The Messenger Of Allah ﷺ said: “Whoever dies without an Imam will die a death of Jahiliyyah” (Musnad Ahmad)

Have a Question?

Search keywords and articles will show up!

Swoon Theory Vs Substituion Theory

31 Oct, 2022 Uncategorized

Swoon Theory vs Substitution Theory

Table of Context

  1. Evidence for Swoon Theory from Quran and Ahadith

    1. Salabu meaning

    2. Hadith shows that Masih was on the cross but was alive

    3. Corroborates Biblical verse

  2. Gnostic Beliefs

  3. Addressing the Substitution Theory

  4. Isra’ilyyat

  5. Conclusion

Evidence for Swoon Theory from Quran and Ahadith

4:158 English – Sher Ali

And their saying, ‘We did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah;’ whereas they slew him not, nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like one crucified; and those who differ therein are certainly in a state of doubt about it; they have no definite knowledge thereof, but only follow a conjecture; and they did not convert this conjecture into a certainty;


Salabu is not merely hanging someone on the crossSalabu is not merely hanging someone on the cross

Salabu is not merely hanging someone on the cross

 Lets move to the topic of how Salab (Cross) in relation to crucifixion and it is used in Quran and the Arabic language. Some Sunni apologists claim that crucifixion just means putting on the cross. This is false. The fact of the matter is that the Quran describes how the people of the past used to do crucifixion. And the verses on crucifixion in the Quran describe it as a worse punishment than death. The Quran uses it as a death associated with shame and public humiliation. As well as a warning for other such criminals. The Quran also describes what other culture did to people being crucified (torture and mutilation) like the Egyptians. According to some scholars of fiqh a pseudo Crucifixion must be performed where a criminal is killed and then hanged on a cross or tree. And the reason that they highlight is simple. Islam forbids mutilation as such the person must be dead. While other believe that the person should be on the cross and then killed via stabbing. While another group believes that a criminal should die from being on the cross itself (roman crucifixion) via starvation, asphyxiation, loss of blood flow.

HOWEVER, nowhere in fiqh literature is crucifixion separated from capital punishment, rather it is considered to be the worst form of punishment. They define crucifixion as as capital punishment and hanging on a cross (method of death may vary). This due to dispute on what is mutilation etc. Not just hanging on a cross. Present then Quran 12:41 (see above and the drama is over). Even without present of qatal, Salabu means death. The Quran always makes it a point to link death and crucifixion. Even if we play devils advocate. The idea that Jesus was to crucified the way Sha’fi style it does not help. Because Sha’fis and some other Sunni Jurists argued crucifixion is only allowed AFTER death. So even then the Ahmadi interpretation stands as Jesus was never dead per us before and after the crucifixion attempt. Salab as defined in the Arabic language as capital punishment associated with hanging on the cross. Furthermore, like I have mentioned earlier the Quran describes how earlier people crucified people alive. Lastly, Salab is an Aramaic loan word which means crucifixion.

Quran – 5:34
The reward of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land is only this that they be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on alternate sides, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;

Quran – 7:124

‘Most surely will I cut off your hands and your feet on alternate sides. Then will I surely crucify you all together.

Quran – 26:50

Pharaoh said, ‘You have believed in him before I gave you leave? He is surely your chief who has taught you magic. But you shall know the consequences thereof. I will most surely cut off your hands and your feet on alternate sides, and I will most surely crucify you all.’

Quran – 12:42
‘O my two companions of the prison, as for one of you, he will pour out wine, for his lord to drink; and as for the other, he will be crucified so that the birds will eat from off his head. The matter about which you inquired has been decreed.’

First of all we shall find out what is meant by qatl and salb. The upholders of the view that Jesus is still alive claim that salb means to hang a person on the cross, and death by hanging on the cross is not the meaning of this word. 5 They do not mention anything about qatl, whether it also means to attack a person by the sword or inflict some grievous harm to him, and whether to actually cause death by such attack is not a part of qatl; because in the verse under discussion, both qatl and salb have been denied. However, the lexicons tell us a different story. Lisan al-íArab says: He was slain, which means he died by a blow or by stone or by poison or by any other means

Taj al-ëArus says nearly the same thing. In Mufradat it is stated: ìThe true meaning of qatl is to separate the soul from the body

As to the meaning of salb, it is mentioned in Lisan al-Arab:

Salb means death in a certain well-known manner and is derived from wadak because ichor mixed with blood of the person so put to death, flowed.

Here salb clearly means qatl(killing in a well-known manner) and it is agreed that qatl is to separate the soul from the body. Similarly Taj al-íArussays: ìSalb is wadak which meansichor or watery humour, mixed with blood 9 and further on it is stated: ìMaslub is called maslub because the ichor mixed with blood of the person so crucified flows, and salb is causing death in a certain well-known manner and is derived from this because the ichor of the person so crucified, flowed.

These are the two famous books of lexicon which do not say at all that salb is just to hang a person on the cross. On the contrary, it has clearly been indicated that salb means qatl (death) in a certain well-known manner and qatl means, to separate the soul from the body. The difference between salb and qatl is that every salb is qatl, but every qatl is not salb. Death by a blow, stoning or poisoning does fall in the category of qatl, but if a person is hit by a blow, or by a stone, and does not die, we cannot say that he has been slain. Similarly, if a person is hanged on the stake (cross) and does not die, we cannot say that he has been crucified. Crucifixion means to be slain in a particular manner. A person who is not slain (maqtul) cannot be called crucified (maslub). Thus, for such a person, the expression that he is neither slain nor crucified is perfectly justifiable, although he may have been attacked by sword, or hit by stone, or may have been hanged on the cross. Salb, as has been proven above, is a kind of qatl. If qatl (slaying) cannot be applied to an incident, then there is no justification for applying the word salb (death by hanging) to that incident.

People of the Book and their concept of crucifixion (salb) We have seen above the meaning of qatl and salb according to the lexicons of the Arabs. Now we shall discuss the meaning of these words according to the usage of the People of the Book who claim to have slain or crucified Jesus. The word qatl need not detain us here because this word or its synonym denotes the killing of a person by a special method. As to crucifixion, the form it took was that a person was placed on a wooden structure in the shape of a cross and his hands and feet were nailed. In the Encyclopaedia Biblica it is written that the body would remain on the cross till it dried up. 6 This is exactly what the Arab lexicologists have said; drying up the body meant that the bone marrow and the fat flowed out of the body. It is mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopaedia that the real cause of death was hunger and loss of the power of the body, and by the contortion of the body, the person put on the cross suffered great agony and gradually cramp and convulsion took place in it. 7 Sometimes the body remained on the cross for three days. To cause early death, sometimes the legs were broken.

Thus, according to the Arabs, as well as the People of the Book, a person was called ìcrucifiedî (maslub) only when he had actually died on the cross and generally his corpse dried up in the process of hanging. If he did not die on the cross, although he may have been put on it, he could not be called maslub (crucified), just as a person could not be called slain (maqtul) if he is wounded by a sword but does not die as a consequence of the attack made on him.

The Qurían does not belie the history of the People of the Book, but belies their false doctrine

What has been said above proves that ìthey crucified him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross.î 8 It does not mean that Jesus was not put on the Cross. It is important to remember the point that we should not interpret the Quríanic words in such a way that belie obvious historical facts. It is quite possible that a person may conclude from the words:

They killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross 9

that Jesus was not subjected to an act like that of qatl (killing) or salb (crucifixion), but this is not a necessary conclusion. When we look at history, the Jews claimed on the one hand that they hanged Jesus on the cross and on the other hand, the followers of Jesus admitted that he was, in fact, put on the Cross, and there is no contemporary historical record which shows that Jesus was not at all put on the cross. Now, if after six hundred years, somebody says that Jesus was not put on the cross, who is going to believe it? While interpreting the Qurían, it should be kept in mind that if a word can bear two meanings, we should adopt that meaning which is not contrary to historical records. Apart from this, the Qurían came to provide conclusive proof against the beliefs of the Jews and the Christians. How would they be silenced? They agree on the fact that Jesus was put on the Cross but we reject their views and advance another theory, that Jesus was only physically lifted up into heaven. How could we ask them to affirm this view which has no historical testimony to support it? Therefore, we should interpret the Qurían in such a way that does not belie their history but only belies their belief. This is what the Qurían has done. Without rejecting their history, on which both Jews and Christians agree, the Qurían has rejected their erroneous beliefs, the details of which will be discussed a little later.

The question may be raised here that when we accept their history in which both parties agree, then why should we not accept their unanimous verdict that Jesus died on the Cross as well? The reason for rejecting this presumption is that not only is it against the express teachings of the Qurían but also against historical evidence. Even the events mentioned in the Gospels clearly indicate that although Jesus was put on the Cross, he did not die there.

Footnotes:

7. Encyclopaedia Judaica under Crucifixion, col. 1134, vol.5, Jerusalem, 1971.

5. “For three reasons it is wrong to assume that salb means killing by hanging on the Cross…. If, in any book of lexicon or idioms or verse, salb means killing by hanging on the Cross, it was incumbent on the author to quote such reference…. Remember that no book of lexicon can ever be quoted to support this view.”” Shahadat al-Qurían by Maulavi Ibrahim Sialkoti, pp.60-61. The said maulavi was a great opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

.

First of all we shall find out what is meant by qatl and salb. The upholders of the view that Jesus is still alive claim that salb means to hang a person on the cross, and death by hanging on the cross is not the meaning of this word. 5 They do not mention anything about qatl, whether it also means to attack a person by the sword or inflict some grievous harm to him, and whether to actually cause death by such attack is not a part of qatl; because in the verse under discussion, both qatl and salb have been denied. However, the lexicons tell us a different story. Lisan al-íArab says: He was slain, which means he died by a blow or by stone or by poison or by any other means

Taj al-ëArus says nearly the same thing. In Mufradat it is stated: ìThe true meaning of qatl is to separate the soul from the body

As to the meaning of salb, it is mentioned in Lisan al-Arab:

Salb means death in a certain well-known manner and is derived from wadak because ichor mixed with blood of the person so put to death, flowed.

Here salb clearly means qatl(killing in a well-known manner) and it is agreed that qatl is to separate the soul from the body. Similarly Taj al-íArussays: ìSalb is wadak which meansichor or watery humour, mixed with blood 9 and further on it is stated: ìMaslub is called maslub because the ichor mixed with blood of the person so crucified flows, and salb is causing death in a certain well-known manner and is derived from this because the ichor of the person so crucified, flowed.

These are the two famous books of lexicon which do not say at all that salb is just to hang a person on the cross. On the contrary, it has clearly been indicated that salb means qatl (death) in a certain well-known manner and qatl means, to separate the soul from the body. The difference between salb and qatl is that every salb is qatl, but every qatl is not salb. Death by a blow, stoning or poisoning does fall in the category of qatl, but if a person is hit by a blow, or by a stone, and does not die, we cannot say that he has been slain. Similarly, if a person is hanged on the stake (cross) and does not die, we cannot say that he has been crucified. Crucifixion means to be slain in a particular manner. A person who is not slain (maqtul) cannot be called crucified (maslub). Thus, for such a person, the expression that he is neither slain nor crucified is perfectly justifiable, although he may have been attacked by sword, or hit by stone, or may have been hanged on the cross. Salb, as has been proven above, is a kind of qatl. If qatl (slaying) cannot be applied to an incident, then there is no justification for applying the word salb (death by hanging) to that incident.

