Обсуждение:Распятие

Iequran / Crucifixion

Muhammad Mushtaq and Hasan Spiker

Crucifixion is a form of capital punishment whereby a human being is nailed or bound to a gibbet, whether a simple stake or a cross, and left to hang until death. The Qurʾān uses two verbal forms (I and II) of the root ṣ-l-b in six verses (Q 4:157; 5:33; 7:124; 12:41; 20:71; 26:49) to refer to crucifixion in three different contexts.

Definitions and Usage

The Qurʾānic Denial of the Death of ʿĪsā, upon him peace

The Alleged Crucifixion of ʿĪsā, upon him peace

Questions Arising from the Apparent Deception

Bibliography

Definitions and Usage

Q 4:157 uses the Form I verb to deny crucifixion of Prophet ʿĪsā, upon him peace: They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him (wa mā ṣalabūhu);

Q 12:41 uses the same form of the verb in passive voice to refer to the fate of one of the prison-companions of Prophet Yūsuf, upon him peace (q.v.): as for the other, he will be crucified (yuṣlabu) so that the birds will eat from his head. The master exegete of the third/ninth century Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad Ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (224-310/839-923) states that the companion of Prophet Yūsuf, upon him peace, was the king’s baker, who was accused of trying to kill the king by poisoning his food (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr).

The other four verses use Form II verb, which gives the meaning of intensity (Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān, sub ṣ-l-b): Q 5:33 mentions crucifixion as punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger: Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment. (see Legal Punishments). The remaining three verses Q (7:124, 20:71 and 26:49) refer to the verdict of Pharaoh (see Firʿawn) for the magicians who had just accepted faith and give additional details of the punishments before their curcifxion: He said: “ You believed him before I gave you permission. Indeed, he is your leader who has taught you magic. So I will surely cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and I will crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and you will surely know which of us is more severe in [giving] punishment and more enduring." (Q 20:71). Q 7:124 uses the word thumma between the two punishments of amputation and crucifixion, which signifies that first the hands and feet were to be cut off and then they were to be crucified on the trunks of palm-trees (Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr).

The Pharaoh also charged the magicians with rebellion when he said: Surely this is the plot that you have devised in the city so that you drive out its people (Q 7:123). “He meant: this is the common plan between you and him [Prophet Mūsā, upon him peace] for the purpose of dominating Egypt” (Qurṭubī, Tafsīr).

In addition to the verbal forms, two verses use the noun of this root (Q 4:23, aṣlāb as plural; and 86:7, ṣulb as singular), which is translated as "loins".

The Qurʾānic Denial of the Death of ʿĪsā, upon him peace

In addition to Q 4:157, which clearly denies the crucifixion of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, there are other verses which refute this false claim. For instance, immediately after the denial of the claim of his crucifixion, the next verse (Q 4:158) mentions his ascension (from root r-f-ʿ) to Allah. This is also mentioned in Q 3:55: When Allah said, “O ʿĪsā, indeed I will take you (innī mutawaffīka) and raise you to Myself (Rāfiʿuka ilayya), purify you from those who disbelieve, and make those who follow you [in submission to Allah alone] superior to those who disbelieve until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me shall be your return, and I will judge between you concerning that over which you used to differ. This verse uses the participle mutawaffī and Q 5:117 uses the form V verb tawaffayta from the root w-f-y, which can mean death . For exegetes, this necessitated analysis of the roots w-f-y and r-f-ʿ in order to fully explain the Qurʾānic teachings on the question of crucifixion of ʿĪsā, upon him peace. They also cite Hadiths which explicitly mention the second coming of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, before the Day of Judgment (see below) as proof that he was not crucified.

Taking Fully (tawaffī)

The Qurʾān uses ten forms of the root w-f-y 66 times, generally to convey the meaning of completion, fulfilling, paying in full and the like. Explaining the meaning of this root, the Abūl-Faḍl Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Mukarram Ibn Manẓūr al-Ifrīqī (d. 711/1312) says:

Al-wafāʾ is the antonym of treachery (ghadr). It is said: wafā bi-ʿahdih (he fulfilled his promise) and the same meaning is conveyed by [form IV] awfā bi-ʿahdih. However, Shamir says: [the distinction between the two is that] when one says wafā, he means: completed; thus, when you say wafā lanā fulān, you mean “he kept his word and did not break his promise…”; but when one says awfā, one means “he gave me full right and did not take away anything…” Tawaffā al-muddata: “he reached his appointed time and completed it”… al-wafāh: “death”… Tuwuffiya fulānun “So-and-so died”. Tawaffāh Allāh: “Allah took his soul”… Tawaffī al-mayyit: completion of the deceased’s appointed time and the number of days, months and years allocated to him”… Tawaffayt al-māl minh wa-stawfaytuh: “I took from him the whole of the money [he owed me]… so that nothing remained payable”. Tawaffaytu ʿadad al-qawm: “I finished counting every one of the group…” Tawaffī al-nāʾim: “completion of the duration of a sleeping person’s reason and discretion until they actually fall asleep (Lisān).

Thus the root basically conveys the meaning of completion, which in particular contexts may also imply the meaning of death, because death completes the lifespan. Form V verb from this root (tawaffā) occurs twenty times in active voice and four times in passive. In twenty cases the context clearly implies the meaning of death. These include: (i) the mention of the angel, or angels, taking a person’s life (8 verses: Q 4:97, 6:61, 7:37, 8:50, 16:28 and 32, 32:11 and 47:27) (see: Angels); (ii) the context of supplication (3 verses: tawaffanā maʿ al-abrār, take us with the righteous; tawaffanā muslimīn, take us as Muslims; tawaffanī musliman, take me as a Muslim; Q 3:193, 7:126 and 12:101); (iii) the law of inheritance, when people are “taken” and “leave behind” widows (2 verses: Q 2:224 and 240): (iv) the different stages of human life (4 verses: Q 10:104; 16:70, 22:5 and 40:67); (v) reassurance to the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, that he may either see the Divine punishment of his adversaries or it may befall them after “We take you” (3 verses: Q 10:46, 13:40 and 40:77); and (vi) use of this verb in conjunction with the noun mawt, meaning death (2 verses: Q 4:15 and 39:42). The last of these verses uses this one verb simultaneously for death as well as sleep. Q 6:60 also uses this verb for sleep—which a Prophetic tradition likens to death (Bukhārī, daʿawāt, mā yaqūl idhā nām).

In Q 3:55 (And when Allah said: O ʿĪsā, Truly I will take you), raise you to Myself, and cleanse you from those who disbelieve), the context is that of giving glad tidings to Prophet ʿĪsā, upon him peace, that Allah Most High will protect him from the conspiracies of his adversaries. This, coupled with the Prophetic traditions about his second coming, provides a compelling reason for a majority of jurists and exegetes to prefer the literal meaning of “taking” to the figurative meaning of “giving death”. Abūl-Qāsim Maḥmūd b. ʿUmar al-Zamakhsharī (467-538/ca. 1344-1392) explains this as follows:

And when Allah said; this is adverb (ẓarf) for the best of the schemers or for Allah schemed [in the preceding verse]: O ʿĪsā, I will take you (innī mutawaffīka): that is, “I will complete your appointed time”, meaning “I will protect you from being murdered by the disbelievers and will grant you respite till the time I appointed for you, and will then give you a natural death instead of you being killed by them.” And cause to ascend to Me: that is, “to My heaven and to the place of My angels”. And will cleanse you from those who blaspheme: “from their evil society and bad company”. It is also said that mutawaffīka means: “I will take you from earth”, as in tawaffayt mālī ʿalā fulān (I took my money from so-and-so [which he owed me]) idhā astawfaytuh (when I got it in full). Another interpretation is: “I will give you death when your time comes, after which I will make you descend from the sky; but presently I will raise you.” Yet another interpretation is: “I will take your soul by making you sleep [as in Q 39:42], and will raise you while you are asleep so that you do not feel fear; and when you will wake up you will be in heaven, safe and close [to Me]” (Kashshāf).

Ascension (rafʿ)

The Qurʾān uses form I verb of the root r-f-ʿ (Q 3:55 and 4:158) for the ascension of ʿĪsā, peace be on him. Although eight forms of this root occur 29 times in the Qurʾān, often meaning “raise in status” (cf. Q 2:253, 6:83 and 165), it is only in Q 3:55 and 4:158 that the Qurʾān uses after it the preposition ilā (to); in both cases with a pronoun referring to Allah Most High. This specific usage has led exegetes to conclude that these verses imply physical ascension. Elaborating on this usage, Abū Ḥayyān asserts:

Al-rafʿ: raising from a lower place to a higher place; to Me (ilayya), ascribed for the purpose of honoring (iḍāfat tashrīf) and implying: “to My sky and to the place of My angels”… Another interpretation is: “to a place where no one else rules, either in reality or apparently, unlike earth where it appears that creatures rule. Another opinion is: “to the place of your reward”. According to Ibn ʿAbbās: “Allah raised him to the sky, the nearest to the heavens; so he is there, praising Allah along with angels; then Allah will make him descend upon the Dome of Bayt al-Maqdis when the Dajjāl appears (Baḥr, sub Q 3:55).

