Some Muslims believe Jesus died on the Cross

Some Muslims believe Jesus died on the Cross

Within Islam, there are eight different views on the Crucifixion. Two of these views affirm that Jesus died a mortal death on the cross. 

The Ismaili Martyr Theory

The Ismaili Martyr Theory claims that the reason that God denies the killing is because Jesus was not, in fact, killed in the soul but only his body because martyrs don’t actually die.

References for the Ismaili Martyer Theory:

• The Crucifixion in Shi‘a Isma‘ili Islam by Khalil Andani contermporary Isma‘ili
• https://www.themathesontrust.org/papers/islam/andani-crucifixion.pdf
• The Crucifixion and the Qur'an: A Study in the History of Muslim Thought by Todd Lawson
• https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=48F94E311EBDC88718A7FA05B434932F

The Divine Rapture Theory

The Divine Rapture Theory is the only Theory derived from the Quran. According to this theory, Jesus died on the cross but was not killed by the cross. He did not die at the hands of his enemies. That's what they thought, but he was raptured up by God directly. Jesus offered up his soul, and God intervened and received it in full directly before they could kill him by asphyxiation.

References for the Divine Rapture Theory:

• Professor Ali Ataie discusses the Crucifixion with Blogging Theology
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyaXKhK4Si4&t=953s
• Professor Ali At2-hour2 hour lecture on “The Crucifixion and The Qur'an: An Exegetical and Historical Inquiry Into Surah 4:157-158”
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09-JthSnyic

Full List of Islamic Views

1. The Substitution Theory

Version 1 Judas substituted as a punishment 

Version 2 Tatianos substituted as a punishment 

Version 3 Jesus had thirteen disciples, not twelve and the thirteenth disciple Sergius volunteered to be substituted 

Version 4 An unnamed disciple volunteered to be substituted 

Version 5 Simon of Cyrene volunteered to be substituted 

2. The Swoon Theory

Ahmadiyya version 

Jesus was unconscious, but they thought he died, then after coming out of the tomb he met his disciples and traveled to India, and died there when he was 120 years old. 

This version is held by Muslim apologists Shabir Ally and Imran Hossein

Jesus was unconscious but they thought he died, then after coming out of the tomb he met his disciples and finally ascended. 

3. The Mirage Theory

Abu Hayyan the sunni commentator holds this view

An angel miraculously intervened to save Jesus, and they crucified a mirage in his place, thinking it was him.

4. The Rumor Theory

al-Māturīdī the Sunni scholar held this view

Jesus was raised up and saved before his enemies had the chance to kill him. They understood that his ascension was a miracle proving that he was really a prophet, but they did not want people to know what they had seen. Thus, they simply made up the story that they had killed and crucified Jesus.

5. The Mistaken Identity Theory

‘Abd al-Jabbār the Mu'tazilite theologian's version

Version 1 As no one knew who Jesus was, the Romans asked him to identify him for them. Judas pointed out another, innocent man and identified him as Jesus. The Romans could not have known of the deception, otherwise, why would they have needed someone like Judas to identify Jesus in the first place? Thus, when Judas laments that he has shed innocent blood, the meaning is clear: he caused a completely random and irrelevant death as a result of his desire to protect his master. Thus, he hanged himself in despair. 

Version 2 Jesus had a twin brother Thomas Didymos, and he was crucified instead of him.

Version 3 Jesus Barabbas was Jesus son of Mary, and he was released then another Jesus was crucified.

6. The Romans Crucified Jesus Theory

Since the Quran says Jews didn't kill him by crucifixion, William Montgomery Watt argues that even a Christian might accept the Quran’s statement on the crucifixion, “since the crucifixion was the work of Roman soldiers, and it is also true in a deeper sense since the crucifixion was not a victory for the Jews in view of his resurrection”.

Some western Muslim scholars also hold this view.

7. The Ismaili Martyr Theory

This theory claims that the reason that God denies the killing is because Jesus was not, in fact, killed in the soul but only in the body because martyrs don’t actually die. 

8. The divine rapture Theory

This is the only theory derived from the Quran. According to this theory, Jesus died on the cross but was not killed by the cross. He did not die at the hands of his enemies. That's what they thought, but he was raptured up by God directly. Jesus offered up his soul, and God intervened and received it in full directly before they could kill him by asphyxiation.

See also the post on 'Son of God' terminology and Islam. Not all Muslims object to the Son of God terminology. https://www.basedtheology.com/2022/12/son-of-god-terminology-and-islam.html

Son of God Terminology and Islamic Scholarship

 Is “Son of God” terminology objectionable to all Muslims?