People of the Book and their concept of crucifixion (salb) We have seen above the meaning of qatl and salb according to the lexicons of the Arabs. Now we shall discuss the meaning of these words according to the usage of the People of the Book who claim to have slain or crucified Jesus. The word qatl need not detain us here because this word or its synonym denotes the killing of a person by a special method. As to crucifixion, the form it took was that a person was placed on a wooden structure in the shape of a cross and his hands and feet were nailed. In the Encyclopaedia Biblica it is written that the body would remain on the cross till it dried up. 6 This is exactly what the Arab lexicologists have said; drying up the body meant that the bone marrow and the fat flowed out of the body. It is mentioned in the Jewish Encyclopaedia that the real cause of death was hunger and loss of the power of the body, and by the contortion of the body, the person put on the cross suffered great agony and gradually cramp and convulsion took place in it. 7 Sometimes the body remained on the cross for three days. To cause early death, sometimes the legs were broken.

Thus, according to the Arabs, as well as the People of the Book, a person was called ìcrucifiedî (maslub) only when he had actually died on the cross and generally his corpse dried up in the process of hanging. If he did not die on the cross, although he may have been put on it, he could not be called maslub (crucified), just as a person could not be called slain (maqtul) if he is wounded by a sword but does not die as a consequence of the attack made on him.

The Qurían does not belie the history of the People of the Book, but belies their false doctrine

What has been said above proves that ìthey crucified him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross.î 8 It does not mean that Jesus was not put on the Cross. It is important to remember the point that we should not interpret the Quríanic words in such a way that belie obvious historical facts. It is quite possible that a person may conclude from the words:

They killed him not, nor did they cause his death on the cross 9

that Jesus was not subjected to an act like that of qatl (killing) or salb (crucifixion), but this is not a necessary conclusion. When we look at history, the Jews claimed on the one hand that they hanged Jesus on the cross and on the other hand, the followers of Jesus admitted that he was, in fact, put on the Cross, and there is no contemporary historical record which shows that Jesus was not at all put on the cross. Now, if after six hundred years, somebody says that Jesus was not put on the cross, who is going to believe it? While interpreting the Qurían, it should be kept in mind that if a word can bear two meanings, we should adopt that meaning which is not contrary to historical records. Apart from this, the Qurían came to provide conclusive proof against the beliefs of the Jews and the Christians. How would they be silenced? They agree on the fact that Jesus was put on the Cross but we reject their views and advance another theory, that Jesus was only physically lifted up into heaven. How could we ask them to affirm this view which has no historical testimony to support it? Therefore, we should interpret the Qurían in such a way that does not belie their history but only belies their belief. This is what the Qurían has done. Without rejecting their history, on which both Jews and Christians agree, the Qurían has rejected their erroneous beliefs, the details of which will be discussed a little later.

The question may be raised here that when we accept their history in which both parties agree, then why should we not accept their unanimous verdict that Jesus died on the Cross as well? The reason for rejecting this presumption is that not only is it against the express teachings of the Qurían but also against historical evidence. Even the events mentioned in the Gospels clearly indicate that although Jesus was put on the Cross, he did not die there.

Footnotes:

7. Encyclopaedia Judaica under Crucifixion, col. 1134, vol.5, Jerusalem, 1971.

5. “For three reasons it is wrong to assume that salb means killing by hanging on the Cross…. If, in any book of lexicon or idioms or verse, salb means killing by hanging on the Cross, it was incumbent on the author to quote such reference…. Remember that no book of lexicon can ever be quoted to support this view.”” Shahadat al-Qurían by Maulavi Ibrahim Sialkoti, pp.60-61. The said maulavi was a great opponent of the Ahmadiyya Movement.

.

The basis of our belief is Quran and Ahadith and it confirms that Jesus was on the cross and did not die on it but the Jews were in doubt in what really occurred.

حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ حَفْصٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي شَقِيقٌ، قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَحْكِي نَبِيًّا مِنَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ ضَرَبَهُ قَوْمُهُ فَأَدْمَوْهُ، وَهْوَ يَمْسَحُ الدَّمَ عَنْ وَجْهِهِ، وَيَقُولُ ‏ “‏ اللَّهُمَّ اغْفِرْ لِقَوْمِي فَإِنَّهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ ‏”‏‏.‏

Narrated `Abdullah:

As if I saw the Prophet (ﷺ) talking about one of the prophets whose nation had beaten him and caused him to bleed, while he was cleaning the blood off his face and saying, “O Allah! Forgive my nation, for they have no knowledge.” – Sahih al-Bukhari 3477

حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ حَفْصٍ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا الأَعْمَشُ، قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي شَقِيقٌ، قَالَ قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ كَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَحْكِي نَبِيًّا مِنَ الأَنْبِيَاءِ ضَرَبَهُ قَوْمُهُ فَأَدْمَوْهُ، فَهْوَ يَمْسَحُ الدَّمَ عَنْ وَجْهِهِ وَيَقُولُ رَبِّ اغْفِرْ لِقَوْمِي، فَإِنَّهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ‏.‏

Narrated `Abdullah:

As if I am looking at the Prophet (ﷺ) while he was speaking about one of the prophets whose people have beaten and wounded him, and he was wiping the blood off his face and saying, “O Lord! Forgive my, people as they do not know.” – Sahih al-Bukhari 6929


The point to be noted is that crucified in of itself is a vague word. Hadrat Isa(as) was not crucified as he did not die on the cross nor was the full process of Crucifixion performed on him.(Where the legs are broken and due to this the lungs can not support the body and the person dies unable to breathe. The bible itself shows that Jesus was not on the cross long enough to have died. Only mere hours, even though the Crucifixion is a long painful death spanning days. And blood does not come out of dead body but when Jesus was poked blood and water flowed out! ) The point to be noted is that what Jesus said here is exactly what the prophet mentioned in Hadees said and he said this when he was on the cross.The point to be noted is that crucified in of itself is a vague word. Hadrat Isa(as) was not crucified as he did not die on the cross nor was the full process of Crucifixion performed on him.(Where the legs are broken and due to this the lungs can not support the body and the person dies unable to breathe. The bible itself shows that Jesus was not on the cross long enough to have died. Only mere hours, even though the Crucifixion is a long painful death spanning days. And blood does not come out of dead body but when Jesus was poked blood and water flowed out! ) The point to be noted is that what Jesus said here is exactly what the prophet mentioned in Hadees said and he said this when he was on the cross.

The point to be noted is that crucified in of itself is a vague word. Hadrat Isa(as) was not crucified as he did not die on the cross nor was the full process of Crucifixion performed on him.(Where the legs are broken and due to this the lungs can not support the body and the person dies unable to breathe. The bible itself shows that Jesus was not on the cross long enough to have died. Only mere hours, even though the Crucifixion is a long painful death spanning days. And blood does not come out of dead body but when Jesus was poked blood and water flowed out! ) The point to be noted is that what Jesus said here is exactly what the prophet mentioned in Hadees said and he said this when he was on the cross.

Another powerful hadith which refutes the Substitution theory is the following:

On the authority of Aisha, the mother of the believers (may God be pleased with her and be pleased with her), on the authority of the Prophet (may God’s prayers and peace be upon him) who said during his illness in which he died:

“May God curse the Jews and Christians, for they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship.”

(1330 Sahih al-Bukhari)

This hadith clearly speaks of the Jews and Christians that both groups used to take the graves of their prophets as places of worship and qiblah. The prophets of the Jews are numerous, and the Jews make pilgrimages to their shrines and graves, so what about the Christians? Where are the graves of their prophets that they make pilgrimage to?

The truth is that what is meant by the hadith is the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem, in which the Lord Christ was brought down alive from the cross and remained for three days and nights, as the Gospels say. Christians still visit the grave and perform sanctification and prostration and they don’t perform pilgrimage to any other grave of any other prophet.. This means that the tomb of Jesus (may God’s prayers and peace be upon him) in Jerusalem is an inescapable reality. If the grave was just an illusion in the minds of the Christians, the hadith of the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) would have been based on an illusion (God forbid). This hadith strongly refutes the theory of similarity promoted by the sheikhs, just as the Prophet (may God bless him and grant him peace) does not speak in vain and the hadith is true according to the majority of hadith scholars.

Gnostic Beliefs

 Docetism is a word that comes from a Greek verb dokeō “to seem” or noun dokesis “appearance”. It is used by the Fathers of the Church to describe a view that held that Jesus did not suffer on the cross, but only appeared to do so. An apocryphal gospel, The Acts of John, offers the following docetic account of the crucifixion:

After the Lord had so danced with us, my beloved, he went out. And we were like men amazed or fast asleep, and we fled this way and that. And so I saw him suffer, and did not wait by his suffering, but fled to the Mount of Olives and wept at what had come to pass. And when he was hung (upon the Cross) on Friday, at the sixth hour of the day there came a darkness over the whole earth. And my Lord stood in the middle of the cave and gave light to it and said, “John, for the people below in Jerusalem I am being crucified and pierced with lances and reeds and given vinegar and gall to drink. But to you I am speaking, and listen to what I speak.”1

In any case, the docetic view has a long history in Christianity and it holds that what was seen crucified on the cross was just an image: a phantom, not the real Jesus or perhaps even a substitute

1.The Acts of John, 97

Addressing the Substitution Theory

 The crucifixion has always been a vexing issue for Islamic scholarship. This is become there is no statement which can be traced back to the Prophet SAW that deals with this issue. Naturally the early Islamic scholars turned to Judeo-Christian source literature. In that they found that there were two prevalent thoughts:

1. Jesus (as) was crucified (ie. Death of the Cross) per Jewish and Mainstream Christian sources

2. Someone in the place of Jesus (as) was crucified. This tradition is found in certain later Gnostic sects.

The Quran according to almost all the early Mufasirun was quite clear Isa (as) could not, did not, and cannot die on the cross. Hence they felt that Gnostic tradition was the only suitable option to adopt. A lot of Sunni Muslims rely on the opinion of early tabiun most of which are not reliable. And argue that since they seem to point to someone else was put on the cross hence it must be a fact. However, such argumentation is absurd on multiple accounts:

1. Again there is no Prophetic to back their claim

2. Quran makes no mention of the subsitiution theory.

3. They did not have the textual criticism or the archeological evidence that we have to engage as critically witht the biblical narrative as we do.

4. They did not have divine guidance on the matter. Not really a position of Aqidah for them. The basic Aqidah is that Jesus could not be killed or crucified and this information was only filler.

4. Their claim are completley allign with later and heretical Gnostic sects which appeared far after the death of Isa (as)

5. Their reports on the subsitiution theory are incredibly contradictory with multiple different candidates(), sometimes voluntary other times involuntary, completley different settings and dialogues, sometimes Jesus (as) is scared, sometimes he asks, sometimes someone else volunteers himself. All of which see links to Christian heritage. None of these stories can be taken srsly nor do they claim to be from the Prophet SAW nor are they considered to be so.