The Qurʾān, then, not only denies the crucifixion but also provides the basis for belief in the physical ascension of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, and his second coming near the Day of Judgment; and this is confirmed and further expounded in Hadiths (see below).

The Alleged Crucifixion of ʿĪsā, upon him peace

Another key verse on the background to the alleged crucifixion of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, is Q 61:6:

And [remember] when ʿĪsā the son of Maryam said: ‘O Children of Israel, I am the Messenger of Allah to you, confirming that which was before me in the Torah and giving glad tidings of a Messenger to come after me whose name is Aḥmad.’ But when he brought them clear proofs, they said: ‘This is manifest sorcery!’

This verse identifies those addressed by the Prophet ʿĪsā, upon him peace, as the Children of Isrāʾīl who, as al-Sayyid Maḥmūd b. ʿAbdallāh al-Alūsī (1217-1270/1803-1853) pointed out, were addressed by this title because they took pride in it (Alūsī, Rūḥ). Even though those Children of Isrāʾīl were ruled by the Romans at the time, the Qurʾān nowhere mentions that ʿĪsā, upon him peace, ever addressed the latter. Q 3:49 also calls him a Messenger unto the Children of Israel. “They were specifically named so that it is known that he was sent specifically to them” (Rūḥ). Q 3:52 describes the situation when both the religious and the political éĺites of the Jews rejected the message of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, and he turned to the masses to seek their support for the cause of Allah: When ʿĪsā perceived disbelief on their part, he said: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? The zealous disciples (al-Ḥawariyyūn) said: We are Allah’s helpers. We believe in Allah; bear witness that we are submitting ones (muslimūn). Al-Ṭabari comments:

The interpretation of this verse is: when ʿĪsā perceived on the part of the Children of Israel—to whom Allah had sent him—denial of his prophethood, rejection of his preaching, and turning away from that message of Allah to which he had called them, he said: Who will be my helpers in the cause of Allah? By this He means that ʿĪsā said: “Who will support me in the cause of Allah against those who reject Allah’s proof, those who turn away from His religion and deny the prophethood of His Prophet?”

Q 3:54 mentions the conspiracy against ʿĪsā, upon him peace, by his adversaries: And they schemed and Allah [also] schemed; and Allah is the best of schemers. “Those who disbelieved among the Children of Israel conspired; and they were the same people whom Allah spoke of as the people on whose part ʿĪsā perceived disbelief” (Ṭabari, Tafsīr). At this stage, Allah informed ʿĪsā, upon him peace, of how he would be saved from his adversaries (see Q 3:55).

Al-Ālūsī, like several exegetes before him, cites Qatāda (d. 118/736) as holding that this verse contains a sequential reversal (taqdīm wa taʾkhīr): namely that ʿĪsā, peace upon him, was in actuality first “raised” around the time of the alleged Crucifixion, and then “he would be made to die” after his second coming (Rūḥ). However, the most common reconciliation of Q 3:55 and Q 4:157, as noted earlier, is to interpret the phrase mutawaffīka literally, such that the verse means “I will take you to Me,” not “I will cause you to die” (cf. Bayḍāwī and Jalālayn, Tafsīrs; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād; Ibn Juzayy, al-Tashīl, sub Q 3:55). Al-Ṭabarī, preferring this interpretation and, in support of his preference, refers to the Prophetic Hadiths about the second coming of ʿĪsā, upon him peace (Tafsīr). The following hadith may be the most compelling authentic text relevant to the topic, and has almost certainly exerted the strongest influence on Muslim understanding of the theme of crucifixion:

Abū Hurayra related that the Messenger of Allah said: “The Hour will not come to pass until the Son of Maryam descends amongst you as a just ruler, breaks the Cross, kills the swine, and imposes the jizya. Wealth will become greatly abundant, such that none shall accept it.” (Bukhārī, Maẓālim, kasr al-ṣalīb wa qatl al-khinzīr; near-identical version in Muslim, Īmān, nuzūl ʿĪsā b. Maryam ḥākiman bi-sharīʿat Nabiyyinā Muḥammad ṣallā Allāh ʿalayh wa sallam; for “imposes” the jizya rather than the common interpretation of “abolishes”, see ʿIyāḍ, Ikmāl al-muʿallim 1:471)

Upon his return to earth, ʿĪsā, peace be upon him, will break the Cross and thereby, according to Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī’s (773-853/1372-1449) commentary, “discredit the religion of the Christians, and also actually [not merely figuratively] break the Cross and invalidate the reverence of the Christians’ claim for it” (Fatḥ al-bārī, Aḥādīth al-Anbiyāʾ, nuzūl ʿĪsā b. Maryam ʿalayhimā al-salām). The evident sense of this hadith explicitly refutes the doctrine of the Cross (and thus vicarious atonement and related soteriological notions) and also denies, albeit implicitly, the historicity of the Crucifixion.

The Qurʾānic treatment of the event of the alleged Crucifixion forms a part of an exposition (Q 4:153-161) of certain aspects of the fall from grace of the Jewish people: their breaking of the covenant (q.v.); killing of the Prophets, upon whom be peace (Q 4:155); calumny (q.v.) against Maryam (q.v.) (Q 4:156); and “boastfully” (Jalālayn, Tafsīr) saying Certainly we killed the Messiah (Q 4:157). In the remainder of this verse and the next verse the Qurʾān specifically refutes this claim, declaring:

They killed him not, nor did they crucify him; but so it was made to appear to them. Those who differ concerning him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge about it, merely conjecture. And of a certainty they killed him not. But Allah raised him up to Himself; and Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

About the part of the verse which states “but so it was made to appear to them (wa lākin shubbiha lahum),” Abū Ḥayyān Muḥammad b. Yūsuf al-Andalusī (d. 745/1344), has the following explanation:

Shubbiha (it appeared) is related to the prepositional phrase (al-jārr wal-majrūr), like: khuyyila ilayh (it was imagined to him); [that is to say] ‘but appearance occurred for them’ (waqaʿa lahum al-tashbīh). It is also possible that it relates to the pronoun for the murdered person implied by the sentence certainly we killed, that is, ‘but the one whom they killed so appeared to them’. In any case, it is not related to the pronoun for the Messiah [in they killed him not, nor did they crucify him] because the Messiah is the one sembled to (mushabbah bih) not the one made to resemble (mushabbah) (Baḥr).

Neither the Qurʾān nor any authentic report from the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, gives details of how the appearance occurred. As the verse explicitly mentions the disagreement of the various groups of the People of the Book on this issue, the exegetes record many Israelite accounts (see: Israelite Accounts) explaining the bewilderment it caused them (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr). Indeed, as Abū Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq Ibn ʿAṭiyya al-Andalusī (d. 481-541/1088-1147) states: “Narrators have differed drastically regarding this story and as to how events proceeded… Not one of these narrations can decisively be said to be sound, because no authentic narration from the Prophet, blessings and peace upon him, has come down to us concerning [the events]. Therefore the pronouncements of the Book of Allah are the only real criteria we have for preferring one [narration] over another” (Muḥarrar, sub Q 4:157). Many exegetes saw in this verse a reference to early Christological controversies. “The meaning of their ‘differing [concerning him]’ is that the Nestorian Christians held that it was only ʿĪsā’s human nature (nāsūt) that was crucified, and not his divine nature (lāhūt), whereas the Melkites (al-malkāniyya) (from the Syriac malkāyā, “the royalists,” so called because of their adherence to the formulations of the Councils of Ephesus (212bh/431) and Chalcedon (200bh/451) as endorsed by the Byzantine emperors) held that the entirety of ʿĪsā was crucified, both his human and divine natures.” Others say that this “difference” pivots on the fact that “the generality of the Jews say ‘We killed him’, whereas those who witnessed ʿĪsā’s ascension said ‘We did not kill him’” (Qurṭubī, Tafsīr, sub Q 4:157; see also Rāzī, Tafsīr). This last opinion, with its mention of a group who were coeval with ʿĪsā and denied that he was really crucified, accords with some early Christian writings, such as the Apocalypse of Peter and the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, which also affirm that it was not really ʿĪsā who was killed, but that he was raised to heaven by God.

