 1st person plural perfect verb. The ‘we hoped’ is better translated as we intended.
In here fakhashina ‘we disliked’ he returns it to himself and to Allah (swt). Why?
Killing the child, he returns back to himself.
“So they proceeded until they came across a boy, and the man killed him. Moses protested, “Have you killed an innocent soul who killed no one?” You have certainly done a horrible thing.” (Qur’an 18:74)
“So we hoped that their Lord would give them another, more virtuous and caring in his place.”
Allah is replacing the child with another.
So the killing is from the companion of Moses (as) and the replacement is from Allah (swt). You can use the ‘We’ as Allah (swt) is the creator of all things and human beings acquire the actions.
“So your Lord intended that they reach maturity and extract their treasure, as a mercy from your Lord.”
The Lord intended: fa-arada rabbuka 3rd person masculine singular perfect verb
fa-aradttu (I intended) an a’ibaha (cause a defect) -I wanted to. fa-aradna- (we intended) fa-arada rabbuka (so intended Your Lord)
Very often the various translations rob the reader of the depth of the Arabic language.
Another example is Qur’an 3:7
“And none know its interpretation save God and those firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in it; all is from our Lord.”
Those who may lack depth of Arabic grammar and syntax would argue that the verse should be read as: “But none knows its interpretation except Allah”. And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: “We believe in this, it is all from our Lord.”
Whereas the better reading is:
“But none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. They say, “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
However, due to the lack of depth of the Arabic grammar and syntax, they would object by looking at English translations of the meanings and say:
That Allah (swt) would not say: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.”
But this is not the proper understanding at all. The part of the verse: “We believe in this it is all from our Lord.” Is a reference to : “Those who are firmly rooted in knowledge.” and not to Allah (swt).
Issues that arise from the verses by those not grounded in theology.
They argue that it looks as if Allah (swt) is certain of the righteousness of the substitute son that does not exist yet; all the while, the unbelieving son, Allah (swt) was simply using the principle of probability.
But this type of reasoning is turned on its head. If Allah (swt) knew, the righteousness of the substitute son, which does not exist yet, he certainly knew of the actions of the unbelieving son.
Allah (swt) allowing for the son to be killed as well as the announcement of another son are all based upon certain knowledge that Allah (swt) has.
“We strengthened his kingship, and gave him wisdom and sound judgment.” (Qur’an 38:20)
﷽
These verses are a case study that strengthen the position of the Ibadi school that Muslims should not rely upon the Israʼiliyyat material to provide further points of elucidation on any matter of our faith.
Narrated Ubaidullah:
Ibn `Abbas said, “Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Qur’an) which has been revealed to Allah’s Messenger (saw) is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, ‘It is from Allah,’ to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!”
Because this hadith is from Ibn Abbas (ra). Ibn Abbas (ra) is clearly telling us not to rely upon the People of the Scripture while we have the Qur’an.
*Note* Ibn Abbas (ra) according to the hadith clearly states:
“Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?“
“(And hath the story of the litigants come unto thee?) Then came to you the story of the opponents of David. (How they climbed the wall into the royal chamber…”
“How they burst in upon David, and he) David (was afraid of them. They) i.e. the two angels who entered in on David (said: Be not afraid (We are) two litigants, one of whom hath wronged the other, therefore judge aright) justly (between us; be not unjust) do not be partial and transgress not; (and show us the fair way) show us what is right.”
“(Lo! this my brother hath ninety and nine ewes) meaning 99 wives (while I had one ewe) i.e. one wife; (and he said: Entrust it to me, and he conquered me in speech) this is a similitude which they struck for David in order for him to understand what he did to Uriah.”
“((And it was said to him): O David! Lo! We have set you as a vicegerent in the earth) We appointed you a prophet king for the Children of Israel; (therefore judge aright between mankind) judge justly between people, (and follow not desire) that as you did regarding Bathseba, the wife of Uriah, who was also David’s cousin (that it beguile you from the way of Allah) from the obedience of Allah. (Lo! those who wander from the way of Allah) from the obedience of Allah (have an awful doom, forasmuch as they forgot the Day of Reckoning) because they forsake working for the Day of Reckoning.”
So now we are in a conundrum. Here are some propositions that require reflection.