6. It is a grammatic impossibility as Jesus (as) cannot be the subject of Shubbiha (doubt) bc someone else is NOT mentioned or specified. And thus it can mean the crucifixion itself was made obscure to them. [See Imam Zamakhshari’s explanation below.]


al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144 ) Widely recognized as one of the great exegetes of his time andd indeed of the entire Islamic exegtical tradition, al-Zamakhsharī occupies a unique position in the science of tafsīr. Cognizant of this prestige, Goldziher devoted one sixth of his pioneer study of tafsīr to this scholar. 58 Muslims have generally held his work in high esteem even those who do not share his doctrines. 59 One of alZ-amakhsharī’s outstanding achievements is his employment of grammatical and linguistic analysis in dealing with the holy text. This is considered by some to be his most valuable contribution to scholarship.In view of the report that al-Zamakhsharī was not only an exegete but also an accomplished scholar in as many as thirty disciplines, this is a rather spectacular assessment. Smith, op. cit. 90. Professor Andrew Lane thinks this number must be an exaggeration (personal communication, July 2007). See also his groundbreaking study, which replaces everything written ths far on this scholar and his work: Andrew LaneThe Jews then agreed to kill Jesus, and God informed Jesus that He would raise him to heaven and purify him of association with the offenders. Here Zamakhsarī refers to Q. 3:55 in order to confirm this narrative:LO! GOD SAID: "O JESUS! VERILY, I SHALL CAUSE THEE TO DIE, AND SHALL EXALT THEE UNTO ME, AND CLEANSE THEE OF [THE PRESENCE OF] THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON DENYING THE TRUTH; AND I SHALL PLACE THOSE WHO FOLLOW THEE [FAR] ABOVE THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON DENYING THE TRUTH, UNTO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION. IN THE END, UNTO ME YOU ALL MUST RETURN, AND I SHALL JUDGE BETWEEN YOU WITH REGARD TO ALL ON WHICH YOU WERE WONT TO DIFFERAl-Zamakhsharī then relates the familiar story of how Jesus asked his disciples for a volunteer to be killed in his stead. God cast the likeness of Jesus upon a disciple who was subsequently crucified and killed. The exegete mentions that some believe this to have been Judas, who was substituted and crucified as a punishment for his betrayalThat this account is unsatisfactory for al-Zamakhsharī is evident when he details the confusion of the witnesses of these events: “Some said that Jesus was killed and crucified, and some said, ‘If that is Jesus, where is our companion, or if that is our companion, where is Jesus?’ Some said he was raised to heaven and some said that the face is the face of Jesus, but the body is the body of our companion.”It is now that al-Zamakhsharī begins the grammatical discussion that distinguishes his tafsīr. A question, very simply posed, asks: to what subject does the verb shubbiha, as predicate, refer? We are already aware of the centrality of this word in the exegesis of the verse, having seen the results of previous attempts at its explication in the substitution theories. Al-- Zamakhsharī states that if shubbiha has Jesus as its subject, then someone or something is likened to him — not the other way around. Since this someone or something is never specified in the Qur’an, such a reading is impossible — presumably because one of the purposes of the Book is to instruct the faithful and an allusion to the unknown cannot be considered instructive. The only alternative then is to read shubbiha as referring to the most readily available object at hand, namely the prepositional phrase lahum. Thus the understood subject of the verb is the impersonal pronoun, i.e.: “It (the affair of the crucifixion) was made obscure to hem.” The gloss – perhaps an illustration from common parlance – “huyyila ilayhi” is presented for shubbiha lahum. Thus, the following translation emerges: THEY KILLED HIM NOT NOR DID THEY CRUCIFY HIM, BUT THE AFFAIR WAS IMAGED TO THEM.al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144 ) Widely recognized as one of the great exegetes of his time andd indeed of the entire Islamic exegtical tradition, al-Zamakhsharī occupies a unique position in the science of tafsīr. Cognizant of this prestige, Goldziher devoted one sixth of his pioneer study of tafsīr to this scholar. 58 Muslims have generally held his work in high esteem even those who do not share his doctrines. 59 One of alZ-amakhsharī’s outstanding achievements is his employment of grammatical and linguistic analysis in dealing with the holy text. This is considered by some to be his most valuable contribution to scholarship.In view of the report that al-Zamakhsharī was not only an exegete but also an accomplished scholar in as many as thirty disciplines, this is a rather spectacular assessment. Smith, op. cit. 90. Professor Andrew Lane thinks this number must be an exaggeration (personal communication, July 2007). See also his groundbreaking study, which replaces everything written ths far on this scholar and his work: Andrew LaneThe Jews then agreed to kill Jesus, and God informed Jesus that He would raise him to heaven and purify him of association with the offenders. Here Zamakhsarī refers to Q. 3:55 in order to confirm this narrative:LO! GOD SAID: "O JESUS! VERILY, I SHALL CAUSE THEE TO DIE, AND SHALL EXALT THEE UNTO ME, AND CLEANSE THEE OF [THE PRESENCE OF] THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON DENYING THE TRUTH; AND I SHALL PLACE THOSE WHO FOLLOW THEE [FAR] ABOVE THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON DENYING THE TRUTH, UNTO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION. IN THE END, UNTO ME YOU ALL MUST RETURN, AND I SHALL JUDGE BETWEEN YOU WITH REGARD TO ALL ON WHICH YOU WERE WONT TO DIFFERAl-Zamakhsharī then relates the familiar story of how Jesus asked his disciples for a volunteer to be killed in his stead. God cast the likeness of Jesus upon a disciple who was subsequently crucified and killed. The exegete mentions that some believe this to have been Judas, who was substituted and crucified as a punishment for his betrayalThat this account is unsatisfactory for al-Zamakhsharī is evident when he details the confusion of the witnesses of these events: “Some said that Jesus was killed and crucified, and some said, ‘If that is Jesus, where is our companion, or if that is our companion, where is Jesus?’ Some said he was raised to heaven and some said that the face is the face of Jesus, but the body is the body of our companion.”It is now that al-Zamakhsharī begins the grammatical discussion that distinguishes his tafsīr. A question, very simply posed, asks: to what subject does the verb shubbiha, as predicate, refer? We are already aware of the centrality of this word in the exegesis of the verse, having seen the results of previous attempts at its explication in the substitution theories. Al-- Zamakhsharī states that if shubbiha has Jesus as its subject, then someone or something is likened to him — not the other way around. Since this someone or something is never specified in the Qur’an, such a reading is impossible — presumably because one of the purposes of the Book is to instruct the faithful and an allusion to the unknown cannot be considered instructive. The only alternative then is to read shubbiha as referring to the most readily available object at hand, namely the prepositional phrase lahum. Thus the understood subject of the verb is the impersonal pronoun, i.e.: “It (the affair of the crucifixion) was made obscure to hem.” The gloss – perhaps an illustration from common parlance – “huyyila ilayhi” is presented for shubbiha lahum. Thus, the following translation emerges: THEY KILLED HIM NOT NOR DID THEY CRUCIFY HIM, BUT THE AFFAIR WAS IMAGED TO THEM.

al-Zamakhsharī (d. 538/1144 )

Widely recognized as one of the great exegetes of his time andd indeed of the entire Islamic exegtical tradition, al-Zamakhsharī occupies a unique position in the science of tafsīr. Cognizant of this prestige, Goldziher devoted one sixth of his pioneer study of tafsīr to this scholar. 58 Muslims have generally held his work in high esteem even those who do not share his doctrines. 59 One of alZ-amakhsharī’s outstanding achievements is his employment of grammatical and linguistic analysis in dealing with the holy text. This is considered by some to be his most valuable contribution to scholarship.

In view of the report that al-Zamakhsharī was not only an exegete but also an accomplished scholar in as many as thirty disciplines, this is a rather spectacular assessment. Smith, op. cit. 90. Professor Andrew Lane thinks this number must be an exaggeration (personal communication, July 2007). See also his groundbreaking study, which replaces everything written ths far on this scholar and his work: Andrew Lane

The Jews then agreed to kill Jesus, and God informed Jesus that He would raise him to heaven and purify him of association with the offenders. Here Zamakhsarī refers to Q. 3:55 in order to confirm this narrative:

LO! GOD SAID: “O JESUS! VERILY, I SHALL CAUSE THEE TO DIE, AND SHALL EXALT THEE UNTO ME, AND CLEANSE THEE OF [THE PRESENCE OF] THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON DENYING THE TRUTH; AND I SHALL PLACE THOSE WHO FOLLOW THEE [FAR] ABOVE THOSE WHO ARE BENT ON DENYING THE TRUTH, UNTO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION. IN THE END, UNTO ME YOU ALL MUST RETURN, AND I SHALL JUDGE BETWEEN YOU WITH REGARD TO ALL ON WHICH YOU WERE WONT TO DIFFER

Al-Zamakhsharī then relates the familiar story of how Jesus asked his disciples for a volunteer to be killed in his stead. God cast the likeness of Jesus upon a disciple who was subsequently crucified and killed. The exegete mentions that some believe this to have been Judas, who was substituted and crucified as a punishment for his betrayal

That this account is unsatisfactory for al-Zamakhsharī is evident when he details the confusion of the witnesses of these events: “Some said that Jesus was killed and crucified, and some said, ‘If that is Jesus, where is our companion, or if that is our companion, where is Jesus?’ Some said he was raised to heaven and some said that the face is the face of Jesus, but the body is the body of our companion.”

It is now that al-Zamakhsharī begins the grammatical discussion that distinguishes his tafsīr. A question, very simply posed, asks: to what subject does the verb shubbiha, as predicate, refer? We are already aware of the centrality of this word in the exegesis of the verse, having seen the results of previous attempts at its explication in the substitution theories. Al– Zamakhsharī states that if shubbiha has Jesus as its subject, then someone or something is likened to him — not the other way around. Since this someone or something is never specified in the Qur’an, such a reading is impossible — presumably because one of the purposes of the Book is to instruct the faithful and an allusion to the unknown cannot be considered instructive. The only alternative then is to read shubbiha as referring to the most readily available object at hand, namely the prepositional phrase lahum. Thus the understood subject of the verb is the impersonal pronoun, i.e.: “It (the affair of the crucifixion) was made obscure to hem.” The gloss – perhaps an illustration from common parlance – “huyyila ilayhi” is presented for shubbiha lahum. Thus, the following translation emerges: THEY KILLED HIM NOT NOR DID THEY CRUCIFY HIM, BUT THE AFFAIR WAS IMAGED TO THEM.

 7. It is morally reprehensible for someone to be crucified for a crime that they did not do. Regardless, whether the person is good or bad. For Allah to punish a person by giving him identity of Jesus (as) would be unjust and deceptive.