The answer is no. Various Muslim scholars have acknowledged that is not outside the Biblical tradition to give servants of God the title 'Son of God.' Both David and Solomon were called 'Son of God.' Nothing in the Quran rebukes the terminology in this context. The Quranic polemic against the 'Son of God' terminology is against the Trinitarian (Greek/Pagan) use of the terminology. Unfortunately, many Muslims aren't nuanced enough to appreciate that 'Son of God' terminology doesn't necessarily connotate the Greek/pagan idea that God had a literal offspring, that God begets God, or that 'Son of God' is a term indicating being truly God in an ontological sense. 

The 'Son of God' terminology should not be objectionable for a Muslim if understood in the Unitarian sense. No Unitarian Christian believes this is a statement affirming that God begat God. It is a statement that Jesus is favored by God. He is the chosen and blessed one who will inherit dominion over all nations. Jesus has this preeminent title, not because he is in his very nature God, but because he has been exalted by God as an honorific title. Thus, the Son of God is a designation of status and not ontology. There should be no objection to the terminology when used in a metaphorical Hebraic sense, as Christian Unitarians do. 

Quranic Verses 

The Quranic verses regarding “Son of God” terminology is to rebuke theological claims that Jesus is fully God in an ontological sense. 

Quran 5:18

But the Jews and the Christians say, "We are the Son's of Allah and His beloved." Say, "Then why does He punish you for your sins?" Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.

Quran 21:26

They say: “The Most Compassionate Lord has taken to Himself a son.” Glory be to Him! Those whom they so designate are only His honoured servants.

Muslim Scholarship

Muslim scholars acknowledge the prohibition in the Qur'an is regarding Trinitarian doctrine and theology. These include Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi and Najm ad-Din al-Tufi. These are some classical Sunni scholars who didn't have an issue with the metaphorical usage of the title 'Son of God'. Here is an attestation of their position on this. 

This is from page 149 of the by Lejla Demiri on Muslim Exegesis of the Bible in Medieval Cario.

This is from Najm ad-Din al-Tufi's commentary on the Christian scriptures:

Dr. Ali Ataie is a Muslim theologian and professor at Zaytuna college. He doesn't have an issue with Jesus being son of God metaphorically.

The Quran doesn't specify a legal framework, it specifies a theological framework. Within this framework, Jesus definitely has a special place, but the exact nature of that relationship is obviously debated. The Quranic polemic against the “Son of God” terminology is against the Trinitarian use of the terminology. Most Muslims aren't nuanced enough to appreciate that “Son of God” doesn't necessarily mean God had a literal offspring.

The word “son” at times is used, especially in the Bible, to connote “a loved one” and “a favored one.” Instead of comprehending the responsibilities of the position bestowed on the Israelites by God, they wrongly concluded from this bestowal that they were God’s favorites in the absolute sense and arrogantly assumed that they could do whatever they wanted to and God would not hold them accountable for anything they did.

Dr. Ali Ataie from Zaytuna college Quran does acknowledge it: https://youtu.be/cJA_vXm8nEk?t=3916

According to both Christians and Jews already, those who are referred to as 'Son of God' are honored servants, not divine.

Scholars such as Imam Tufi a Hanbali scholar and student of Ibn Taymiyyah and Shihab al-Din al-Qarafi a Maliki jurist, did not say such things to appease Christians. 

Conclusion

The Quranic verses is affirming what is an acceptable Islamic view of 'Son of God'
The honored slave part is actually simply affirming how Unitarians understand the son of God, its literally makes clear that all these things that are ascribed to these prophets like Jesus or David or any other servant of God called the son of God in the OT or NT, for the most part, is simply an honorary title and not necessarily an attribution of any divine qualities.

Further proof that the Quran has no problem with the honorary title son of God in a non-divine sense is  Psalms 2:7 which uses very similar wording that the Christians use about Jesus. However, the Quran never calls out the Jews for calling David the son of God or deifying David or attributing a son to Allah through David, why? Because it is clear from the text and the clear interpretation, that the second Psalm here is simply giving David an honorary title. The praise he receives is not in any way shape or form deifying him, as Trinitarian Christians did with Christ.

If the language used of David was a case of deification, we would expect the Quran to at least address this fact and call this out and condemn them for calling David the son of God. However, the author of the Quran is completely aware that there is no divine attribution to David. The Quran thus does not call out the terminology as inappropriate in its classical Jewish context. 