The next verse (Q 3:159) adds another dimension to this issue: And there is not one in the People of the Book but will certainly believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them. Commentators differ on the interpretation of this verse primarily because they disagree as to whom the pronouns in believe in him and before his death refer to. One view is that the pronoun in the first phrase refers to ʿĪsā, upon him peace, and in the second phrase it refers to kitābīs (Jews or Christian) and thus the verse means that every Jew or Christian before his death must believe in ʿĪsā, upon him peace, but it will be of no benefit to him at that time (Ālūsī, Rūḥ). The interpretation preferred by al-Ṭabarī and most other exegetes is that both the pronouns refer to ʿĪsā, upon him peace, so that the verse means that before the death of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, and after his second coming, every Jew and Christian will believe in him (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr). Hence Q 3:159 is deemed a proof of the continuity of life and second coming of ʿĪsā, upon him peace.

Finally, Q 43:61 is also understood as mentioning ʿĪsā, upon him peace, as the sign of the coming of the Day of Judgment: And certainly he is the sign of the Hour [of Judgment]; therefore, doubt not about it [the Hour] and follow me; this is the right path. Although some of the exegetes are of the view that the pronoun at the beginning of the verse refers to the Qurʾān or the Prophet Muḥammad, upon him blessings and peace, a majority of the exegetes have understood it as referring to ʿĪsā, upon him peace, primarily because the preceding verses (Q 43:57-60) as well as the following verses (Q 43:63-65) mention him. Abū Ḥayyān asserts:

The pronoun here refers to ʿĪsā, because the pronouns in the preceding verses evidently refer to him. According to Ibn ʿAbbās, Mujāhid, Qatāda, al-Ḥasan, al-Suddī, al-Ḍaḥḥāk and Ibn Zayd, this verse means that the advent of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, will give knowledge of the [Last] Hour, implying that the Hour is at hand (Baḥr).

This interpretation is further strengthened by the fact that in one of the canonical readings (q.v.) the word ʿalam (“sign”) is used in place of ʿilm (“knowledge”) (Rāzī, Tafsīr). For this reason, the exegetes cite many Prophetic traditions about the second coming of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, as the sign of the coming of the Hour (Qurṭubī, Tafsīr).

Questions Arising from the Apparent Deception

The emphatic Qurʾānic rejection of the claim of crucifixion of Prophet ʿĪsā, upon him peace, is in Q 4:137:

And because of their saying: We slew the ʿĪsā, the son of Maryam, the Messenger of Allah—they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and indeed, those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

The apparent reading of the verse raises several issues; Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Rāzī (543-606/1148-1209) elaborates on the most essential of these in his commentary:

To say that it is conceivable that Allah Most High cast the likeness of a person onto another person opens the door to sophistry. If it were so, then when we [say, we] saw Zayd, perhaps it might not be Zayd; rather, it might just be that the likeness of Zayd had been cast onto [whoever it is]. This will result [in casting doubts on the actuality] of marriage, divorce, and ownership; these could not be trusted. Moreover [such a notion] results in the calling into question trust in the continuous transmission (tawātur) of reports which are the basis of [transmitted] knowledge. Now, were we to consider possible that doubtfulness of this kind exists regarding sense-objects, then a challenge is thereby directed against [the whole notion of] continuous narration—and that entails casting aspersions on all the Sacred Laws (Tafsīr, sub Q 4:157).

Al-Rāzī rejects this possibility as an explanation of the shubbiha lahum and says the answer provided by Muslim theologians is that it was not so much that the “likeness” of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, was cast onto someone else, but rather that someone who merely resembled him was seen from afar as being crucified, and it was thus not so much a matter of the senses being deceived, but rather of their being improperly employed. Al-Rāzī also points out that such reports “can be traced only to small number of people, who could very conceivably have grouped together to lie [about the event].” The report of the alledged crucifixion does not meet the requirements of a continuous transmission. In his influential Commentary on Creedal Doctrines (Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid), Saʿd al-Dīn Masʿūd al-Taftāzānī (722-792/1322-1390) likewise states that “the [notion that the] report given by Christians of the killing of ʿĪsā, upon him be peace, [was related by] continuous transmission rests on unsound grounds.”

Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Abī Sahl al-Sarakhsī (d. 483/1090) in his treatise on Islamic jurisprudence (uṣūl al-fiqh) emphasizes the lack of soundness of these reports:

This is not a continuous narration as the Christians narrate it only from the four persons who accompanied ʿĪsā, upon him peace. The zealous disciples had already dispersed when the Jews intended to kill them… and the Jews narrate it from the seven persons who entered the place… It is further reported that they did not know Christ till a person named Judah pointed him out to them. He accompanied [Christ] for some time till he betrayed him to obtain a reward of thirty dirhams and told [the Jews]: “When you see me kiss a person, he is the one you are looking for.” With this [kind of] narration, continuity is not established. To the objection that the event of the crucifixion was narrated by large number of people who could not be perceived to have grouped together on fabricating the report, and so continuity of the narration about crucifixion is established, we reply: “That is not the case, because they obtained the information from a small number of persons and trusted their report that the one crucified was a particular person when [in fact] they were watching him from a distance without focusing on him, because people naturally avoid focusing on the one being crucified–added to this is the fact that changes in appearance occur because of crucifixion. From these various perspectives, doubts arise about it. Thus we come to realize that just as there is no continuous narration about his murder, there is no such narration about his crucifixion. At the most, there is a continuous narration about a person being crucified whom they believed to be ʿĪsā (Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī, 1:285-286).

For al-Sarakhsī, moreover, if one were to accept the explanation of Divine casting of the likeness of ʿĪsā, upon him peace, on someone else, it was an expression of Divine Power and Wisdom:

Casting the likeness of Christ onto someone else is neither impossible nor against the wisdom; rather, there is consummate wisdom (ḥikma bāligha) in it, which is protection of Christ from the evils of his adversaries who were determined to kill him. This [semblance] protected him from being killed, by subtle means (bi-wajh laṭīf). And Allah has peculiar ways of repelling harm from His Messengers. Allah knew about those who intended to murder him that they would never believe in him; hence, He cast his likeness onto another as a means of gradually leading them to ruin (istidrāj) so that they might increase in their rebellion and disease. But the same would not happen with those who come to the Messenger for the purpose of believing in him and getting advice from him for mending their ways.

Al-Sarakhsi cites two examples of such semblances: (i) Iblīs, upon him be curses, appearing to the polytheists of Makka once in the guise of an elderly person from Najd and once as Surāqa b. Mā’ik abetting them in their conspiracies against the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace; and (ii) Jibrīl, upon him peace, appearing to ʿĀʾisha and Ibn ʿAbbās, Allah be well-pleased with them, like Diḥya al-Kalbī, Allah be well-pleased with him, and to other Companions in the guise of a nomad who had come to ask the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, about important aspects of the religion of Islam. He also cites Q 8:44 to substantiate that Allah showed polytheists to Muslims as few in number although in actuality they outnumbered Muslims, so that Allah might accomplish a matter that must be done (Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī, 1:287).

Bibliography

ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Qāḍī. Tathbīt dalāʾil al-nubuwwa. Translated with Arabic text as Critique of Christian Origins. Ed. and tr. G.S. Reynolds and S.K Samir. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1430/2009.

Ālūsī. Rūḥ.

Bayḍāwī. Tafsīr.

Bukhārī. Ṣaḥīḥ

al-Farhārī, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. al-Nibrās sharḥ Sharḥ al-ʿaqāʾid. Istanbul: Asitane, 1430/2009.

Ibn ʿAṭiyya. Muḥarrar.

Ibn al-Jawzī. Zād.

Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī, Abūl-Qāsim Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. al-Tashīl li-ʿulūm al-tanzīl. Ed. Muḥammad Sālim Hāshim. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1415/1995.

ʿIyāḍ b. Mūsā al-Yaḥṣubī, al-Qāḍī Abūl-Faḍl. Ikmāl al-muʿallim bi-fawāʾid Muslim. Ed. Yaḥyā Ismāʿīl. al-Manṣūra: Dār al-Wafāʾ lil-Ṭibāʿa wal-Nashr wal-Tawzīʿ, 1419/1998.

Jalālayn. Tafsīr.

Māturīdī. Taʾwīlāt.

Qurṭubī. Tafsīr.

Rāghib. Mufradāt.

Rāzī. Tafsīr.

al-Sarakhsī, Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Abī Sahl. Tamhīf al-fuṣūl fil-uṣūl [Uṣūl al-Sarakhsī]. Ed. Abūl-Wafāʾ al-Afghānī. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1414/1993.

Ṭabarī. Tafsīr.

Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān / Crucifixion

Article Table of Contents

Etymology and meaning

Crucifixion as a pre-Islamic punishment

The non-crucifixion of Jesus

Crucifixion as a divinely-ordained punishment?

Bibliography

Nailing or binding the hands and feet of a criminal to a cross of execution. The verb ṣalaba, “to crucify,” occurs six times in the Qurʾān: twice in the root form and four times in the second verbal form. It is probably a Syriac loan word (see foreign vocabulary ).