8. Identity transfer also puts into question the reliability of history itself and the identity of Prophets. It also nullifies socail contract like marriage and ownership[see Imam Razi Explanation below].


al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī was a man of diverse and monumental accomplishment. Known as a critic of the Mu‘tazila, he produced several works in support of Ash‘ari theology in which he freely employed the methods of the Aristotelians …al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī was a man of diverse and monumental accomplishment. Known as a critic of the Mu‘tazila, he produced several works in support of Ash‘ari theology in which he freely employed the methods of the Aristotelians …

al-Rāzī (d. 606/1209) Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī was a man of diverse and monumental accomplishment. Known as a critic of the Mu‘tazila, he produced several works in support of Ash‘ari theology in which he freely employed the methods of the Aristotelians and the Mu‘tazila. One of these, the Mafātīh al-ghayb, a commentary on the Qur’an, is considered “the most comprehensive and inclusive commentary ever composed.” The tafsīr is truly a monument, composed by one who may represent the high-water mark of Sunni scholarly achievement in the intellectual history of Islam. His role as philosopher, jurist and theologian combined with his vigorous defense of his faith against competing interpretations of Islam, whether Shi‘i, Mu‘tazili or Sufi, has formed the work as it has come down to us. It is a magisterial arrangement and coordination of all of the resources known and mastered by this exceptional scholar. Thus the work is complex and interconnected to a degree not encountered in earlier works of commentary. It is fair to say that such scholarship has not been encountered since, either.

Al-Rāzī opens his discussion of 4:157 with a repetition of the tradition found in al-Zamakhsharī, although he does not name his source. He then cites two verses (26:27 and 15:16) to support his opinion that MESSENGER OF GOD was spoken by the Jews in ridicule. Al-Rāzī justifies the appearance of such a distasteful (qabīḥ) story because it EXALTS (rafa‘a) the memory of Jesus. The commentator then observes that there are several questions about this verse that need answering. (Note here the subtly inserted explanation of the key Qur’anic verb rafa‘a “to raise” from 4:178 RATHER GOD RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF.)

The first is the grammatical problem dealt with by alZamakhsharī (and later al-Bayḍāwī), which al-Rāzī answers in the same way. The second question pursues the problem introduced by al-Ṭūsī concerning the logical possibility of God transferring the identity of one man to another. Contrary to al-Ṭūsī’s tafsīr, a detailed answer is presented. Claiming that such a possibility would “open the door of sophistry,” this argument runs:

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 tawātur, bringing into serious doubt all transmitted historical knowledge. This principle should be upheld as long as it is based on perceived phenomena (al-mahsūsāt). Such a confusion about perceived phenomena would threaten the foundations of all religious laws (shar‘īya). 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.72

Al-Rāzī’s commentary on 3:55 is quite extensive, but a summary of its highlights reveals that he met the issue with creativity and originality. After citing the several traditions referred to above, he says that the verse can mean several other things. One of these is that the deeds of Jesus were raised or accepted by God, citing 35:10, IT IS HE WHO EXALTS EACH DEED OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. This could mean that by enjoining obedience to Jesus’ words upon the people, these words and works were sanctified or raised.

Al-Rāzī dwells at some length on the implications this raising has for anthropomorphism. If Jesus were physically raised to God, then God would have to be located somewhere. Such a thing, for al-Rāzī is clearly impossible. He then compares the verse with verse 37:99, I WILL GO TO MY LORD, which was spoken by Abraham in the face of opposition by his people. Another alternative is that Jesus was raised to a place ruled only by God, whereas in the world there are diverse peoples with various laws. In Jesus’ case, some of these laws were invoked against him. Finally, al-Rāzī says that the raising is one of rank, attesting to Jesus’ superiority (fawqīya) —and not to a place.

72 Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-ghayb al-mushtahar bi al-tafsīr alkabīr, 38 vols. (Cairo: al-Maṭba‘a al-Bahīya, 1354-7/1935-8) XI: 99- 100.

 9. It is ludricous and illogical looking at the historical record which unanimously confirms that Isa (as) was put on the cross and that the disciple were in anguish and that is mother Maryam (as) was mad in despair and grief.

10. It is ludicrous to assume that the person who took Jesus (as) stayed calm, composed, and did not beg for mercy on the cross or when being flogged. Or that he did not say out of desperation that he is not Jesus (as) especially if he was a traitor or non Sympathizer like much of the reports claim.

Isrā’īliyyāt and how they are Problematic

Isra’iliyyat is faulty knowledge foreign to Islam.

The author of the research paper writes:

I will show that at a relatively late date a trend developed in tafsīr that sought to free the verse from such extra-Islamic influences. However, this tendency was abruptly abandoned shortly after it had begun, and from the fourteenth to the twentieth centuries the exegesis of this verse has generally reflected a need to deny the crucifixion of Jesus 