Reasonable Muslims will acknowledge that the Quran doesn't deal with semantics, it deals with actual problematic theology, for example when the Quran talks about Mary being deified, this can be argued that this is to address to some forms of Catholicism where Mary is treated like a Goddess despite them saying “we don't worship her.” Reasonable Muslims will understand that the Quran doesn't care about semantics. If the theology is actually problematic, it would call it out, Trinitarianism is problematic. Divine sonship and divine begetting are problematic. Hence, the Quran calls this out, David being begotten by God is not problematic because it's clearly a Hebrew idiomatic phraseology being used in those verses, and it's always been understood this way.

Arguments against Islam

10 arguments against Islam

1. The contradictions between the Quran and the Hadiths. See https://www.basedtheology.com/2022/11/inconsistencies-between-quran-and.html
2. The Quran presents a revisionist history of the Old Testament. Bible stories are rewritten in a way that appeals to the Islamic ethos. 
3. The roots of Islam are Gnostic Christian and Jewish sects
4. The Quran is not inspired – eclectic assortment of poetic writings – lacking context and structure – other pre-Quranic poetry was superior.
5. The issues with the text of the Quran – written partially under a demonic influence.
6. Islam presents a revisionist history of who Muhammad is. — there is a lack of textural preservation of the Quran
7. We do not need another prophet. Jesus is the Messiah who was to come after Moses. He is God’s chosen one who will judge and reign in an everlasting kingdom and the fulfillment of the OT prophecies.  We have all the revelation we require through the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles. This includes the forgiveness of sins, favor with God, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
8. Islam lacks baptism which the prophet John, Jesus, and his disciples preached in the book of Acts. The apostles preached to all the nations a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Islam regards John and Jesus as true prophets, but they don't follow the commandments of them and their disciples. 
9. The Apostolic writings of the New Testament reveal the truth about the Gospel and Christ better than Islam.
10. Islam is a works-based legalistic religion and lacks the means to have a relationship with God and experience his presence and power. 
1. Christianity = Father-Son relationship with God
2. Islam = Master-Slave relationship with God only

Jesus, not Muhammad, is the fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:15...

Deuteronomy 18:15 (ESV) 

  ¹⁵ “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—

Acts 3:19-26 (ESV) 

  ¹⁹ Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, ²⁰ that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, ²¹ whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. ²² Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. ²³ And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ ²⁴ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. ²⁵ You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ​‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ ²⁶ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you by turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

For more see: 

Refutation of Islam YouTube Videos: https://www.basedtheology.com/2022/11/refutation-of-islam-youtube-videos.html

A primary authority for refuting Islam: Quranic Studies; Sources And Methods Of Scriptural Interpretation, Wansbrough https://www.basedtheology.com/2022/11/quranic-studies-sources-and-methods-of.html

Refutation of Islam YouTube Videos

 Select YouTube videos refuting the Quran and Islam

Bible vs. Quran

Historical Critique of the Quran's Origins, Jay Smith

A Crushing Critique of the Contradiction, Qira'at Qurans, Jay Smith

Historians Now Doubt How Islam Began, Al Fadi & Jay Smith CIRA series

Muhammad's bio is 200 yrs too Old, Ad Fadi & Jay Smith CIRA series

A primary authority for refuting Islam: Quranic Studies; Sources And Methods Of Scriptural Interpretation, Wansbrough

 

Quranic Studies; Sources And Methods Of Scriptural Interpretation

John Wansbrough, Prometheus (2004)

Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/QuranicStudies/mode/2up

Amazon Link: https://amzn.to/3u54Dxg

Description

One of the most innovative thinkers in the field of Islamic Studies was John Wansbrough (1928-2002), Professor of Semitic Studies and Pro-Director of London University's School of Oriental and African Studies. Critiquing the traditional accounts of the origins of Islam as historically unreliable and heavily influenced by religious dogma, Wansbrough suggested radically new interpretations very different from the views of both the Muslim orthodoxy and most Western scholars. Originally published in 1977, Quranic Studies presents an in-depth textual exegesis of the Quran based on form analysis. Noting the persistent use of monotheistic imagery stemming from Judeo-Christian sources, he interpreted the rise of Islam as the development of what was originally a Judeo-Christian sect. As this sect evolved and differentiated itself from its Judeo-Christian roots, the Quran also evolved and was continuously in flux for over a century. Wansbrough concluded that the canonization of the text that we today call the Quran, and even the emergence of the concept of “Islam,” probably did not occur till the end of the eighth century, more than 150 years after the death of Muhammad. Although his work remains controversial to this day, his fresh insights and approaches to the study of Islam continue to inspire scholars. This new edition contains a valuable assessment of Wansbrough's contributions and many useful textual notes and translations by Andrew Rippin (professor of history, University of Victoria).