Etymology and meaning

The verb “to crucify” (ṣalaba), which occurs in the active voice at q 4:157 and in the passive at q 12:41, is a denominal verb from the noun ṣalīb, meaning a cross. This noun does not occur in the Qurʾān, although found in early poetry (see poetry and poets ). It is probably derived from ṣelībā, the word for cross in Syriac. The precise meaning of the second form of the verb ( ṣallaba), which occurs at q 5:33 in the passive voice and at q 7:124, 20:71 and 26:49 in the active, is uncertain. J. Penrice assumes that it is causative (Dictionary, 85) but as the verb is denominal the first and second forms may be interchangeable. Other possibilities are that the second form is intensive (“to crucify with great violence”) or numerically extensive (“to crucify in large numbers”).

Crucifixion as a pre-Islamic punishment

Crucifixion was widely practiced in antiquity. Herodotus (fifth century b.c.e.) makes numerous references to its employment by the Persians and other classical authors testify to its currency amongst Indians, Assyrians, Celts, Carthaginians and Romans ¶ (M. Hengel, Crucifixion, 4-5). According to the Gospels, when the Romans crucified Jesus they nailed him to a cross which had to be carried to the site of execution (e.g. John 19:17-23; 20:25). However, Paul equates crucifixion with hanging on a tree (Gal 3:13; cf. Deut 21:23).

In the Qurʾān, crucifixion is associated principally with ancient Egypt (q.v.). Joseph (q.v.) interprets the dream (see dreams and sleep ) of a fellow prisoner to mean that the latter will be crucified and birds will eat from his head ( q 12:41; cf. Gen 40:23, where Pharaoh's chief baker is hanged on a tree; see bread ). Another instance occurs in reference to Moses (q.v.). When Pharaoh's magicians testify to their belief in the God of Moses, Pharaoh (q.v.) says that he will cut off their hands and feet on opposite sides and crucify them ( q 7:124; 20:71; 26:49). We are not given details of the procedure, although in one of these qurʾānic references, Pharaoh tells his magicians that he will crucify them “on the trunks of palm trees (q.v.)” ( q 20:71).

The non-crucifixion of Jesus

The Qurʾān takes the Jews to task for claiming that they killed Jesus (q.v..) and it states that they did not kill him or crucify him but that it appeared so to them ( q 4:157; see jews and judaism; christians and christianity). According to the traditional Sunnī and Shīʿī commentators, God raised him alive to heaven, having first projected his likeness onto someone else whom the Jews crucified in the belief that he was Jesus. In support of this interpretation, they cite ḥadīths which state that Jesus will descend to kill the Antichrist (q.v.) before he dies (see apocalypse; eschatology), as well as reports attributed to the early exegetes Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 68/686-8), Wahb b. Munabbih (d. 110 or 114 a.h.) and al-Suddī¶ (d. ca. 127/745) which narrate how God outwitted the Jews (N. Robinson, Christ in Islam, 127-41, 171-2). Muslim rationalists were quick to point out the difficulties in the projection theory. Some of them proposed more credible alternatives, e.g. that the authorities, after failing to arrest Jesus, knowingly crucified another person and that the crowds were misled into thinking that the substitute was Jesus because they were kept at a distance and his appearance was disfigured by the ordeal (N. Robinson, Christ in Islam, 136-8, 172; see polemics and polemical language ).

As some pre-Islamic texts such as the gnostic Apocalypse of Peter discovered at Nag Hammadi mention the crucifixion of a substitute, it is possible that the traditional commentators have interpreted this verse correctly. However, Christian apologists have long argued that q 4:157 does not actually deny that Jesus was crucified, but rather, that it denies that it was the Jews who crucified him. This accords with the gospel accounts, which attribute his execution to the Romans (N. Robinson, Christ in Islam, 108-9). Christian apologists also draw attention to q 3:55, which seems to imply that Jesus' death is in the past and to q 3:169, which asserts that Muslim martyrs are alive with God. The Brethren of Purity (see brother and brotherhood ) apparently accepted these arguments and adopted the view that Jesus' body was nailed to the cross but that his spirit was raised alive into God's presence (N. Robinson, Christ in Islam, 56).

M.Z. Khan's translation of q 4:157 (…“those who have differed in the matter of his having been taken down alive from the cross are certainly in a state of doubt concerning it”…) gives the impression that the Arabic explicitly states that Jesus was taken down alive from the cross. However, as the Arabic reads: wa-inna lladhīna khtalafū¶ fīhi la-fī shakkin minhu, a more literal translation would be along the lines of “those who have differed in it are certainly in a state of doubt concerning it.” He also renders q 2:72-5 so as to allude to the crucifixion. His rendition of q 2:72-3, in particular, is at variance with the Arabic: “Call to mind also when you claimed to have brought about the death of a Personage [wa-idh qataltum nafsan, lit. “and when you killed a man”] and then differed among yourselves concerning it, and Allah would bring to mind that which you concealed. So We said: ‘Test the crucial question by putting together other incidents relating to the affair and you will arrive at the truth.’ Thus does Allah plan to preserve alive those considered dead [kadhālika yuḥyi llāhu l-mawtā, lit. “thus does God make the dead alive”] and shows you His Signs that you may understand.” The interpretations conveyed in this translation, corresponding to the teaching of the Aḥmadiyya (q.v.), have no textual basis.

Crucifixion as a divinely-ordained punishment?

The traditional interpretation of q 5:33 is that it prescribes crucifixion as one of four possible punishments for brigandage. The basis for this view is a ḥadīth which states that the verse ( āya) was revealed when some people from the tribe of ʿUkl abused the Prophet's hospitality by killing a herdsman and stealing cattle (Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ, viii, 201-2; see occasions of revelation ). Without mentioning this ḥadīth, M. Asad argues that the Qurʾān would hardly promulgate a divine law which advocated a punishment identical to that inflicted by Pharaoh, whose qurʾānic characterization is that of an enemy of God. Asad suggests that the āya is not a legal injunction, but rather a description of what the unbelievers were doing to each other in their perverseness (The message, 148-9; see chas- ¶ tisement and punishment ; belief and unbelief; gratitude and ingratitude; disobedience; law and the qurʾān).

Bibliography

Primary

K. Aland et al. (eds.), The Greek New Testament, London 1966

Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ

M.Z. Khan, The Quran. Arabic text with a new translation, London 1971, 19813 (rev. ed.)

R. Kittel (ed.), Biblica Hebraica, Stuttgart 1937

J.M. Robinson, The Nag Hammadi library in English, Leiden 1977

Secondary

M. Asad, The message of the Qurʾān, Gibraltar 1980

M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the ancient world and the folly of the message of the cross, London 1977

B.T. Lawson, The crucifixion of Jesus in the Qurʾān and qurʾānic commentary. A historical survey. Part II, in Bulletin of the Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Sciences 10.3 (1991), 6-40

J. Penrice, A dictionary and glossary of the Koran, London 1873; repr. 1971

N. Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity. The representation of Jesus in the Qurʾān and the classical Muslim commentaries, London 1991

O. Spies, Über die Kreuzigung im Islam, in R. Thomas (ed.), Religion und religionen. Festschrift für Gustav Mansching, Bonn 1967, 143-56

F.E. Vogel, Ṣalb, in ei2, viii, 935-6

A.J. Wensinck and D. Thomas, Ṣalīb, in ei2, viii, 980-1

Cite this page

Robinson, Neal, “Crucifixion”, in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC. Consulted online on 07 January 2017 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-3922_q3_EQCOM_00046>

Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / Ṣalb

(a.), “crucifixion”. In Islamic doctrine and practice, it refers to a criminal punishment in which the body of the criminal, either living or dead, is affixed ¶ to or impaled on a beam or tree trunk and exposed for some days or longer.

Before Islam, many cultures, including the Persian and Roman ones, practised crucifixion as a punishment for traitors, rebels, robbers and criminal slaves (M. Hengle, Crucifixion in the ancient world, London 1977).

The Ḳurʾān refers to crucifixion in six places. The significant verse for legal practice is V, 33: “The recompense of those who make war on (yuḥāribūn) God and His messenger and sow corruption (fasdd) in the earth shall but be that they shall be slain, or be crucified (yusallabu), or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides, or be banished from the earth...".

The standard hadith collections report one case where Muhammad practiced crucifixion (of persons who murdered a shepherd and stole camels). This account is, however, contradicted by many others describing a different punishment (cutting hands and feet and gouging eyes) (see al-Nasa°I, tahrim al-dam, bdbs 7-9). In another hadith, the first crucifixion in Medina was by cUmar, of two slaves who killed their mistress (see Abu Dawud, saldt, bdb 61).

Fikh [q.v.] applies the above verse chiefly to highway robbers, as hadd [q.v.; and see KATL]. The choice of crucifixion, instead of another of the four stated penalties, is governed by complex, contested rules. Most scholars require that a robber who both killed and took property be crucified, as a hadd penalty (see KATL); others, while requiring execution, do not demand crucifixion. For most scholars, offenders are to be beheaded before being crucified. Malikls, with most Hanaffs and most Twelver ShIcTs, provide that the offender is crucified alive, but then killed by lance thrust. For the Zahiris, crucifixion itself must cause the death. Most scholars limit the period of crucifixion to three days (after which the body is to be washed, prayed over and buried).