Wahb ibn MunabbihW ahb ib n Munabb ih (d. 1 14/ 73 2 ) By far the most popular versions of the substitution legend are related on the authority of Wahb. He is the Yemeni scholar of the earliest times who is best known for his knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. Ground-breaking scholarship on him and his literary legacy was published by Professor Khoury of Heidelberg.15 Wahb is the source of many traditions dealing with other biblical subjects and in modern times much of his exegetical and biblical tradition has been anathematized as “Isrā’īliyyāt”, that is, faulty knowledge foreign to Islam.16 In light of this, it is somewhat ironic that the most influential traditons denying that Jesus was crucified are traced to his authority. As the author of several books on various subjects, Wahb acquired a reputation that varied from trustworthy to “audacious liar.”17 The earliest known form of the substitution legend ascribed to this author comes in two versions from al-Ṭabarī 18 and can be summarized as follows:1. It happened that Jesus was in a house with seven disciples when the Jews surrounded them. When the Jews entered the house God changed all of the disciples to look like Jesus. The Jews, claiming they had been bewitched, demanded that Jesus be pointed out to them, otherwise they would kill all of them. Jesus then said to his disciples, “Who would purchase for himself paradise today?” One of them volunteered, announced to the Jews that he was Jesus, and was killed and crucified by themTHUS IT APPEARED TO THEM; and they thought that they had killed Jesus, and the Christians likewise thought that he was Jesus, and God raised Jesus from that day [to this] (wa rafa‘a Allāhu ‘Īsā min yawmihi dhālika).2. When God revealed to him that he would soon leave the world, Jesus became troubled. He gathered his disciples for a meal. Jesus served them, washing their hands and drying20 them with his garment. The disciples recoiled at this, thinking it to be beneath Jesus. Jesus chided them for their reaction, telling them that they should follow his example, that none should vaunt himself over another; they should sacrifice their selves for each other as Jesus has sacrificed his self (nafs) for them. Then he said: “Pray fervently to God that my death be postponed.”They began to pray but were unable to fend off sleep, it being late. Jesus aroused them, scolding them for sleeping. Then he said: “When the shepherd disappears, the flock scatters . . . The truth is, one of you will deny me before the cock crows three times. And one of you will sell me for a paltry price . . .” The disciples then dispersed.The Jews were looking for Jesus and encountered Sham‘ūn (Simon Peter). They accused him of being a disciple, which he denied; they met another disciple and the same thing happened. The cock crew, reminding him of Jesus’ warning and he was saddened. Then one of the disciples came to the Jews and offered to lead them to Jesus for a price. At some point previous, this disciple was changed into the likeness of Jesus [wa kāna shubbiha ‘alayhim qabla dhālika], so the Jews took him, sure that he was Jesus. They bound him and led him around, saying: “You have raised the dead, driven away devils, and cured the insane; why not therefore free yourself from this rope?” The Jews spat upon him and placed thorns upon his head. When they came to the post upon which they intended to crucify him, God raised him [the antecedent of ‘him’ is unclear, according to the text it should be the disciple, but what follows indicates that it is Jesus], and they crucified what APPEARED TO THEM. And he remained crucified seven hours.Then Jesus’ mother, and the woman he had treated and whom God had freed from madness, came weeping before the crucified one. Jesus appeared to them and asked them why they were weeping. They said, “For you.” He said: “Verily, God has raised me to himself, and nothing but good can befall me. This thing ONLY APPEARS SO TO THEM; so, send for the disciples that they may meet me at such-and-such a place.”Eleven disciples met him at the designated place. Jesus discovered that the one who had betrayed him was missing; upon inquiry he was told that he had repented and hanged himself. Jesus said: “If he repents may God forgive him.” Then Jesus inquired about a youth who was following them. His name was Yāhannā and Jesus appointed him a disciple and instructed them all to preach to the people in their language and summon themSignificant elements that justify their inclusion here. Foremost is the fact that the first legend is the one chosen by al-Ṭabarī as the best explanation of 4:157.22 Al-Ṭabarī’s influence on later mufassirūn was enormous and requires no further comment.23 This second legend, aside from being the lengthiest exegetical ḥadīth on the topic of Jesus’ crucifixion, seems also to have been favoured by al-Ṭabarī, although it was not his first choice. It may be helpful, therefore, to try and discern just why these particular stories had such appeal.Contrary to tradition, Wahb was most likely born a Muslim, not a Jew.24 He was the author of several works, much of which deals with biblical tradition. Classed among the tābi‘ūn of Persian origin, his knowledge of biblical tradition was said to come from his associations with Christians and Jews of his native Dhimār.25 His Kitāb al-mubtada’ is a source for later historians such as alTha‘labī and al-Mas‘ūdī. The Kitāb al-Isrā‘īlīyāt is not extant, although an attempt has been made to reconstruct it.26 Early exegetes such as al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Qutayba freely quoted him. However, much of this material is contradictory, as is the material used by Ibn Hishām when compared with Kitāb almubtada’. 27 Although Wahb was used by Ibn Isḥāq for the latter’s history of the beginnings of Christianity, he was completely avoided as a source for the Prophet’s biography.28 As with so many early traditionists, Wahb’s reputation is uneven. It is possible, his notoriety alone made his name an attractive one for exegetes dealing with biblical subjects.False tafsir attributed to Ibn AbbasFortunately, one fact has recently come to light: the Tanwīr al-miqbās is an abridgement by al-Dīnawārī (d. 308/920) of perhaps a Muḥammad al-Kalbī (d. 146/763) tafsīr. 6 Hence, it is with a certain amount of abdication that the following discussion is related to Ibn ‘Abbās; rather, we should associate it with al-Kalbī who, nevertheless, cited much on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās.7 Here is a translation of the relevent passage:BECAUSE OF THEIR SAYING: because of their statement WE KILLED THE MESSIAH, JESUS SON OF MARY, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, God destroyed one of their [the Jews’] friends, Naṭyānūs BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT, NOR DID THEY CRUCIFY HIM, BUT SO IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM, the likeness [shibh/shabah] of Jesus was cast upon Naṭyānūs, so they killed him instead of Jesus AND THOSE WHO DIFFER THEREIN about his killing ARE FULL OF DOUBTS about his killing THEY HAVE NOTHING CONCERNING IT concerning his killing OF KNOWLEDGE, ONLY CONJECTURE and not even conjecture AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM IN CERTAINTY i.e. certainly they did not kill him RATHER, GOD RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF to heaven AND GOD IS EXALTED IN POWER in revenging His enemies WISE with support for His intimate friends [awliyā’] and His prophet, and He destroyed their friend Naṭyānūs.86. In addition, and with special reference to the various substitution legends, the most changeable element is the identity of the victim of the crucifixion. Another is the number of disciples (hawārīyūn/aṣhāb) with Jesus during the events recounted in these legends. Other minor variations will also be noticed.The most important issue here is the identity of the victim. In this rather short commentary, the name Naṭyānūs is mentioned three times. Contemporaries of al-Kalbī suggested a different identity. For example, Muqātil, to be dealt with at greater length below, claimed that the victim was Yāhūdhā, a Jew.Qatāda Ibn Di‘āma (d. 117-8/735-6)Al-Ṭabarī cites two traditions from this exegete who was renowned for his powerful memory and dislike of writing.31 Both accounts are quite brief:1. About God’s statement: VERILY, WE KILLED THE MESSIAH, JESUS SON OF MARY, THE MESSENGER OF GOD; AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOT CRUCIFY HIM up to God’s statement: AND GOD IS MIGHTY, WISE: The Jews were the enemies of God, and they had decided to kill Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God, and they claimed to have killed him and crucified him. And it was related to us that the prophet of God, Jesus son of Mary, said to his disciples: “Who of you will have my likeness [shibh/shabah] cast upon him and thereby be killed?” One of the disciples said “I, O prophet of God!” Thus that man was killed and God protected [mana‘a] His prophet as HE RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF.2) Concerning His statement: AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOR CRUCIFY HIM, BUT IT APPEARED SO TO THEM. Qatāda said: “The likeness of Jesus was cast upon one of his disciples, and he was killed. Jesus had appeared before them and said: ‘Whoever of you will have my likeness cast upon him will have paradise: And one said, ‘Upon me!Mu qātil b . Su laymān al-B alkhī (d. 150-1/767)Scholars have recently studied the tafsīr of Muqātil, but it is still not possible to certify the provenance of works attributed to him.49 A manuscript of such a tafsīr was consulted for this study and found to contain some interesting variations on the substitution legend.50 In this account, the author deals with the usual exegetical points, starting with his insistence that the Jews did not say MESSENGER OF GOD, rather it was God who spoke here. According to Muqātil, the eventual substitute for Jesus was the guard whom the Jews had placed over him. He was given the likeness of Jesus as punishment for assaulting him physically and accusing him of blasphemy by claiming to be a messenger of God. This guard’s name here, is Yāhūdhā, but it is clear that he is not the disciple Yāhūdhā (Judas), who other exegetes51 reported was substituted for Jesus.Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150-1/767-8)bn Isḥāq’s lengthy tafsīr 56 of 4:157-8 is actually composed of three separate ahādīth — the sanadayn of the first two are identical; Ibn Ḥumayd, Salama, Ibn Isḥāq. The third isnād differs only in that the final authority is an un-named Christian convert to Islam. In the first tradition, Ibn Isḥāq says that none of the servants of God could have been responsible for issuing the order to kill Jesus. Rather, it was Dā’ūd, king of the Banū Isrā’īl. We are told that the action did not bother the king, nor did he pray to God to keep him from it. He also notes that when the Jews entered the house where Jesus and thirteen of his disciples were, they were SURE (yaqīn) that they had found Jesus.The second ḥadīth says that one of the thirteen disciples was a man named Serjes, whom the Christians do not recognize. It was Serjes who was substituted for Jesus. It goes on to say that “they” (not specified) repudiated what the prophet Muḥammad said concerning this incident. This last item is quite interesting in that no ḥadīth about the crucifixion has been found to go all the way back to Muḥammad. It is possible that this simply refers to the Qur’anic verses. However, the utilization of the word khabar, makes this seem unlikely, unless here it does not have its later tecchnical meaning as a synonym for ḥadīth and indicates merely the “information” that came from God through Muhammad in the Qur’an.The third ḥadīth, on the authority of a Christian, says that when God told Jesus He would raise him (3:55), he appealed to his disciples to save him by accepting his likeness (ṣūratī — “my image”). The same Serjes volunteered, took Jesus’ seat and Jesus was RAISED up. When the Jews entered, they took Serjes, CRUCIFIED AND KILLED HIM. In all three ahādīth, much is made of the number of the disciples. This is seen to be the point that corresponds to the Qur’anic, AND THOSE WHO DIFFER HEREIN. So the text here says, “And their number, when they entered with Jesus, was CERTAIN —they had seen them and counted them.” But when the Jews actually went in after Jesus, they discovered one of them missing (Jesus having already been raised up). Moreover, the Jews did not really know what Jesus looked like, so they offered Yūdas Zakaria Yuṭa (i.e. Judas) thirty dirhāms to lead them to Jesus. Yūdas did so by kissing the one whom he thought was Jesus, but in reality was Serjes. Then the latter was crucified. Yūdas then repented and hanged himself. We are told that the Christians cursed him, and that some of them even believe that it was Yūdas who was crucified. The commentary ends judiciously with, “And God knows best how it really was.”Rasheed Rida:Riḍā, ultimately dependent upon the Gospel of Barnabas, says that Judas was the one crucified.Wahb ibn MunabbihW ahb ib n Munabb ih (d. 1 14/ 73 2 ) By far the most popular versions of the substitution legend are related on the authority of Wahb. He is the Yemeni scholar of the earliest times who is best known for his knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. Ground-breaking scholarship on him and his literary legacy was published by Professor Khoury of Heidelberg.15 Wahb is the source of many traditions dealing with other biblical subjects and in modern times much of his exegetical and biblical tradition has been anathematized as “Isrā’īliyyāt”, that is, faulty knowledge foreign to Islam.16 In light of this, it is somewhat ironic that the most influential traditons denying that Jesus was crucified are traced to his authority. As the author of several books on various subjects, Wahb acquired a reputation that varied from trustworthy to “audacious liar.”17 The earliest known form of the substitution legend ascribed to this author comes in two versions from al-Ṭabarī 18 and can be summarized as follows:1. It happened that Jesus was in a house with seven disciples when the Jews surrounded them. When the Jews entered the house God changed all of the disciples to look like Jesus. The Jews, claiming they had been bewitched, demanded that Jesus be pointed out to them, otherwise they would kill all of them. Jesus then said to his disciples, “Who would purchase for himself paradise today?” One of them volunteered, announced to the Jews that he was Jesus, and was killed and crucified by themTHUS IT APPEARED TO THEM; and they thought that they had killed Jesus, and the Christians likewise thought that he was Jesus, and God raised Jesus from that day [to this] (wa rafa‘a Allāhu ‘Īsā min yawmihi dhālika).2. When God revealed to him that he would soon leave the world, Jesus became troubled. He gathered his disciples for a meal. Jesus served them, washing their hands and drying20 them with his garment. The disciples recoiled at this, thinking it to be beneath Jesus. Jesus chided them for their reaction, telling them that they should follow his example, that none should vaunt himself over another; they should sacrifice their selves for each other as Jesus has sacrificed his self (nafs) for them. Then he said: “Pray fervently to God that my death be postponed.”They began to pray but were unable to fend off sleep, it being late. Jesus aroused them, scolding them for sleeping. Then he said: “When the shepherd disappears, the flock scatters . . . The truth is, one of you will deny me before the cock crows three times. And one of you will sell me for a paltry price . . .” The disciples then dispersed.The Jews were looking for Jesus and encountered Sham‘ūn (Simon Peter). They accused him of being a disciple, which he denied; they met another disciple and the same thing happened. The cock crew, reminding him of Jesus’ warning and he was saddened. Then one of the disciples came to the Jews and offered to lead them to Jesus for a price. At some point previous, this disciple was changed into the likeness of Jesus [wa kāna shubbiha ‘alayhim qabla dhālika], so the Jews took him, sure that he was Jesus. They bound him and led him around, saying: “You have raised the dead, driven away devils, and cured the insane; why not therefore free yourself from this rope?” The Jews spat upon him and placed thorns upon his head. When they came to the post upon which they intended to crucify him, God raised him [the antecedent of ‘him’ is unclear, according to the text it should be the disciple, but what follows indicates that it is Jesus], and they crucified what APPEARED TO THEM. And he remained crucified seven hours.Then Jesus’ mother, and the woman he had treated and whom God had freed from madness, came weeping before the crucified one. Jesus appeared to them and asked them why they were weeping. They said, “For you.” He said: “Verily, God has raised me to himself, and nothing but good can befall me. This thing ONLY APPEARS SO TO THEM; so, send for the disciples that they may meet me at such-and-such a place.”Eleven disciples met him at the designated place. Jesus discovered that the one who had betrayed him was missing; upon inquiry he was told that he had repented and hanged himself. Jesus said: “If he repents may God forgive him.” Then Jesus inquired about a youth who was following them. His name was Yāhannā and Jesus appointed him a disciple and instructed them all to preach to the people in their language and summon themSignificant elements that justify their inclusion here. Foremost is the fact that the first legend is the one chosen by al-Ṭabarī as the best explanation of 4:157.22 Al-Ṭabarī’s influence on later mufassirūn was enormous and requires no further comment.23 This second legend, aside from being the lengthiest exegetical ḥadīth on the topic of Jesus’ crucifixion, seems also to have been favoured by al-Ṭabarī, although it was not his first choice. It may be helpful, therefore, to try and discern just why these particular stories had such appeal.Contrary to tradition, Wahb was most likely born a Muslim, not a Jew.24 He was the author of several works, much of which deals with biblical tradition. Classed among the tābi‘ūn of Persian origin, his knowledge of biblical tradition was said to come from his associations with Christians and Jews of his native Dhimār.25 His Kitāb al-mubtada’ is a source for later historians such as alTha‘labī and al-Mas‘ūdī. The Kitāb al-Isrā‘īlīyāt is not extant, although an attempt has been made to reconstruct it.26 Early exegetes such as al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Qutayba freely quoted him. However, much of this material is contradictory, as is the material used by Ibn Hishām when compared with Kitāb almubtada’. 27 Although Wahb was used by Ibn Isḥāq for the latter’s history of the beginnings of Christianity, he was completely avoided as a source for the Prophet’s biography.28 As with so many early traditionists, Wahb’s reputation is uneven. It is possible, his notoriety alone made his name an attractive one for exegetes dealing with biblical subjects.False tafsir attributed to Ibn AbbasFortunately, one fact has recently come to light: the Tanwīr al-miqbās is an abridgement by al-Dīnawārī (d. 308/920) of perhaps a Muḥammad al-Kalbī (d. 146/763) tafsīr. 6 Hence, it is with a certain amount of abdication that the following discussion is related to Ibn ‘Abbās; rather, we should associate it with al-Kalbī who, nevertheless, cited much on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās.7 Here is a translation of the relevent passage:BECAUSE OF THEIR SAYING: because of their statement WE KILLED THE MESSIAH, JESUS SON OF MARY, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, God destroyed one of their [the Jews’] friends, Naṭyānūs BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT, NOR DID THEY CRUCIFY HIM, BUT SO IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM, the likeness [shibh/shabah] of Jesus was cast upon Naṭyānūs, so they killed him instead of Jesus AND THOSE WHO DIFFER THEREIN about his killing ARE FULL OF DOUBTS about his killing THEY HAVE NOTHING CONCERNING IT concerning his killing OF KNOWLEDGE, ONLY CONJECTURE and not even conjecture AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM IN CERTAINTY i.e. certainly they did not kill him RATHER, GOD RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF to heaven AND GOD IS EXALTED IN POWER in revenging His enemies WISE with support for His intimate friends [awliyā’] and His prophet, and He destroyed their friend Naṭyānūs.86. In addition, and with special reference to the various substitution legends, the most changeable element is the identity of the victim of the crucifixion. Another is the number of disciples (hawārīyūn/aṣhāb) with Jesus during the events recounted in these legends. Other minor variations will also be noticed.The most important issue here is the identity of the victim. In this rather short commentary, the name Naṭyānūs is mentioned three times. Contemporaries of al-Kalbī suggested a different identity. For example, Muqātil, to be dealt with at greater length below, claimed that the victim was Yāhūdhā, a Jew.Qatāda Ibn Di‘āma (d. 117-8/735-6)Al-Ṭabarī cites two traditions from this exegete who was renowned for his powerful memory and dislike of writing.31 Both accounts are quite brief:1. About God’s statement: VERILY, WE KILLED THE MESSIAH, JESUS SON OF MARY, THE MESSENGER OF GOD; AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOT CRUCIFY HIM up to God’s statement: AND GOD IS MIGHTY, WISE: The Jews were the enemies of God, and they had decided to kill Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God, and they claimed to have killed him and crucified him. And it was related to us that the prophet of God, Jesus son of Mary, said to his disciples: “Who of you will have my likeness [shibh/shabah] cast upon him and thereby be killed?” One of the disciples said “I, O prophet of God!” Thus that man was killed and God protected [mana‘a] His prophet as HE RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF.2) Concerning His statement: AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOR CRUCIFY HIM, BUT IT APPEARED SO TO THEM. Qatāda said: “The likeness of Jesus was cast upon one of his disciples, and he was killed. Jesus had appeared before them and said: ‘Whoever of you will have my likeness cast upon him will have paradise: And one said, ‘Upon me!Mu qātil b . Su laymān al-B alkhī (d. 150-1/767)Scholars have recently studied the tafsīr of Muqātil, but it is still not possible to certify the provenance of works attributed to him.49 A manuscript of such a tafsīr was consulted for this study and found to contain some interesting variations on the substitution legend.50 In this account, the author deals with the usual exegetical points, starting with his insistence that the Jews did not say MESSENGER OF GOD, rather it was God who spoke here. According to Muqātil, the eventual substitute for Jesus was the guard whom the Jews had placed over him. He was given the likeness of Jesus as punishment for assaulting him physically and accusing him of blasphemy by claiming to be a messenger of God. This guard’s name here, is Yāhūdhā, but it is clear that he is not the disciple Yāhūdhā (Judas), who other exegetes51 reported was substituted for Jesus.Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150-1/767-8)bn Isḥāq’s lengthy tafsīr 56 of 4:157-8 is actually composed of three separate ahādīth — the sanadayn of the first two are identical; Ibn Ḥumayd, Salama, Ibn Isḥāq. The third isnād differs only in that the final authority is an un-named Christian convert to Islam. In the first tradition, Ibn Isḥāq says that none of the servants of God could have been responsible for issuing the order to kill Jesus. Rather, it was Dā’ūd, king of the Banū Isrā’īl. We are told that the action did not bother the king, nor did he pray to God to keep him from it. He also notes that when the Jews entered the house where Jesus and thirteen of his disciples were, they were SURE (yaqīn) that they had found Jesus.The second ḥadīth says that one of the thirteen disciples was a man named Serjes, whom the Christians do not recognize. It was Serjes who was substituted for Jesus. It goes on to say that “they” (not specified) repudiated what the prophet Muḥammad said concerning this incident. This last item is quite interesting in that no ḥadīth about the crucifixion has been found to go all the way back to Muḥammad. It is possible that this simply refers to the Qur’anic verses. However, the utilization of the word khabar, makes this seem unlikely, unless here it does not have its later tecchnical meaning as a synonym for ḥadīth and indicates merely the “information” that came from God through Muhammad in the Qur’an.The third ḥadīth, on the authority of a Christian, says that when God told Jesus He would raise him (3:55), he appealed to his disciples to save him by accepting his likeness (ṣūratī — “my image”). The same Serjes volunteered, took Jesus’ seat and Jesus was RAISED up. When the Jews entered, they took Serjes, CRUCIFIED AND KILLED HIM. In all three ahādīth, much is made of the number of the disciples. This is seen to be the point that corresponds to the Qur’anic, AND THOSE WHO DIFFER HEREIN. So the text here says, “And their number, when they entered with Jesus, was CERTAIN —they had seen them and counted them.” But when the Jews actually went in after Jesus, they discovered one of them missing (Jesus having already been raised up). Moreover, the Jews did not really know what Jesus looked like, so they offered Yūdas Zakaria Yuṭa (i.e. Judas) thirty dirhāms to lead them to Jesus. Yūdas did so by kissing the one whom he thought was Jesus, but in reality was Serjes. Then the latter was crucified. Yūdas then repented and hanged himself. We are told that the Christians cursed him, and that some of them even believe that it was Yūdas who was crucified. The commentary ends judiciously with, “And God knows best how it really was.”Rasheed Rida:Riḍā, ultimately dependent upon the Gospel of Barnabas, says that Judas was the one crucified.