The above hadith is not true because Ibn Abbas (ra) apparently is relying upon information that neither the Qur’an nor the Blessed Prophet (saw) provides.
The above hadith is true and this tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) needs to be put under a microscope and further scrutiny.
Ibn Abbas (ra) used to believe the statement in the hadith, but later changed his opinion, thus we have the bizarre Israʼiliyyat material in his Tafsir.
The bizarre Israʼiliyyat material in Ibn Abbas (ra) tafsir is about an earlier position he held and the hadith captures a latter position in which he corrected the error of his ways.
“We strengthened his kingship, and gave him wisdom and sound judgment. Has the story of the two plaintiffs, who scaled the sanctuary, reached you? When they came into David’s presence, he was startled by them. They said, “Have no fear. We are merely two in a dispute: one of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth—do not go beyond it and guide us to the right way. This is my brother. He has ninety-nine sheep while I have one. He asked me to give it up to him, overwhelming me with his argument.” David’s ruling was: “He has definitely wronged you in demanding to add your sheep to his. And certainly many partners wrong each other, except those who believe and do good—but how few are they!” Then David realized that We had tested him so he asked for his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down in prostration, and turned in repentance. So We forgave that for him. And he will indeed have closeness to Us and an honourable destination! “O David! We have surely made you an authority in the land, so judge between people with truth. And do not follow whims or they will lead you astray from Allah’s Way. Surely those who go astray from Allah’s Way will suffer a severe punishment for neglecting the Day of Reckoning.” (Qur’an 38:20-26)
We will give our argument that of the questions that are put forward the position of Ibn Abbas (ra) is either position 2 or 4. The Tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (ra) has some bizarre assertions.
In order to believe in either proposition 1 or 3 we would need solid answers to the following questions:
A) Why would angels need to: “climb a wall into a royal chamber?” They are angels why do they need to climb or scale anything?
B) Since when did Prophets serve as a litigant in a dispute with angels?
C) Since when did angels have sheep?
D) Where did Ibn Abbas (ra) get the idea that the sheep are actually women? Why would the Arabic text, which clearly states sheep, be seen as a metaphor for women unless one was reliant upon Israʼiliyyat.
As regards what some commentators think, this is a reference to let me remind the readers of the Biblical account that accuses the Prophet.
Regarding the incident of King David and Uriah, it is alluded to in the Qur’an (38:21-25) in the Parable of the Ewes. It becomes evident that King David did commit some mistake with regard to taking Uriah’s wife. But, of course, we don’t say he committed adultery with her.
Allegedly Prophet David (as) commits adultery and is culpable in murder according to the Bible.
“Brothers, I can tell you with confidence that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.” (Acts 2:29-30)
Next, we have the story of Prophet David (as)
Apparently, if we are to believe the testimony in the Bible concerning David, we find that he was a man who led a woman to commit adultery and committed adultery himself. He lusted after another man’s wife, watched her bath naked. He then had this woman’s husband killed. He tried to hide the fact he made this woman pregnant out of wedlock. This is the same David that, according to Christians, writes all the prophecies concerning Jesus in the 22 Psalms and throughout the Psalms. Even accordingly, David wrote evil things like the following:
“In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it, he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.”
If I was to measure the Prophets of the Bible-based upon how some Christians measure the Blessed Prophet Muhammed (saw) I could never become a Christian. I would have to reject the testimony concerning the “prophecies” concerning Jesus in the Psalms.
“One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof, he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.)
Then she went back home. The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.” “So David sent this word to Joab: “Send me Uriah the Hittite.” And Joab sent him to David. When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were, and how the war was going. Then David said to Uriah, “Go down to your house and wash your feet.” So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master’s servants and did not go down to his house.”
“David was told, “Uriah did not go home.” So he asked Uriah, “Haven’t you just come from a military campaign? Why didn’t you go home?” “Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my commander Joab and my lord’s men are camped in the open country. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and make love to my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!”
“Then David said to him, “Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back.” So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. At David’s invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master’s servants; he did not go home.”
” In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. In it, he wrote, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.” “So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David’s army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died.”
“Joab sent David a full account of the battle. He instructed the messenger: “When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, the king’s anger may flare up, and he may ask you, ‘Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn’t you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? Who killed Abimelek son of Jerub-Besheth? Didn’t a woman drop an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?’ If he asks you this, then say to him, ‘Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.’”