Various minority views permit or prescribe crucifixion for crimes other than highway robbery, usually on authority of the same verse. These crimes include insults to the Prophet (sabb al-nabi) [see KATL], heresy (zandaka) [see MURTADD; ZINDIK], sorcery [see SIHR], and killing by stranglers (khanndkuri) and assassins drugging their victims (mubanniajun), such punishments sometimes represented as hadd and sometimes as tacztr [ q . v . ] . The quoted verse itself conceivably applies to anyone whose corrupting effect on society can be prevented only thereby (Ibn Taymiyya, al-Siydsa al-sharciyya, Cairo 1322, 55). Al-Mawardi (apparently alone) permitted crucifixion while alive (but not necessarily to death) as a generally applicable form of tacztr (al-Ahkdm al-sultdniyya, Cairo 1966, 239; cf. al-Ramli, Nihdyat al-muhtddj., Cairo 1967, viii, 21). Reports of actual crucifixions exist under most of these doctrinal headings. Exposure, often extremely prolonged, of headless bodies is common, especially for political or religious opponents [see e.g. CABD ALLAH B. AL-ZUBAYR; HASANAK; IBN BAKIYYA], Crucifixion while alive also appears, such as for al- Halladj [q.v.] and murderous slaves (H. Ritter, Kreuzigung eines Knaben, in Oriens, xxv [1976], 38-40, suggesting a frequency in the 7th/13th century of crucifixion to death).

In later Persian and Turkish usage, salb meant "hanging". In the form of exposure after beheading, crucifixion is practised in Saudi Arabia today.

Cite this page

Vogel, F.E., “Ṣalb”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. Consulted online on 18 March 2021 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_6530>

8/935

Toward an Islamic Christology II

The Death of Jesus, Reality or Delusion — A Study of the Death of Jesus in TafsTr Literature

Introduction

This is the second of a series of studies of the Islamic view of Jesus the Christ. In the previous chapter I argued that Muslims have thought much and seriously about Christ and that there is an authentic Islamic understanding of Christ that deserves careful consideration as a legitimate christology. The Christ of Islam, we wish to insist further, must not be dismissed as a distorted image of the true Christ of the Gospels, but must rather be seen as a living and dynamic personality, addressing humanity in many languages and across the barriers of dogma, creed, and even scriptures.

The purpose of the present essay is to study some of the ways in which Muslim commentators ( mufassirurt ) of the Qur’an have understood the Quranic verses dealing with Jesus. Our main concern is with one verse, and more specifically a single clause, one that boldly denies the death of Jesus on the cross at the hands of his opponents. They plotted to kill him, but God saved him and “it (or, he) was made only to appear so to them” (Q. 4:157).' I shall endeavor in what follows to examine the meaning of this difficult and controversial clause. The words iva lakin sbubbiba labum have generated much discussion, myth, and legend throughout the long history of Islamic tafslr. They have presented Muslims with a challenge, first, to understand God’s ways with humanity, and, second, to answer convincingly the charge of history.

The Qur’an offers itself as a Book of guidance to humankind (Q. 2:1). For it to fulfill this purpose in human life, it must speak to the situation of the community of its receivers at every stage of its earthly existence. This the Qur’an has done in large measure through tafslr, or the science of Qur’anic exegesis. As one writing from within the community, my task will not be simply to present and analyze the opinions of the commentators on the subject. Rather, having done that, I wish to engage in the process of tafslr myself by presenting my own understanding of this clause, which is crucial to the Qur’anic view of Christ. In this I will be accepting the challenge of the divine Word, and that of history.

Three main stages in the history of the tafslr of the verse with which we shall be concerned suggest themselves. The classical tradition is epitomized in the monumental commentary of Tabari (d. 310/923), which has influenced subsequent commentators down to the present. Other works of the classical period differ little from that of Tabari which they take as their source and starting point. The second stage, which may be considered as the middle period, shows a greater interest in history as well as a greater awareness of Christian views. This stage is represented, on the one hand, by the polemical approach of the historian Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373), and by the brilliant, analytical, and questioning mind of the theologian Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606/1209), on the other. The irenic, spiritual, and universal interpretation of the Sufis, of which examples will be considered in the essay, represents still another important trend. The third and final stage constitutes the modern period, beginning in the late nineteenth century with modernist reformers such as Muhammad "Abduh and his successors. Both the methodology and the concern of modern commentators are radically different from those of their predecessors. The views of some of the most important modern thinkers will be considered.

Shi‘i commentators, especially of the classical period, present a unique approach to the problems raised by the Qur’anic verse under consideration. It must be observed, moreover, that modern Shi’i thinkers, such as ‘Allamah Tabataba’i, while employing the methodology of modern commentators, clearly continue the Shi'i philosophical and theological tradition.

We shall follow a loose chronology, aiming not so much at a strict historical survey but at a presentation of the major developments in tafslr relevant to the subject at hand. Two texts of special importance will be translated in an appendix. The first presents an interesting parallel to the passion in the Fourth Gospel. The second is a selection from a Sufi tafslr presenting what may be considered a “Sufi christology.” Finally, the ultimate aim of this study is to promote constructive and meaningful dialogue among the men and women of faith in the two communities.

Jesus, “The Word of Truth” (Q. 19:34)

Prophethood in Islam is the divine answer to human folly and false confidence, a source of guidance for men to God and the model of a fulfilled humanity. In every prophet, speaking on God’s behalf to humankind, there is both a challenge and a judgment. The challenge is in the call to men and women of every age to return to their prophetic origins as exemplified in Adam, the first prophet, before whom the angels were commanded to prostrate themselves (Q. 7:11). Human fulfillment must be achieved through human prophets; the Qur’an therefore insists on the humanity of God’s messengers (Q. 6:8, 9, 50; 11:31; 17:94, 95; 25:7).

In the long drama of human prophets and a humanity challenged to seek prophetic fulfillment, Jesus plays a unique role. In him there is an originality of being that is akin to that of Adam (Q. 3:59). In him, as in Adam, the divine power over and within creation is manifested. He represents a special creation; he is the Word of God injected into the human plane of existence (Q. 3:45; 4:171). Yet like other prophets, Jesus remains a human being created by God, His servant and messenger (Q. 4:171-72; 5:17, 75).

Later Islamic tradition not only affirms the high status accorded to Jesus by the Qur’an; it makes still greater claims of uniqueness for him. It is reported in a very early hadith that the Prophet declared, “Every child born of the children of Adam Satan touched with his finger, except Mary and her son, peace be upon them both.” 2 Jesus is therefore free from the taint of evil and impurity. That his mother shares in this great honor is only because she was accepted by God to be a pure vessel for His Word and messenger (Q. 21:91; 66:12). This purity, which Adam had till he was touched by Satan’s finger and thus lost it, now remains exemplified in Jesus alone.

When the Qur’an speaks of earlier prophets, it does so by way of examples of God’s dealings with faltering humanity. Jesus alone is presented as a challenge and a judgment. In the famous passage of the Qur’an ending with the verse of the mubabalah, God confronts humanity with the challenge, “And whosoever disputes with you concerning him [Jesus], after the knowledge which has come unto you, say: ‘Come! Let us summon our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then we will pray humbly and invoke the curse of God upon those who lie’” (Q. 3:61). 2 The knowledge that “came” to the Prophet concerning Jesus presents a rare instance of theology proper in the Qur’an. The Christ of the Qur’an is according to this theology fully human, in spite of his miraculous birth and special status. Like Adam, he is the creature of God not through the law of human generation; rather, he is the object of the divine amr, or command (Q. 3:59). Again, in spite of his humanity, and perhaps because of it, Jesus is made the agent of divine acts through his special miracles. To him alone among the prophets God gave the power to give health to the sick, life to the dead and even to crude matter. All this he did “by God’s leave” (Q. 3:49).

The Qur’an presents a christology of the human Christ, empowered by God and “fortified with the Holy Spirit” (Q. 2:87, 253). It is a fully Islamic christology based not on borrowed distortions of early Christian heresies but on the Islamic view of man and God. There are, no doubt, some resemblances between the Qur’anic story of Jesus and early Christian sources; 4 these are at best, however, similarities of framework and story, not of theology or essential view. Islam differs from Christianity on two crucial points. First, it denies the divinity of Christ, but without denying his special humanity. Second, it denies the expiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross as a ransom for sinful humanity, but again denies neither the actual death of Christ nor his general redemptive role in human history. Enough has been said about the first point. It is with the second that this essay is concerned.

Who Died on the Cross?