Wahb ibn Munabbih

W ahb ib n Munabb ih (d. 1 14/ 73 2 ) By far the most popular versions of the substitution legend are related on the authority of Wahb. He is the Yemeni scholar of the earliest times who is best known for his knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. Ground-breaking scholarship on him and his literary legacy was published by Professor Khoury of Heidelberg.15 Wahb is the source of many traditions dealing with other biblical subjects and in modern times much of his exegetical and biblical tradition has been anathematized as “Isrā’īliyyāt”, that is, faulty knowledge foreign to Islam.16 In light of this, it is somewhat ironic that the most influential traditons denying that Jesus was crucified are traced to his authority. As the author of several books on various subjects, Wahb acquired a reputation that varied from trustworthy to “audacious liar.”17 The earliest known form of the substitution legend ascribed to this author comes in two versions from al-Ṭabarī 18 and can be summarized as follows:

1. It happened that Jesus was in a house with seven disciples when the Jews surrounded them. When the Jews entered the house God changed all of the disciples to look like Jesus. The Jews, claiming they had been bewitched, demanded that Jesus be pointed out to them, otherwise they would kill all of them. Jesus then said to his disciples, “Who would purchase for himself paradise today?” One of them volunteered, announced to the Jews that he was Jesus, and was killed and crucified by them

THUS IT APPEARED TO THEM; and they thought that they had killed Jesus, and the Christians likewise thought that he was Jesus, and God raised Jesus from that day [to this] (wa rafa‘a Allāhu ‘Īsā min yawmihi dhālika).

2. When God revealed to him that he would soon leave the world, Jesus became troubled. He gathered his disciples for a meal. Jesus served them, washing their hands and drying20 them with his garment. The disciples recoiled at this, thinking it to be beneath Jesus. Jesus chided them for their reaction, telling them that they should follow his example, that none should vaunt himself over another; they should sacrifice their selves for each other as Jesus has sacrificed his self (nafs) for them. Then he said: “Pray fervently to God that my death be postponed.”

They began to pray but were unable to fend off sleep, it being late. Jesus aroused them, scolding them for sleeping. Then he said: “When the shepherd disappears, the flock scatters . . . The truth is, one of you will deny me before the cock crows three times. And one of you will sell me for a paltry price . . .” The disciples then dispersed.

The Jews were looking for Jesus and encountered Sham‘ūn (Simon Peter). They accused him of being a disciple, which he denied; they met another disciple and the same thing happened. The cock crew, reminding him of Jesus’ warning and he was saddened. Then one of the disciples came to the Jews and offered to lead them to Jesus for a price. At some point previous, this disciple was changed into the likeness of Jesus [wa kāna shubbiha ‘alayhim qabla dhālika], so the Jews took him, sure that he was Jesus. They bound him and led him around, saying: “You have raised the dead, driven away devils, and cured the insane; why not therefore free yourself from this rope?” The Jews spat upon him and placed thorns upon his head. When they came to the post upon which they intended to crucify him, God raised him [the antecedent of ‘him’ is unclear, according to the text it should be the disciple, but what follows indicates that it is Jesus], and they crucified what APPEARED TO THEM. And he remained crucified seven hours.

Then Jesus’ mother, and the woman he had treated and whom God had freed from madness, came weeping before the crucified one. Jesus appeared to them and asked them why they were weeping. They said, “For you.” He said: “Verily, God has raised me to himself, and nothing but good can befall me. This thing ONLY APPEARS SO TO THEM; so, send for the disciples that they may meet me at such-and-such a place.”

Eleven disciples met him at the designated place. Jesus discovered that the one who had betrayed him was missing; upon inquiry he was told that he had repented and hanged himself. Jesus said: “If he repents may God forgive him.” Then Jesus inquired about a youth who was following them. His name was Yāhannā and Jesus appointed him a disciple and instructed them all to preach to the people in their language and summon them

Significant elements that justify their inclusion here. Foremost is the fact that the first legend is the one chosen by al-Ṭabarī as the best explanation of 4:157.22 Al-Ṭabarī’s influence on later mufassirūn was enormous and requires no further comment.23 This second legend, aside from being the lengthiest exegetical ḥadīth on the topic of Jesus’ crucifixion, seems also to have been favoured by al-Ṭabarī, although it was not his first choice. It may be helpful, therefore, to try and discern just why these particular stories had such appeal.

Contrary to tradition, Wahb was most likely born a Muslim, not a Jew.24 He was the author of several works, much of which deals with biblical tradition. Classed among the tābi‘ūn of Persian origin, his knowledge of biblical tradition was said to come from his associations with Christians and Jews of his native Dhimār.25 His Kitāb al-mubtada’ is a source for later historians such as alTha‘labī and al-Mas‘ūdī. The Kitāb al-Isrā‘īlīyāt is not extant, although an attempt has been made to reconstruct it.26 Early exegetes such as al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Qutayba freely quoted him. However, much of this material is contradictory, as is the material used by Ibn Hishām when compared with Kitāb almubtada’. 27 Although Wahb was used by Ibn Isḥāq for the latter’s history of the beginnings of Christianity, he was completely avoided as a source for the Prophet’s biography.28 As with so many early traditionists, Wahb’s reputation is uneven. It is possible, his notoriety alone made his name an attractive one for exegetes dealing with biblical subjects.

False tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas

Fortunately, one fact has recently come to light: the Tanwīr al-miqbās is an abridgement by al-Dīnawārī (d. 308/920) of perhaps a Muḥammad al-Kalbī (d. 146/763) tafsīr. 6 Hence, it is with a certain amount of abdication that the following discussion is related to Ibn ‘Abbās; rather, we should associate it with al-Kalbī who, nevertheless, cited much on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās.7 Here is a translation of the relevent passage:

BECAUSE OF THEIR SAYING: because of their statement WE KILLED THE MESSIAH, JESUS SON OF MARY, THE MESSENGER OF GOD, God destroyed one of their [the Jews’] friends, Naṭyānūs BUT THEY KILLED HIM NOT, NOR DID THEY CRUCIFY HIM, BUT SO IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM, the likeness [shibh/shabah] of Jesus was cast upon Naṭyānūs, so they killed him instead of Jesus AND THOSE WHO DIFFER THEREIN about his killing ARE FULL OF DOUBTS about his killing THEY HAVE NOTHING CONCERNING IT concerning his killing OF KNOWLEDGE, ONLY CONJECTURE and not even conjecture AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM IN CERTAINTY i.e. certainly they did not kill him RATHER, GOD RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF to heaven AND GOD IS EXALTED IN POWER in revenging His enemies WISE with support for His intimate friends [awliyā’] and His prophet, and He destroyed their friend Naṭyānūs.8

6. In addition, and with special reference to the various substitution legends, the most changeable element is the identity of the victim of the crucifixion. Another is the number of disciples (hawārīyūn/aṣhāb) with Jesus during the events recounted in these legends. Other minor variations will also be noticed.