“The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. The messenger said to David, “The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance of the city gate. Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king’s men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.” “David told the messenger, “Say this to Joab: ‘Don’t let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.’ Say this to encourage Joab.”
“When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the Lord.”(2nd Samuel 11:2-27)
What does the displeased Lord do with David?
“This is what the Lord says: ‘Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes, I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.’”
“Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” “Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord,the son born to you will die.” “After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.” On the seventh day, the child died.”
David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him”. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.” “David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked.” “Yes,” they replied, “He is dead.”
“Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions, and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the Lord and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request, they served him food, and he ate.” “His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!”
“He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” “Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah.” (2 Samuel 12:11-25)
Prima Qur’an Comments:
So the Lord (Jesus The Son, The Father, and that third wheel, aka- The Holy Spirit) was displeased with David’s actions. So what do they ultimately do? What do THEY DO to David?
They kill David’s infant son! Imagine David saying to his son: “Sorry, son but Daddy got into a fling with some other dudes wife and now well lil tyke you’re going to have die for that!”
They make a decree that David will have his wives taken from him and made to commit adultery in broad daylight. God of the Bible via Prophet Nathan: “What you did displeased me. You know I don’t like it when people commit adultery. To prove my point I am going to decree to have your wives go and commit adultery in broad daylight just to show you how much I dislike adultery!”
Lastly, they reward David with a son through the wife who cheated on her husband and gave her Solomon who in return became a King of Israel and a Prophet! God of the Bible via Prophet Nathan: “David what you did was very bad and even though I killed your son who did not have anything do with your sexual proprietaries but that is water under the bridge, lesson learned. Thus, I am going give you another son through the same women that cheated on her husband.”
What in the Cinnamon Toast Crunch kind of justice is this?!
Notice the above text states:
” I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives.”
Such a notable threat, but we don’t hear anything of that kind. The text says that I will take your wives and take them to one who is close to David, and he will sleep with your wives. Which begs the question. How certain can we be that this child that Bathsheba had with David was his child at all?
We have no idea how much time has passed since the death of Uriah and although the text goes out of its way to make it seem that he never had intimacy with her for some time, we can’t be entirely certain. Not only that, but apparently, according to the threats issued by the God of the Bible to David that he would take his wives and give them to someone who will commit adultery with them, how certain can we be that this individual is not the father?
Anyway, this is the depiction of the deity of the Bible and the “justice” of that deity. There is absolutely no justification to think that the passage of the (Qur’an 38:20-26) had anything to do with that, at all!
Not only this but the above text is in major contradiction with the above.
“But the children of the murderers he did not execute, according to what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, in which the Lord commanded, saying, “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall be put to death for his own sin.”(2 Kings 14:6)
Note that the children of the murderers were not executed. But the above text has:
“You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord,the son born to you will die.”
Shaykh Dr. Khalan Al Kharousi (H) has an explanation for this. All praise be to Allah (swt).
Dr. Khalan Al Kharousi (h) mentions a very important point. That here and there a particular mufassir (exegete) would look at the Qur’an through the lens of the Israʼiliyyat material. Which brings us that unfortunate bit about Uriah and David. The text of the Qur’an is far, far from this.
Now that is the explanation given by Shaykh Dr. Khalan (h).
There is another explanation given by our teacher, Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani (h) of Algeria.
Shaykh Dawud’s explanation is very straight forward. He focuses on the following text:
So judge between us with truth—do not go beyond it and guide us to the right way.
David’s ruling was: “He has definitely wronged you in demanding to add your sheep to his.
Then David realized that We had tested him so he asked for his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down in prostration, and turned in repentance
We have surely made you an authority in the land, so judge between people with truth. And do not follow whims or they will lead you astray from Allah’s Way
So the straight forward explanation given by Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani of Algeria is that the hakim should hear both sides of the story. David (as) upon hearing that one brother had the bulk of the sheep, gave in to his whims and was hasty in coming to a decision. However, he immediately realized this. As if he was going to turn to the second brother and say (now you speak) but by than David (as) already showed himself not to be impartial. Thus, David (as) was quick to turn in repentance to Allah (swt).
For those of you who understand Arabic, do not miss out on this gem of the Ummah, Shaykh Dawud Bu-Sinani (h). Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan attended his lecture series in Oman.