In a series of verses directed against the children of Israel, to whom Jesus was sent as a messenger (Q. 3:49; 6 1:6), the Qur’an first accuses them of killing prophets unjustly. It then reproaches them for uttering great calumnies against Mary, perhaps accusing her of adultery. Finally, the Qur’an reproaches them for claiming to have killed Jesus the Christ:

and for their saying: “We have surely killed the Christ, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of God.” They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; rather it was made only to appear so to them. And those who have differed concerning him are in doubt regarding him [or it, the truth |; they have no knowledge of him [or it], except the following of conjecture. They did not kill him [or it, their doubt] with certainty. Rather, God took him up to Himself, for God is Mighty and Wise. (Q. 4:157-59)

These two verses constitute the answer to a divine challenge, “They devised and God devised, and God is the best of devisors” (Q. 3:34). The important question here is, What do the words wa lakin shubbiha lahum mean? In answer to this question, a number of different theories have been formulated and elaborated by Qur’anic exegetes throughout Islamic history. For the most part, their purpose has been to answer the question. Who was killed and crucified if Jesus was saved by divine intervention? In their eagerness to confirm the denial of the death and crucifixion of Christ at the hands of his enemies, commentators have generally interpreted the words shubbiha lahum to mean that another was made to bear his likeness ( shabah ) and die in his stead. Although later commentators questioned this reading on grammatical grounds, as will be seen below, they nonetheless continued to propound theories about who that substitute may have been.

Christian scholars, likewise, accepted this interpretation and propounded their own theories. Michel Hayek, a modern Febanese theologian, comments as follows: “This opinion may be related to a Christian heresy which had many supporters in Najran just before the rise of Islam. This was the heresy of the docetics who denied the sufferings of Christ. Some of them claimed that Simon the Cyrene was the man who bore the likeness of Christ (and died in his stead).”'’ Docetism, in whatever form it appeared, sought to preserve the divinity of Christ from the indignities of suffering and death. Islam, however, does not admit of docetism in any form. Its very human images of the life to come, as well as its insistence on the humanity of God’s messengers, argues against such a view. Furthermore, neither the Qur’an nor later Islamic tradition suggests a phantomlike appearance of Christ. He was, rather, a man, born in the usual way (Q. 19:22, 23), lived like other men, and like them must die and be resurrected for the final reckoning (Q. 19:33).

It must therefore be argued that the Qur’an only denies the death of Jesus on the cross and leaves open the question of his actual death. From the beginning, the commentators had some knowledge of the Christian insistence on the crucifixion as a historical fact. They did not, however, grasp the implication of this fact for Christianity, and therefore tried to harmonize the Qur’anic denial with the Christian affirmation. They accepted a crucifixion as a historical fact, in agreement with Christians, but denied it of Jesus, in agreement with the Qur’an. They adopted not a docetic position in interpretating the words shubbiha lahum but a substitutionist one. Thus, any parallels that this position may present with docetism can be only incidental.

The substitutionist solution to the problem raised two further questions. Why would God cause one person to suffer the trials of another, even if for the purpose of sparing His own messenger the ignominy of a shameful death? Second, what would the implications of this confusion of identities by God be for social norms and the credibility of historical testimony? The second of these two questions was eventually raised, and therefore deserves some attention later in this discussion. The first, however, underlies the choice of alternative solutions preferred by different commentators. To these, I shall now turn.

The traditions relating the story of Jesus are told on the authority of either Jewish converts such as Wahb bin Munabbih or of unnamed Christian converts as in the traditions of Ibn Ishaq. Tabari relates on the authority of Wahb the following story. When God revealed to Jesus that He would take him up to Him, Jesus and seventeen of his disciples went into a house (perhaps to celebrate the Passover). There, they were surprised by the Jews who were seeking Jesus. God, however, cast the likeness of Jesus on every one in the group so that he could not be distinguished from the rest. The Jews exclaimed, “You have bewitched us! Either bring forth Jesus or we shall kill you all.” 6 They then took one of the group and killed him, believing him to be Jesus. Hence, “It was made only to appear so to them.” After reviewing a number of traditions, Tabari himself prefers the one just discussed. He bases his preference on two major considerations. The Jews, who denied the truth of what Jesus brought them from their Lord, deserved to be frustrated and to have their plan against Jesus, the prophet of God, thwarted. The disciples, bawariyyun, and the Christians who followed them were not telling a lie by asserting the crucifixion, as they did not see Jesus taken up to heaven. They thought, rather, that he was killed because he told them on the night before that his end was at hand. This interpretation, however, was not accepted by most commentators because it was related on the authority of only one traditionist, albeit the famous Wahb bin Munabbih.

Tabari presents a possible alternative which, in his view, serves the same purpose. This is the story, again related on the authority of Wahb, which declares that Jesus was deserted by all his companions at the time of his arrest. 7 He was tied with a rope and dragged through the streets to the place where he was to be crucified. At that moment, he was taken up to heaven and his likeness cast on another whom the Jews killed, thinking him to be Jesus. Thus they were frustrated and the disciples were not telling a lie since they did not see him taken up. This solution, however, creates more problems than it solves. It makes historical Christianity based on a divine deception which was not disclosed until the Qur’an was revealed centuries later. We shall return to this problem later.

Important to most of the substitutionist interpretations is the idea that whoever bore the likeness of Jesus, and consequently his suffering and death, did so voluntarily. It must have been felt by hadith transmitters and commentators that for God to cause an innocent man to die unjustly to save another would be divine wrongdoing ($ulm), which cannot be predicated of God. Thus, the theory which eventually gained most popularity was that one of the disciples voluntarily accepted death as a ransom for his master. 8

This theory in its simplest form was related by Tabari on the authority of Qatada (a well-known companion and hadith transmitter). He said: “It has been related to us that Jesus son of Mary, the prophet of God, said to his companions, ‘Who among you would consent to have my likeness ( sbabahi ) cast upon him, and be killed?’ One of them answered, ‘I would, O prophet of God.’ Thus that man was killed and God protected His prophet and took him up to Himself”. 9

In what appears to be the second stage in the development of this theory, the number of the disciples is set at nineteen. One of them consents to die in his master’s place; then Jesus is taken up to heaven before their eyes. When the disciples came out of the besieged house, they declared that their master was taken up. The Jews verified this claim by counting the men several times; each time one was missing. Still, they took the man and killed him, thinking him to be Jesus. 1 "

The next stage in the development of the theory presents a growing interest in historical accounts. The result is an interesting story composed of diverse elements. Gospel materials, and hagiography. It was related on the authority of Ibn Ishaq (the famous biographer of the Prophet) that the king of the Jews who sought to kill Jesus was a man called David. When all the people had concurred, Jesus was greatly frightened by death. He prayed, “O God, if Thou wouldst take away this cup from any of Thine creatures, then take it away from me.” 11 His skin was dripping with blood, from grief and fear (Luke 22:44). Then he and his twelve disciples entered a house where he offered a place with him in paradise to the one who would bear his likeness and die in his stead. The man who volunteered, according to this tradition, was not one of the twelve. His name was Sergus; he took the seat of Jesus and the master was taken up to heaven. 12 It is of special interest that this story is supposed to have been related to Ibn Ishaq by a Christian convert. Whether this reflects a local Christian tradition, or was an echo of docetic theology, albeit in a crude form, cannot be determined with certainty given the present state of our knowledge of Arabian Christianity of that period.

In time, however, we see a preference for what we may call punishment substitutionism. Here, God is completely absolved from the responsibility of injustice or wrongdoing. According to some versions of this theory, Jesus was sought by his enemies, who intended to kill him. God, or Gabriel, made him enter a house for refuge. His pursuers sent a man in to kill him. The man’s name is variously given as Tityanus, Titabus, or Titanus. Jesus was taken up through an opening in the roof. Not finding him, the man came out to report to the people. But God had turned him into the likeness of Jesus, and he was killed in spite of his protests. God, however, cast the likeness of Jesus only on the man’s face and not on his body.’ 1 Thus, the people were confused as to the identity of the man they killed. This is added to explain the rest of the verse, which declares that those who differed concerning him followed only their conjecture.

By the sixth Islamic century (twelfth century C.K.), we witness yet another development that seeks to interpret the entire passage in one complete story. 14 The Jews, the Qur’an tells us, uttered great calumnies against Mary. A group of them reviled Jesus and his mother, calling him “sorcerer, son of a sorceress, reprobate, son of a loose woman.” Jesus prayed, saying, “O God, You are my Lord and I from Your spirit came into being and with Your Word You did create me. I did not come to them of my own accord. O God, curse those who reviled me and my mother.” 1 '’ God answered his prayer and turned the calumniators into apes and swine. The king and notables of the Jews, fearing a similar punishment, sought to kill Jesus. They besieged him and his disciples in a house, and one of them agreed to bear the likeness of his master and die in his place in order that the others may be saved. According to other versions of the same tale, the Jews sent the man Tityanus to kill Jesus who was alone hiding in a house. But he himself was killed, as we have already seen.