From the Inside Flap

Many believe that the academic study of the Quran lags far behind the study of the Bible while being, as the same time, closely modeled after it. Not only are the relevant scholarly resources of the Quran less numerous than those available in biblical scholarship, but comparatively speaking the variety of methods employed to deal with the scriptural text has been severely limited. One of the first groundbreaking efforts in Islamic studies was made by John Wansbrough in his unique work QURANTIC STUDIES: SOURCES AND METHODS OF SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATION. Written between 1968 and 1972, this revolutionary analysis had a profound effect on the study of Islam. It produced, in the minds of many, a wholly new dichotomy in the approach used in Islamic studies: on one side, the skeptical revisionists, and on the other, the trusting traditionalists. Well ahead of his time, Wansbrough questions the very basic assumptions of previous scholars in a way that had never before been attempted. Working with the heritage of Joseph Schacht and Ignaz Goldziher before him, Wansbrough approached the Quran in a manner that sees the Muslim tradition as grounded in the dogmas of later centuries. Freed from these constraints, new questions relevant to contemporary scholars had to be asked.

Wansbrough was the first to analyze carefully the documents from the first four centuries of Islam that describe the rise of the Quran to the position of absolute authority in the Muslim community. Although these works were known to exist, no modern scholar had actually read them and tried to make coherent sense of the material. Wansbrough carved out new areas of inquiry and debate for scholars and lay enthusiasts alike.

QURANIC STUDIES deserves serious attention, as a stimulating work of scholarship. Its allusions to biblical and Arabian underpinnings have captured many people's attention and led to numerous exchanges and debates among scholars and others, especially regarding Wansbrough's claim that the Quran was not written down until the third-century hijri (ninth century CE), countering traditional Muslim claims that it originated in the time of Muhammad and was written down shortly thereafter. In response, some decried the publication of QURANIC STUDIES, seeing it as a major impediment to fostering a trust of nonsectarian scholarship among Muslims. Now readers can judge for themselves.

About the Author

John Wansbrough (1928-2002) was Professor of Semitic Studies and Pro-Director of London University’s School of Oriental and African Studies. Besides Quranic Studies, he also published The Sectarian Milieu (1978), Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean (1996), and many scholarly articles.

See Also, The Sectarian Milieu: Content and Composition of Islamic Salvation History

John Wansbrough, Prometheus (2006)

Amazon: https://amzn.to/3iiZYVW

Critiquing the traditional accounts of the origins of Islam as historically unreliable and heavily influenced by religious dogma, Wansbrough suggested radically new interpretations very different from the views of both the Muslim orthodoxy and most Western scholars. In The Sectarian Milieu Wansbrough "analyses early Islamic historiography – or rather the interpretive myths underlying this historiography ― as a late manifestation of Old Testament 'salvation history.'" Continuing themes that he treated in a previous work, Quranic Studies, Wansbrough argued that the traditional biographies of Muhammad (Arabic sira and maghazi) are best understood, not as historical documents that attest to "what really happened," but as literary texts written more than one hundred years after the facts and heavily influenced by Jewish, and to a lesser extent Christian, interconfessional polemics. Thus, Islamic "history" is almost completely a later literary reconstruction, which evolved out of an environment of competing Jewish and Christian sects. As such, Wansbrough felt that the most fruitful means of analyzing such texts was literary analysis. Furthermore, he maintained that it was next to impossible to extract the kernel of historical truth from works that were created principally to serve later religious agendas. Although his work remains controversial to this day, his fresh insights and approaches to the study of Islam continue to inspire scholars.

Inconsistencies between the Quran and Hadiths

Testimony from an Ex-Muslim:

Since I was 17 until now (26 yo), I have finished reading the whole Quran at least 1 time each year.

The Islam described in the Quran is 180° different from the Islam you see in the world right now.

The actual problem with Muslims is that they don't follow their own Holy book.

They follow Satanic and nasty narrators and 95% of them have no idea what they are doing and what's the message of Quran.

If you don't believe me, next time when you see a Muslim face-to-face ask them this simple question:

How many chapters are there in Quran? (The answer is 114).

They will become red and stare at your face.