Here is a 7 hour Qur’anic course contains seven chapters dealing with the foundations of faith and the practical rules that a Muslim should follow in order to meet his Lord with a blank page free from the traces of sins and sins!
“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)
﷽
As mentioned before we do a tight textual analsysis of the Qur’an in order to reach the correct understanding. This is done by comparing a word with all other instances of that word in the Qur’an. This is done by also comparing the context of verses with their surrounding verses. This is known as Tafsir al-Quran bi-l-Quran. (Interpreting the Qur’an by the Qur’an)
In a discussion on Blogging Theology titled: “Jesus was not crucified: the evidence with Dr. Ali Ataie.” Dr. Ali Ataie made some very interesting assertions. Assertions which move him closer to our position.
@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: Dr. Ataie state: ” “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some crucifixionevent from non eye-witnesses….”
I would replace some words in the above sentence: “Jews and Christians ended up following hearsay reports about some imaplement event from non eye-witnesses….
“Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), (Galatians 3:13)
Paul is quoting from a text that mentions a post mortem suspension punishment. The individual is killed first and while dead then supsended. Christians understand the Crucifixion as an ante mortem suspension punishment where the person is killed via asphyxiation while alive and being suspended.
This is exactly what shubbiha lahum means. It is not shubi ha alayhim!
In fact because we love you the readers insh’Allah I will give you a sneak peak at one of the slides that Shaykh Hilal and I are working on.
No pay wall and no gate keeping information!
This is the critical linguistic and contextual refinement. This is a far more precise reading of the phrase شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ (shubbiha lahum) and the verses that follow.
From the Ibadi perspective and reading of the verse the point fundamentally shifts the understanding of the verse from a narrativeabout a visual illusionin real-time toa critique of a historical claim based on unreliable transmission. Let’s integrate this correction.
The Correct Understanding of Point 4:167
The phrase وَ لٰكِنْ شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ (“but it was made to appear so to them”) does not describe a miraculous event witnessed by onlookers in real time. Instead, it critiques the oral tradition and historical narrative that the Jewish community subsequent to the event had come to believe and propagate.
The Qur’an’s own subsequent words completely invalidate the possibility of this being an eye-witness account:
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ اخْتَلَفُوا فِيهِ لَفِي شَكٍّ مِنْهُ – “Indeed, those who differ over it are surely in doubt about it.” (4:157)
Doubt (شَكٍّ – shakk) is impossible for someone who witnessed an execution firsthand.
مَا لَهُمْ بِهِ مِنْ عِلْمٍ – “They have no knowledge of it.” (4:157)
Knowledge (عِلْمٍ – ‘ilm) is exactly what an eye-witness would claim to have.
Assumption (الظَّنَّ – al-ẓann) is the antithesis of eye-witness testimony.
A Hadith that is classified as الظَّنَّ (al-ẓann), meaning “conjectural” or “of presumptive status,” and comes from a lone narrator (or a single strand of transmission) is known as a Khabar al-Āḥād (خبر الآحاد).
Here’s a detailed breakdown:
Definition: A Khabar al-Āḥād is a report (Hadith) that does not reach the highest level of mass transmission (Mutawātir). It is narrated by one or a few individuals at any stage of its chain of narration (isnad), such that the number of narrators does not generate absolute, certain knowledge (ilm al-yaqīn) in the listener. Instead,it generates presumptive knowledge (ilm al-ẓannī), which is sufficient for action but is theoretically open to doubt.
Therefore, the Qur’an is not describing a supernatural trickery of the senses that happened in the past. It is describing the state of the received narrative in the present tense of its revelation.
The chain of meaning, according to this corrected interpretation, is:
The Claim: A specific Jewish community (contemporary to the Prophet Muhammed or just prior) boasts, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” This is their historical claim.
The Denial: The Qur’an flatly denies this: “And they did not kill him, nor did they impale him (وَ مَا صَلَبُوهُ).”
The Explanation for the False Claim: How did this false claim arise? The event was “made to appear to them (شُبِّهَ لَهُمْ)” in their oral traditions and historical accounts. The truth was obscured within their own narrative.