Judas Iscariot has had an interesting history in Christian piety and folklore. He appears in Muslim tafsir very early, clearly introduced by Christian or Jewish reporters. Reporting on the authority of Wahb bin Munabbih, Tabari tells the story of Judas selling his master for thirty pieces of silver; later he regrets his evil deed and hangs himself. At that early stage, however, Judas is not yet identified. Later, when Judas is specifically mentioned, his name is confused. In a tradition related on the authority of Ibn Ishaq, who heard it from a Christian convert, Yudas Zechariah, Yutah, or Butah (Judas Iscariot) led the Jews to Jesus and was himself made to bear the likeness of the master. Jesus was taken to heaven and Judas was seized by the mobs who crucified him, thinking him to be Jesus. All the while, he cried out, “I am not the one you want! I am the one who led you to him.” 16 This tradition has since been reported by most commentators. 17 Modern thinkers have generally preferred this alternative on special historical and psychological grounds, as will be discussed below.

Many commentators questioned the entire theory and sought to go beyond the literal meaning of the text. Others tried to present the whole episode in a credible historical account without rejecting the substitutionist interpretation. The account of the historian Ibn Kathir. (d. 747/1373) is one of the most interesting examples of this historical approach. It is a narrative account showing definite dependence on Gospel materials. We present it here in some detail.

The Jews envied Jesus for what God had given him, manifest revelations ( bayyinat ) and power to perform miracles (mu‘jizat), and sought to kill him. Jesus did not dwell with them; rather, he roamed the earth, often with his mother. The Jews wrote to the king of Damascus, who was a worshipper of the stars, accusing Jesus of sedition and leading the people astray. The king then wrote to his governor in Jerusalem ordering him to arrest Jesus, place thorns on his head (Matt 27:29; Mark 15:17; John 19:2), and crucify him. Thus, a group of Jews went with soldiers to the house where Jesus lodged with his twelve, thirteen, or seventeen disciples. They besieged them on a Friday past the mid-afternoon hour. Jesus asked his disciples, “Who among you would consent to bear my likeness and be my companion in paradise?” A young man volunteered, but Jesus, thinking the youth too young for the task, repeated his request three times. Each time, however, only the youth indicated his readiness to ransom the master. Jesus then agreed and an opening appeared in the roof of the house through which he ascended to heaven. After this the companions of Jesus went out of the house, and the youth was seized and killed. 18

Thus, the Jews and some Christian groups thought that it was Jesus, as did those of his companions who did not see him ascend to heaven. It is also said that his mother sat at the foot of the cross and wept and that the man spoke to her. 19 The author, however, doubts this and adds, “but God knows best.” Then, commenting on the entire episode, he writes, “And all this is so that God may try His servants according to His infinite wisdom.” 20

The first to seriously question the substitutionist idea altogether was the famous commentator Abu‘l Qasim al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1 143). His objections are based only on grammatical considerations. Nevertheless, he provides new arguments for many commentators after him. He begins by asking to what the verb sbubbiba refers. If it is made to refer to Christ, then Christ is the one to whom something else is likened, not the one likened to something else. The verb, however, cannot have as its subject the one killed, since he is never mentioned in the Qur’an. Thus it must refer to the preposition “to” (them), that is, “they were made to imagine it.” It is possible also to make the verb shubbiha refer to the one slain, as in the clause, “We have surely killed the Christ, Jesus,” that is, the one who was made to appear to them like Jesus. 21 His famous disciple, Nasir al-Din al-Baydawi (d. 685/ 1286), repeats the same objections, and then adds, “or it may be that no one was killed; rather his being killed was falsely claimed and spread among men.” 22 Baydawi does not, unfortunately, develop the idea further.

The thinker who really faced the theological and philosophical issue that the substitutionist interpretation implies was Fakr al-Din al-Razi (d. 606/ 1209). Razi was not satisfied with repeating the views of his predecessors; rather, he subjected every view to the careful scrutiny of his sharp analytical mind. He begins by raising two questions. The first is the one raised by Zamakhshari, already discussed. The second and more important question concerns what would happen if it is supposed that the likeness of one man could be cast on another. Two problems would result. First, it would open the gate of sophistry so that no social norm such as marriage or ownership rights could be ascertained. Further, this would lead to doubt in historical testimony, that is, the ongoing transmission of historical reports (tawatur). This historical transmission provides a sure source of knowledge, provided that tawatur is based on concrete data. If, however, we allow the possibility of the occurrence of such confusion of identity, this would necessitate in the end doubt in all sacred laws ( shara'I ). Nor can it be argued that such an occurrence is possible only during the ages of prophets. This is because although the age of prophetic miracles ( mu'jizat ) has ended, nonetheless the age of karamat (miracles as divine favors) has not, for miracle as divine favors are possible in every age. “In sum, the opening of such a gate necessitates doubt in tawatur, and this in turn necessitates doubt in fundamentals (usul), and this in turn necessitates doubt in the prophethood of all prophets. This is a branch (far') necessitating doubt in fundamentals and must therefore be rejected.” 2 ’ Razi then suggests that perhaps when Christ was taken up, the Jews took a man whom they killed, claiming that he was Jesus, for Jesus was a man little given to social intercourse, and thus known only to a few chosen companions. “The Christian agreement in the transmission (of the crucifixion event) goes back to a few people whose agreement on a false report is not improbable.” 24

Having thus criticized the principle of the substitutionist theory, Razi reviews the various opinions without endorsing any of them. He saw these as only conjectures transmitted from one generation to the next; the acceptance or rejection of any of them would be in itself a matter of opinion. Razi was more concerned with the understanding of Christ, the spirit of God and His Word. But before we turn to this more important point, we should consider a few other examples of the substitutionist solution to complete our discussion.

The idea that no one actually bore the image of Christ and suffered in his stead may have had its origins in Mu'tazili circles (Mu'tazili was a rationalist school of thought in early Islam). To the Mu’tazili, the notion that God could commit acts of injustice, for any reason, was most repugnant. Furthermore, for God to allow such confusion of identity for whatever reason, would be too irrational and therefore inadmissible. Shi’i authors, who had much in common with Mu'tazili thought, report an interesting tradition to this effect on the authority of Abu ‘Ali al-Jubba’i (d. 303/ 915), a well-known Mu'tazili theologian. Al-Shaykh al-Tusi (d. 459/1067) reports that the Jews sought to kill Jesus, but God took him up to Himself. They therefore took another whom they crucified on a high and isolated hill, allowing no one to come near him until his features had changed beyond recognition. They were thus able to conceal the fact of Jesus’ ascension, which they witnessed, and to spread false reports of his death and crucifixion. This they did to prevent his ascension from becoming a reason for other Jews to believe in him. In this solution, the requirements of both justice and rationality are met. Moreover, those who later disagreed concerning Christ’s end were not those who crucified him. Hence, the contention of both the Jews, who claimed to have crucified Jesus, and of the Christians, who asserted that he died on the cross and was then taken up to heaven, are — from the point of view of Jewish and Christian reporters — historically true. 2 '

Shi‘i popular piety presents Jesus front a definite Shi‘i perspective. According to Shi‘i piety, human beings are either in the wrong or in the right, depending on whether or not they follow the right authority or guidance of God’s prophets and their true vicegerents, the imams. We are told on the authority of the fifth imam. Imam al-Baqir, that Jesus called his disciples together one evening to tell them of his coming ascension and asked who would consent to bear his image, be killed, and be his companion in paradise. A young man accepted and Jesus assented as well. He then told them that one of them would deny him twelve times before the morning, and one confessed his intention to be that person. Finally Jesus predicted, “You shall indeed be divided after me into three sects. Two of these will be calumnious toward God, and thus be destined for the fire; the third will follow Sham’un (Simon Peter), will be truthful toward God, and hence be destined for paradise.” 26 Jesus, as a true Shi‘i ascetic, then ascended to heaven wearing a woolen shirt, spun and sewed by Mary, his mother. As he reached the heavenly regions, he was addressed, “O Jesus, cast away from you the adornment of the world.” 27

Shi‘i authors in general report the usual traditions on the authority of the same traditionists cited by Sunni commentators. Shi’i traditions, however, and these are few, present, as we have seen, typically Shi'i interpretations. To the element of human plotting ( makr ) and divine counterplotting, Shi‘i exegesis adds an element of divine mystery. Those who imagined that Jesus was killed and crucified did so in ignorance of the truth. Their conjecture {%ann) was based on an incomplete knowledge of the facts. Thus the famous fourth-lslamic-century theologian and traditionist Ibn Babawayh quotes the eighth imam, Imam al-Rida, as saying: “The case of no one among the prophets of God and His proofs (or witnesses, hujaj) has been obscured ( shubbiha ) to men except that of Jesus alone. This is due to the fact that he was taken up from this world alive, and his spirit taken away from him between heaven and earth. He was taken up to heaven and there his spirit was returned to him.” 2 * The word shubbiha in this context means not only “it was made to appear so” but also that the matter was made obscure. This interpretation is not at all implausible if we consider the rest of the verse, as we shall now do.