HADITH:

The Prophet said: “If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.” (Bukhari 4:52:260)

QURAN:

“There is no compulsion in religion” [2:256]

“Therefore remind, for you are only a reminder. You are not a watcher over them” [88:21-22]

“Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” [18:29]

HADITH:

I (Muhammad) have been ordered to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat. (Muslim 22)

QURAN:

“Had your Lord willed, all those on earth would have believed altogether. Will you then compel people until they become believers?” [10:99]

HADITH:

The Prophet said: Beware! I have been given the Quran and something like it, yet the time is coming when a man replete on his couch will say: Keep to the Quran; what you find in it to be permissible treat as permissible, and what you find in it to be prohibited treat as prohibited. (Abi Dawud 4604)

QURAN:

“Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could NOT bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others” [17:88]

HADITH:

The Prophet once delivered a speech in front of us wherein he left nothing but mentioned everything that would happen till the Hour. (Bukhari 6604)

QURAN:

Say: “I do not say to you that I possess the treasures of God, nor do I know the unseen, nor do I say to you that I am an angel. I merely follow what is inspired to me.” [6:50]

[Quran 7:188 ] Say (O Muhammed), “I have no power to benefit myself, or harm myself. Only what God wills happen to me. If I KNEW THE FUTURE, I would have increased my wealth, and no harm would have afflicted me. I am no more than a warner, and a bearer of good news for those who believe.”

[Quran 6:50] Say (O Muhammed), “I do not say to you that I possess the treasures of God. Nor do I know the future. Nor do I say to you.

HADITH:

The Prophet entered a garden and told me to guard its gate. Then a man came and asked permission to enter. The Prophet said, “Permit him and give him the good news that he will enter Paradise.” Behold! It was Abu Bakr. Then Umar came, and the Prophet said, “Admit him and give him the good news that he will enter Paradise.” Then Uthman came and the Prophet said, “Admit him and give him the good news that he will enter Paradise. (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 91, Number 367)

QURAN:

Say: “I am no different from the other messengers, nor do I know what will happen to me or to you. I only follow what is inspired to me. I am no more than a clear warner” [46:9]

HADITH:

Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib: Allah's Apostle was given a silken garment, and its beauty and delicacy astonished the people. On that, Allah's Apostle said, “No doubt, the handkerchiefs of Sad bin Muadh in Paradise are better than this.” (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 472)

QURAN:

“No person knows what is being hidden for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do” [32:17]

HADITH:

A man from Bani Aslam came to Allah's Apostle while he was in the mosque and called him saying, “O Allah's Apostle! I have committed adultery.” When the man had given witness four times against himself, the Prophet called him and said, “Are you insane?” He replied, “No.” The Prophet then said to his companions, “Go and stone him to death.” We caught him at Al-Harra and stoned him till he died. (Bukhari 7:63:196)

QURAN:

“The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall LASH each of them a hundred LASHES. Do not let pity for them overcome you in applying God's religion if you believe in God and the Last Day, and let a group of believers witness their punishment” [24:2]

QURAN SAYS:

indeed, you (Muhammad) are of great moral character. [Quran 68:4]

HADITH SAYS:

Muhammad is a torturer... (Narrated by Abu Qilaba, attributed to Anas. Bukhari 1:4:234; also Bukhari 7:71:590)

Muhammad is a plunderer… (Narrated by Ibn ‘Umar. Bukhari 4:88 )

Muhammad is a mass murderer… ( Bukhari 5:59:362 and Muslim 19:4364)

Muhammad is a child abuser…(Narrated by As-Saburah. Abu Dawud 2:494 and 2:495)

Muhammad is a child killer…(Bukhari 4:52:256)

Muhammad is a wife beater…(Muslim 4:2127)

Muhammad is a male chauvinist:

Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse.” Narrated Abdullah bin ‘Umar. Bukhari 7:62:30; also Bukhari 7:62:31 and 7:62:32

Muhammad is a cross-dresser:

Then the Prophet said to her (Um Salama): Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was in a women’s garment (fee thawb imra’ah) except that of Aisha. Bukhari 2393

Muhammad is a hypocrite:

The Messenger of Allah forbade facing the Qiblah when urinating. But I saw him, one year before he died, facing the Qiblah (while urinating). Narrated by Jabir. Ibn Majah 1:325:1

Final Remarks

You see, they call themselves Submitter (Muslim) but they don't submit to the words of Their God.

They don't deserve that name.

Their religion is far away from “Submission/Islam”.

The problem is deep. You as a Muslim must believe in every single verse of Quran, it's an obligation in your religion and you can't reject even 1 verse. But you Muslims actually reject verse 6:114 where God says the only book of religious law is Quran!

It's not about only one ignorant Muslim, literally, all of my Muslim friends and every Muslim in my family have no clue how many chapters the Quran is.

I'm not an Atheist, I'm Monotheist, but you can call me apostate if you like.