The Proof of the Falsehood: The proof that this claim is a baseless tradition and not established fact is that those who argue over it are in doubt, devoid of certain knowledge, and following only assumptions about what truly happened. True eye-witnesses to a capital punishment would not be in a state of doubt and conjecture; they would be certain.
“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)
﷽
This is a recent e-mail sent to Todd Lawson an Emeritus Professor of Islamic thought at the University of Toronto.
I sent this inquiry as I am genuinely curious as to why he or anyone for that matter think that the Qur’an 4:157 seem to be interacting with anything that the Romans have done, or that the text is talking about a historical event known as the “Crucifixion” or that the Qur’an is denying/or affirming anything about a Cross at all.
Greetings Professor Lawson
I hope this email finds you in the best of health.
I had read your book “The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the HIstory of Muslim Thought.”
It was certainly an interesting read.
You have noted how extraneous material has influenced the Sunni Tafsir tradition and popular interpretation of Qur’an 4:157.
So to this point I am curious as to why you think the Qur’an engaged with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all?
The reason I ask this is because when one looks at the immediate text of the Qur’an 4:157 there does not seem to be any mention of Romans or Roman involvement at all.
I am deeply interested why your good self or anyone would feel that the Qur’an 4:157 engages with an historical event popularly known as “The Crucifixion” at all. I believe that a reading of the text without extraneous material tells us that the text is interacting with certain Jews who were making certain claims about Jesus.
When we read Qur’an 4:155 for example:
“They have incurred Allah’s wrath for their breaking the covenant, and their rejection of the signs of Allah and for slaying Prophets without right, and for saying: ‘Our hearts are wrapped up in covers-even though in fact Allah has sealed their hearts because of their unbelief, so that they scarcely believe.”
I believe we both concur that it would seem out of place for that text to address the Romans of the time of Jesus.
Furthermore the Qur’an 4:157 has a double denial in the text. They did not kill him nor did they (salabu). The initial denial is general and it can easily accommodate any understanding of a possible demise of Jesus.
It is immensely curious to follow up a general denial that can accommodate any particular understanding of any possible demise of Jesus with a particular denial immediately after.
Is it not more sensible in keeping with the immediate text and surrounding text to see this as the Qur’an interacting with particular claims made by Jews about Jesus? Rather these claims are based upon any historical event, document or even oral transmissions in certain circles that the Qur’an would be familiar with?
Given that this seems to be the very obvious case, how do you propose somehow Romans, and a “Crucifixion” is posited upon the text of Qur’an 4:157?
It is peculiar because Jews do not crucify people in their law. It is not a part of the Torah nor of the Talmud of which I am sure you are aware.
They do have laws about killing people and then impailing them. They do have assertions about those impaled being cursed by God.
Equally curious is the idea that (salabu) would translate to a Latin Cross, or the Tau Cross.
Given that the Qur’an in (7:124); 20:71; & 26:49) all describe cutting off the hands and the feet and given what we know about supporting the body weight on an ecclesiastical “Cross” it is it not presumptuous of us to assume Latin Cross, Tau etc?
The two noun forms in Qur’an 86:7 & Qur’an 4:23 which relate to the loins and the lumbus region seem to forcefully argue with a type of punishment that would involve impalement rather than anything to do with being tied to a patibulum and affixed to a crux or stake and than having nails driven in ones hands and feet.
When we look at the text of Qur’an 5:33 on page 31 of your book you state:
“the criminal was killed by a separate means before their corpse was publicly displayed on a pike or cross.”
This does not seem to correlate to what Christians have in mind when they invoke the “Crucifixion” of Jesus. They seem to think this is a death on a cross and not a death prior to a cross.
I also felt that pike was more appropriate than cross given what we know about the Islamic legal schools. None of the legal schools, Ibadi, Zaydi, Zahiri, Shafi’i, Imami, Maliki, Hanafi or Hanbali make it a requirement to put someone on a patibulum and affix that patibulum to a crux or stake and than proceed to drive nails in the hands and feet.
Much more can be said. Again I believe my initial inquiry is that if we do a plain reading of Qur’an 4:157 or even invoke the immediate context where are we drawing upon the idea that this is interacting with something the Romans are said to have done to Jesus?
Thank you for your time.
Have a blessed weekend ahead.
If you would like to read more on this subject I invite you to read the following:
Prima Quran 