The most important issue here is the identity of the victim. In this rather short commentary, the name Naṭyānūs is mentioned three times. Contemporaries of al-Kalbī suggested a different identity. For example, Muqātil, to be dealt with at greater length below, claimed that the victim was Yāhūdhā, a Jew.

Qatāda Ibn Di‘āma (d. 117-8/735-6)

Al-Ṭabarī cites two traditions from this exegete who was renowned for his powerful memory and dislike of writing.31 Both accounts are quite brief:

1. About God’s statement: VERILY, WE KILLED THE MESSIAH, JESUS SON OF MARY, THE MESSENGER OF GOD; AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOT CRUCIFY HIM up to God’s statement: AND GOD IS MIGHTY, WISE: The Jews were the enemies of God, and they had decided to kill Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God, and they claimed to have killed him and crucified him. And it was related to us that the prophet of God, Jesus son of Mary, said to his disciples: “Who of you will have my likeness [shibh/shabah] cast upon him and thereby be killed?” One of the disciples said “I, O prophet of God!” Thus that man was killed and God protected [mana‘a] His prophet as HE RAISED HIM TO HIMSELF.

2) Concerning His statement: AND THEY DID NOT KILL HIM AND THEY DID NOR CRUCIFY HIM, BUT IT APPEARED SO TO THEM. Qatāda said: “The likeness of Jesus was cast upon one of his disciples, and he was killed. Jesus had appeared before them and said: ‘Whoever of you will have my likeness cast upon him will have paradise: And one said, ‘Upon me!

Mu qātil b . Su laymān al-B alkhī (d. 150-1/767)

Scholars have recently studied the tafsīr of Muqātil, but it is still not possible to certify the provenance of works attributed to him.49 A manuscript of such a tafsīr was consulted for this study and found to contain some interesting variations on the substitution legend.50 In this account, the author deals with the usual exegetical points, starting with his insistence that the Jews did not say MESSENGER OF GOD, rather it was God who spoke here. According to Muqātil, the eventual substitute for Jesus was the guard whom the Jews had placed over him. He was given the likeness of Jesus as punishment for assaulting him physically and accusing him of blasphemy by claiming to be a messenger of God. This guard’s name here, is Yāhūdhā, but it is clear that he is not the disciple Yāhūdhā (Judas), who other exegetes51 reported was substituted for Jesus.

Muḥammad Ibn Isḥāq (d. 150-1/767-8)

bn Isḥāq’s lengthy tafsīr 56 of 4:157-8 is actually composed of three separate ahādīth — the sanadayn of the first two are identical; Ibn Ḥumayd, Salama, Ibn Isḥāq. The third isnād differs only in that the final authority is an un-named Christian convert to Islam. In the first tradition, Ibn Isḥāq says that none of the servants of God could have been responsible for issuing the order to kill Jesus. Rather, it was Dā’ūd, king of the Banū Isrā’īl. We are told that the action did not bother the king, nor did he pray to God to keep him from it. He also notes that when the Jews entered the house where Jesus and thirteen of his disciples were, they were SURE (yaqīn) that they had found Jesus.

The second ḥadīth says that one of the thirteen disciples was a man named Serjes, whom the Christians do not recognize. It was Serjes who was substituted for Jesus. It goes on to say that “they” (not specified) repudiated what the prophet Muḥammad said concerning this incident. This last item is quite interesting in that no ḥadīth about the crucifixion has been found to go all the way back to Muḥammad. It is possible that this simply refers to the Qur’anic verses. However, the utilization of the word khabar, makes this seem unlikely, unless here it does not have its later tecchnical meaning as a synonym for ḥadīth and indicates merely the “information” that came from God through Muhammad in the Qur’an.

The third ḥadīth, on the authority of a Christian, says that when God told Jesus He would raise him (3:55), he appealed to his disciples to save him by accepting his likeness (ṣūratī — “my image”). The same Serjes volunteered, took Jesus’ seat and Jesus was RAISED up. When the Jews entered, they took Serjes, CRUCIFIED AND KILLED HIM. In all three ahādīth, much is made of the number of the disciples. This is seen to be the point that corresponds to the Qur’anic, AND THOSE WHO DIFFER HEREIN. So the text here says, “And their number, when they entered with Jesus, was CERTAIN —they had seen them and counted them.” But when the Jews actually went in after Jesus, they discovered one of them missing (Jesus having already been raised up). Moreover, the Jews did not really know what Jesus looked like, so they offered Yūdas Zakaria Yuṭa (i.e. Judas) thirty dirhāms to lead them to Jesus. Yūdas did so by kissing the one whom he thought was Jesus, but in reality was Serjes. Then the latter was crucified. Yūdas then repented and hanged himself. We are told that the Christians cursed him, and that some of them even believe that it was Yūdas who was crucified. The commentary ends judiciously with, “And God knows best how it really was.”

Rasheed Rida:

Riḍā, ultimately dependent upon the Gospel of Barnabas, says that Judas was the one crucified.

Summary of Key Points and More:

The meaning of wa lakin shubbiha lahum: Now we take up for discussion the words which follow the previous statement. To interpret wa lakin shubbiha lahum, as meaning that someone else was made to resemble Jesus, is totally wrong. The commentators themselves have found it rather an intricate problem. Thus Imam Razi writes: “To whom is shubbiha lahum attributed, that is to say, who is the mushabbah (likened to)? If it is attributed to the Messiah, he is the mushabbah bihi (that to which anything is likened), and not the mushabbah. If it is attributed to the slain (maqtul), then the slain is not mentioned here.”

This question has been answered in two ways by Imam Razi

1. Shubbiha lahum is like (khuila ilaih) and thus the meaning rendered is but the incident appeared to them as such.

2. Ma qataluhu (they slew him not) indicates that someone else was slain.

Thus the pronoun him was directed towards someone else. What a feeble manner of reasoning! It is as if during a discussion, the claim itself has been put forward as an argument! Ma qataluhu only shows that the person mentioned in the text (in this case Jesus) has not been slain. How “someone else” is reported to have been slain, according to these words, I fail to understand. If someone says: “Zaid has not been slain,” does it mean that “Bakr has been slain?” The point that has to be established first is that someone else was killed in place of Jesus. Before settling this issue, a presumption was made and strangely enough then, that presumption was put forward as an argument. An erroneous notion has compelled most of the commentators to take a conjectural notion as a real incident. The other interpretation that it means, “it happened as they thought it to be,” is also mere conjecture and this interpretation cannot be supported by the lexicons. The question was simple. Who was the person who was “likened to” or made mushabbah for them? Obviously all the pronouns refer to Jesus; thus Jesus was made mushabbah and no one else. Now, with what was he ìlikenedî? The meaning becomes clear by the words: ma qataluhu wa ma salabuhu (They slew him not nor did they crucify him (i.e. caused his death on the Cross).

Jesus was neither slain nor crucified, but his condition became dubious like the one who was slain or crucified. And the historical incidents quoted above from the Gospels clearly support this view. The Qurían has also made a reference affirming what has been said in the Gospels.

It is surprising that a simple statement which would have made the whole matter clear has been twisted in such a way as to mean that Jesus was not put on the Cross but someone else of the same appearance, or one who was made to resemble him, was crucified. This is not borne out at all by the words of the Qurían or any saying of the Holy Prophet. As has been mentioned above, the pronoun hi in shubbiha (he was made to appear as such) refers to Jesus whose mention has previously been made in the same verse. Thus the statement would read like this: wa-lakin shubbiha (´Isa) lahum (but he (Jesus) was made to appear to them as such.)

This is itself an independent and a clear statement; only that thing is omitted to which he was likened. The word lakin (but) is a letter of emendation (istidrak) for removal of a doubt or for the elucidation of a point. The rendering of a statement could only be like this: wa la-kin shubbiha ëIsa lahum bilmaslubi wal-maqtul (but Jesus was made to resemble them as if he was crucified and slain), that is, he became like the one who was crucified).

The pronoun he in shubbiha refers to no one who was slain because no maqtul (slain person) has been mentioned afterwards. To get out of this impasse, some people think that the statement should read like this: ìThey slew him not, nor did they crucify him, but they crucified and killed him who was made to resemble them (like Jesus).î

Obviously it is introducing at will words to the text of the Qurían to distort its meaning. Here, after lakin, a complete statement, shubbiha lahum is present, and in shubbiha the verb is clearly indicated. In the presence of a verb, to accept that another verb has been omitted from the statement is against the rules of grammar. Nevertheless, if the word is omitted (mahzuf) after lakin, in this case the omitted verb from the previous statement should govern the statement that follows. For instance: Zaid did not stand but Umar, should mean that Zaid did not stand but Umar stood. Although one verb was mentioned after lakin (but), the verb of the previous clause was implied in the clause that followed. The Qurían says (literally):

Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but the messenger of Allah (33:41)

Because there is no verb in the clause wa lakin rasulullah, therefore, the verb kana in the beginning of the verse should be considered implied in the subsequent clause which should read: “but he is the messenger of Allah.”.

Similarly the Qurían says: It is not a narrative which could be forged, but a verification of what is before it. (12:11)

Here after wa lakin the verb has been omitted. Therefore, again the verb kana in the beginning of the clause should be considered implied in the clause after wa lakin.

This principle is neither something unheard of, nor is there any rule of syntax, that when there is a clear implied verb after wa lakin in a clause, another verb should be forced into the text. It is surprising that people consider a verb omitted in the presence of the verb shubbiha. The Qurían is full of such instances where after wa lakin the verb has been clearly indicated, in which case we cannot place the previous verb in the clause which is followed by wa lakin. An obvious example is the following verse: And Allah wronged them not but they wronged themselves. (3:116).

Here after wa lakin the verb is clearly indicated, therefore no other supposedly omitted (mahzuf) verb could be forced in the text after wa lakin. If the construction is adopted in the style of: ìbut they slew and crucified him who was made to resemble them (like Jesus)î then the above verse should read like this: ìAnd God wronged them not, but God wronged them who wronged themselves.î The fact is that God does not wrong anyone: And your Lord is not in the least unjust to the servants. 32 Similar is the position with the verse: Allah knows that you will have them in your minds, but give them not a promise in secret. 33

32 Quran 41:46.

33 Quran 2:235.

Here the verb is also found after wa lakin, therefore, no other omitted verb can be added to the text after wa lakin.

Again: Yet why did they not, when Our punishment came to them, humble themselves? But their hearts hardened. 34

Here after wa lakin the verb qasat is clearly specified; therefore, no other omitted verb could be introduced after wa lakin. If the previous verb is introduced in the text after wa lakin the statement would read like this: ìBut those people humbled themselves whose hearts hardenedî, which does not make any sense. This would be the case with every statement where, in spite of the presence of a clearly specified verb (fiíl musarrah), another fiíl musarrah is added.

Let us take another instance from the Qurían: And if the people of the towns had believed and kept their duty, We would certainly have opened for them blessings from the heavens and the earth. But they rejected. 35

35 7:96.

Now after “but”, the verb “rejected” has clearly been mentioned and the pronoun they in the verse can only refer to those people who have been mentioned before, that is, the people of the towns, as is the case in 4:157: but he was made to appear to them as such. In this verse too, after but, the verb, “was made to appear” has been explicitly mentioned and the pronoun he can only refer to Jesus who has been mentioned in the earlier part of the verse. If, against all rules of grammar, we introduce an extra verb after “but” and change the construction of a simple statement “he was made to appear to them as such” to read: “they crucified and killed him who was made to resemble to them (like Jesus),” this rendering would be contrary to the text of the Qurían. If we change the construction of the verse 7:96 in the same way, it would read like this: “but we opened for them blessings from the heavens and the earth, for those who rejected.”

This kind of construction has twisted the whole meaning of the text. Similarly, adding words and changing the construction of words in 4:57 distort the meaning of the verse and this is eventually contrary to the true meaning of the Quríanic text.

History verifies the statement of the Qurían and rejects the beliefs of the People of the Book Many illustrations of this nature can be cited. The sum and substance of all these is that when a verb is omitted after wa lakin, the word prior to this clause can be transferred thereafter. But when after wa lakin a verb is clearly mentioned, to introduce a supposedly omitted verb at that place is, in fact, going against all rules of syntax. The whole world knows that the omitted verb (fiíl mahzuk) is placed in the text when it is not there. And when the verb is already there, the text should be interpreted accordingly, and if an extra verb is inserted without any rhyme or reason, the whole meaning will be inverted as has been shown above by the many examples. Thus, according to the rules of grammar, the words can only be interpreted in one way, that they slew Jesus not, nor did they crucify him (caused his death on the Cross) but he (Jesus) was made mushabbah for them. If anything is omitted, it is only that to which Jesus was made mushabbah. In other words, he was likened to the one who was crucified and slain. References which have been quoted from the Gospels above clearly indicate that, in fact, Jesus appeared as if he were slain or crucified and at the same time the other incidents in the Gospels show that he was not actually slain or killed on the Cross. When his side was pierced, blood rushed out and this was a sure sign of life – blood only rushes out from the living and not from the dead. His legs were not broken so he was not slain. The stone from the tomb where Jesus was laid was removed to take him out of the grave which would not have been the case if there had been a super-natural rising. Then he met his disciples, showed them his wounds, ate fish, talked to them and travelled with them. All these are clear signs of life. Thus the Qurían is true in its statement about Jesus and this is con-firmed by historical facts, but the belief of the Jews and the Christians is, surprisingly enough, invalidated by their own history

What was the need of executing someone else who resembled Jesus?The mistake made in interpreting wa lakin shubbiha lahum has been explained by me above. The only possible meaning of these words is that Jesus was made to appear to them as if he were slain. However, these words can be interpreted in another way, as has been done by some commentators; that is: ìthe matter was made dubious to them,î or, in other words they kept on doubting whether Jesus had died or not. (See Ruh al-Maíani.) And this interpretation is supported by the subsequent statement in the same verse. 36 But these words cannot bear the interpretation at all that someone else, who resembled Jesus, was executed. Even if these were words which may be interpreted in that sense, we could not accept that meaning because it is against Godís practice (sunnat Allah) and the events mentioned in the Gospels do not support this view, and we do not see any wisdom in Godís execution of such a plan. The following story, too, is totally absurd, that is, the one which says that Jesus was in the company of twelve or thirteen companions of his when the Jews came to arrest him. At that time, Jesus asked his companions which one of them would like to be with him in paradise so that he should be made to resemble him (Jesus) and be crucified in his place. A young man (in some reports called Sarjus), offered himself and he was eventually crucified and Jesus was lifted up to heaven. It is surprising that when Jesus knew that he would be physically exalted, then why did he get one of his companions killed unnecessarily? What was the benefit, spiritual or otherwise, behind such a plan? When the Holy Prophet Muhammad left Makkah, Hazrat ëAli slept in his bed so that the enemies could not find out that the Holy Prophet had escaped and they could not immediately go after him. At that stage, his enemies could have reached him and killed him. Was Jesus also really worried that if he flew away to heaven without leaving a counterpart of his on earth, that the Jews would follow him up to heaven and bring him down? And was it for this reason that another person was made to appear like Jesus so that the Jews may keep on thinking that they had actually killed Jesus and that they would give up the idea of following him to the fourth heaven? After all, Godís actions are not devoid of wisdom. What was the wisdom behind this strategy? If Jesus had gone to heaven without making another person look like him, could the Jews cause any harm to him? On the other hand, it would have become a great miracle on Jesusí part, especially since he was considered an impostor by them. It would have been still more impressive if such a miracle were performed in a big assembly of the Jews so that they could all have had faith in him. But the execution of the reported plan looks meaningless and absurd – that Jesus himself escaped by going to heaven but let one of his companions to be unnecessarily killed in a cursed manner – the kind of death which he did not like to suffer himself. Was it lawful for a prophet to take recourse to such action? When it is clearly mentioned in the Torah that ìhe that is hanged is accursed of Godî, 37 then why did Jesus choose a cursed death for any one of his friends?

To get out of this muddle, another version of the same incident has been introduced, that is, that one of the companions of Jesus was a traitor and he accepted thirty rupees as a bribe and disclosed to the Roman police the place where Jesus was.

At that very moment Jesus was lifted up to heaven and that very person became like Jesus in appearance. The same objection could be raised against the narration of the incident above and one may well ask: Why did there arise such a need that another person like Jesus should fall in the hands of the Jews? Is it God Himself who did not wish that the Jews should have faith in the Messiah? Did He Himself force them to believe that Jesus was actually hanged and killed on the Cross? And according to their belief that ìhe that is hanged is accursed of Godî therefore, did God Himself allow the Jews to be blamed for rejecting him? If we consider the first report concerning Sarjus as a fabrication and accept the other one about a traitor-companion of Jesus as true and make him suffer an accursed death, then another question arises: Why did this traitor not create an uproar that he was not Jesus, that Jesus had gone up to heaven and that he himself was a different person? After all, those who came to arrest Jesus knew that a hypocrite friend of Jesus had accompanied them and he was going inside the house to get Jesus arrested. What happened to him? How is it that none of them made any further inquiry about him? And the wrong culprit never denied his being Jesus? He was led to Pilate and he never protested! He was mocked and a crown of thorns was put on his head and he kept quiet! He was hanged on the Cross and uttered loudly ìEli, Eli, lama sabachthani?î (My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?) 38 but did not say a word that he was wrongly and unjustly being crucified in Jesusí place? Then, after being taken off the Cross, he met with his mother and other disciples and never gave a hint that he was someone else and that the real Messiah was sitting in heaven? When even this report was not found suitable, another story was invented in its place that the Jews had surrounded Jesusí house but when they did not find him there, they became worried that with his disappearance people would accept him as a messenger of God. Therefore, they got hold of somebody from among themselves and crucified him and did not permit people to come near him for fear of his being recognised. Then later on his appearance changed (i.e. he started looking like Jesus). This is how the whole incident is reported in Ruh al-Maëani.

One may escape from some of the problems met with in other reports, but new difficulties arise by accepting such a fanciful story. The obvious contradiction is that the Jews caught hold of another person and crucified him as they did not find Jesus at his place and they did not bother to look for him elsewhere – he might have absconded. They immediately understood that he had gone to heaven (they were really clever people!) and then they made one from among themselves agree to play the part of Jesus and told him to keep quiet and not make any fuss! As if there was no Roman Government at that time! One wonders at the imagination and ingenuity of those who invented such historical myths. Let us forget that the Jews crucified such a person and did not allow anyone to come near him. Let us also forget that he was taken to Pilate in the presence of a big assembly, including his mother and other disciples. The trouble is, however, that even God had such regard for the Jews that He produced a miracle for them and the appearance of that person was instantly changed into that of Jesus. God forbid, but was it His intention that Jesus should be proven an impostor? According to this report, the changing of appearance, it seems, was not the miracle of Jesus but of the Jews. The whole narrative is baseless and cannot stand the least rational or historical test. The Qurían and the Holy Prophet cannot be held responsible for teaching such fables. 142 The Second Coming of Jesus

35 7:96.

36 And certainly those who differ therein are in doubt about it (4:157).

37 Deuteronomy, 21:23. 38 Mark, 15:34; Matthew, 27:46.

 Conclusion

Summary of above Isra’ilyyat. The names, number of disciples,and even events differ. Sometimes its a barkat to get in place of Isa(as) and sometimes it is a punishment.

llah exalts Jesus spiritually and removes these false accusations of him dying on the Cross, and not being a true Prophet of God. The preceding verse clears Jesus name that he was killed by the Jews and that he was crucified. By denying both these false charges, Allah proves that he really was a Prophet of God and was not killed by his enemies. Then Allah goes further to state that in His eyes, He is well pleased with Jesus, thus He has exalted him to Himself – He has honoured Jesus in His presence. It cannot mean that He physically raised Jesus to Himself as Allah has no fixed abode – Allah is everywhere! A lot of misunderstanding surrounds these verses. When the Muslims came into contact with Christians and started hearing their claim that Jesus went physically to heaven, the idea started taking shape that this is what is meant in these verses. This was not the view of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, or his companions, as we will prove later. This concept came into being later on. The Muslims claim that in order to save Jesus from the Jews, Allah made someone else (possibly Judas) to appear like Jesus and go on the cross and then die. Whilst this was happening, Allah raised Jesus to Himself and kept him alive in heaven until the Latter Days when Jesus will descend!

Again this belief goes against the Holy Qur’an! Allah has stated in the Holy Quran that there is no person who can return physically from Heaven:

“…And behind them is a barrier (Barzakh) until the Day when they shall be raised again”

Holy Qur’an, Chapter 23, verse 101

“…Or thou [Muhammad] ascend up into heaven, and we will not believe in thy ascension until thou send down to us a Book that we can read. Say, “Holy is my Lord! I am but a man sent as a Messenger?”

Holy Qur’an, Chapter 17, verse 94

We have to be very careful what we attribute to Allah. There is no point attributing wrong things about Allah just to justify our own understanding. Muslims need to understand what they are trying to assert. In a quest to try to show that Jesus went physically to heaven, they are implying that Allah could be deceitful (deceiving the Jews into believing they really killed Jesus), unjust (putting a man innocent of the so-called crimes of Jesus on the cross instead of Jesus) and contradicting His own Book (a physical being can return from Heaven). There is no way Allah can be any of these things, but sadly, this is what Muslims are foolishly making Allah appear to be, when they make such claims. Instead of thinking about what they are claiming, they come out with the answer “But Allah can do anything that He wishes!” Yes, of course Allah can do anything, but surely whatever He does will be Just and Fair and will not contradict His own Laws!