Did Jesus Die?

The Qur’an, we have argued, presents Jesus as a challenge not only to human folly and unbelief (kufr) but equally to human ignorance and the reliance on mere conjecture. Indeed, the Arabic word gann is the opposite not only of knowledge (Him) but also of absolute certainty or faith (yaqln). The Qur’an declares, “Those who differed concerning him [Jesus] are in doubt regarding it [the truth]; they have no knowledge of it [ the truth] save the following of conjecture ( %ann )” (Q. 4:157). In this reading, we may differ from some commentators, yet we have not forced the text to yield any meaning or idea not in consonance with the Qur’anic view of Christ. Nor were commentators from the earliest time unaware of this interpretation.

The famous scholar Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889) comments on the passage, “They have no knowledge concerning it save the following of conjecture, and they did not slay him [or, it] with certainty” (meaning, “they did not slay knowledge with certainty”). 29 This interesting interpretation is based on a tradition attributed to the first actual commentator, Ibn Abbas, the cousin and companion of the Prophet. According to Tabari, the disagreement (ikhtildf) here concerns Jesus, whether he was the one who was killed by the Jews or someone else. Their having killed him was only a conjecture, the opposite of knowledge and certainty. “And this is like one man saying to another, ‘You have not killed this matter with knowledge, nor have you killed it with certainty,”’ Tabari argues therefore that the hu ending of the word qataluhu, “they slew him (or, it),” refers to al-zann, conjecture.-’ 0

If this interpretation is at all plausible, then the Qur’an is addressing not only the Jewish contemporaries of Jesus but all human beings of all times. The disagreement for which the Qur’an reproaches the contemporaries of Jesus is not absent from Muslim thinking about Christ. In their earnest search for truth, many commentators obscured the essence of the Qur’anic view of Christ behind the veil of their own conjecture. The substitutionist theory will not do, regardless of its form or purpose. First, it makes a mockery of divine justice and the primordial covenant of God with humanity to guide human history to its final fulfillment (Q. 7:172; 2:38). Would it be in consonance with God’s covenant, his mercy and justice, to deceive humanity for so many centuries? Or, can it he said that the argument of the commentators would be really meaningful to Christians? Muslim commentators have generally assumed an attitude of overconfident superiority toward the Christians whom they were supposed to guide to the truth. This attitude has been generally a polemical one in that it assumes, as we have seen, that the Christian witness to the cross of Christ is based on a divine deception and is therefore false.

To be sure, there were those who sought to minimize or reject this attitude. In this they came nearer to the Qur’anic spirit of conciliation and search for meaning beyond the mere facts of history. This effort was made mainly by Sufi exegetes, although it was not limited to them. Razi, after reviewing and criticizing the various theories and notions of his predecessors, explains the Christian idea that only the human body of Christ suffered and died: “For his [Jesus’] soul is of the substance of sanctity (qudsiyyab) and exaltation (‘ ulwiyyab ). It is a celestial [soul] of intense luminosity, with the divine lights, and of great proximity to the angelic spirit. A soul such as this would not suffer because of the darkness of the body. For after its separation from the darkness of this body, it is liberated into the open courts of the heavenly realms and the lights of the world of majesty. There its exaltation and bliss are increased beyond measure .’” 1 This statement goes a long way toward meeting the Qur’anic challenge of Jesus, the Christ. It also provides a good starting point for Muslim-Christian understanding.

Muslim commentators had some awareness, however imperfect, of the christological issues in Eastern Christian theology. They therefore attributed this disagreement and conjecture to Christian errors concerning Jesus .’ 2 Yet even here, we see operating the Islamic view of the truth as transcending the flow of historical events. Islam, according to this view, is as old as history itself. It is the truth which all prophets have claimed, but which was forgotten or distorted until revealed with definite force and clarity in the Qur’an. Thus Ibn Kathir relates, in his interpretation of the verse in question, that the followers of Jesus were divided after him into three sects. One of them asserted, “God was among us for as long as Fie willed, then went up to heaven.” This was the Jacobite sect. The second said, “The Son of God dwelt among us so long as he willed, then God took him up to Himself.” These were the Nestorians. The third group declared, “The servant of God and His apostle sojourned among us for as long as God willed, then God took him up to Himself.” These were the Muslims. “Since that time, Islam remained obscured until God sent Muhammad .” 33

This view of the universality of the truth could be the basis of unity and dialogue within the diversity of humankind. If all human heings are seen as committed ( muslim ) to the divine will within the context of the spirit and cultural heritage of each human community, then the spirit of tolerance and understanding would prevail. If, on the other hand, the Islam of the Muslim community, with all its institutions as a reified religion, is to be used as the measure of religious truth, everywhere and in every age, then the divine wisdom in creating a world of religious and cultural plurality (Q. 49:13) has been in vain. The denial of this is possible, in our view, only on the most superficial level, where facts, not meaning, become the point of contention and polemics on both sides.

The Qur’an, as I have already argued, does not deny the death of Christ. Rather, it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus Christ, the messenger of God. The death of Jesus is asserted several times and in various contexts.’ 4 Two of these are of special interest to the argument of this study. In Surah 5, God questions Jesus directly, “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to mankind, ‘Take me and my mother as two gods beside God?”’ To this Jesus answers: “I did not say to them save that which you commanded me (to say), ‘Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.’ I was a witness over them, as long as I was among them, but when You took me (or, caused me to die), You were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness over all things.” (Q. 5:117) Here the Oneness of God is contrasted with the humanity of Christ, which is stressed by the reference to the fact of his mortality.

The other verse I wish to discuss at some length is put in the context of confrontation or struggle between Jesus and his opponents, where God intervenes directly on behalf of His messenger. The struggle begins when Jesus senses the denial or unbelief of his people. He asks his disciples, “Who shall be my supporters ( ansar ) to God?” They pledged their support in the words, “We shall be God’s supporters; we believe in God, so bear witness that we are Muslims” (Q. 3:52). Then in answer to the plot of the people against Jesus, God assures him, saying, “O Jesus, I am surely taking you (or, causing you to die, mutawafflka) and lifting you up to me” (Q. 3:55). The verse goes on to promise Jesus salvation from the impurities of unbelief and to his followers authority over the people of unbelief until the Day of Resurrection, when all men shall return to God, who will judge among them. The verse clearly states an end to Jesus’ earthly life followed by a celestial life with God.

Commentators went to great length in their attempts to harmonize this statement with what appears at first sight as its opposite. It is the declaration that Jesus did not actually die on the cross but was taken up to heaven. The solutions offered were, first, that the word mutawafflka means “receiving you.” 5 ' The verb tawaffa literally means “to reclaim a debt or a charge in its entirety from another person.” In general usage, however, it means in its passive form tuwuffi, “to die,” hence the verbal noun ivafdt , “death.” Thus, the dilemma is whether Jesus died and his soul was received by God, or his soul and body were both reclaimed and he went to heaven alive. The second solution implies that Jesus is still alive in heaven, having been taken up in his sleep so that he would not be frightened by the experience. 36 Tabari cites Ka‘b al-Ahbar, the Jewish chief rabbi, as saying: “God, exalted be His Majesty, would not have caused Jesus, son of Mary, to die. . . . Thus, when Jesus saw the small number of those who accepted him and the multitude of those who rejected him, he complained to God. Then God revealed to him, ‘Surely I am receiving you ( mutawafflka ) and lifting you up to me. For the one whom I take up to Me is not dead, and I shall send you against the one-eyed liar (al-A‘war al-Dajjal) and you shall kill him. After this, you shall live for twenty-four years, then will I cause you to die the death of the living.” 37

It was early reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the word mutawafflka means “causing you to die,” mumltuka , 38 Perhaps contemporary with this tradition was the alternative equating of tawaffl (receiving or reclaiming) with rafa‘a (to take up to heaven). 39 Still another tradition suggests that Jesus was taken to heaven and will die later, since the sequence of the action of receiving and taking up does not necessarily require the order given in the literal reading of the text. 40

The traditions related on the authority of converts such as Wahb bin Munabbih retain a strong echo of Gospel accounts. Wahb declared, “God caused Jesus, son of Mary, to die for three hours during the day, then took him up to Him.” It is possible that the three hours here mentioned refer to the darkness that was supposed to have covered the earth at the time of Jesus’ death. 41 Ibn Ishaq reports on the authority of a Christian convert that God caused Jesus to die for seven hours, an idea that later commentators attribute to Christian reports. 42 There is no evidence of such a notion in Christian tradition. There were even suggestions that Jesus died for three days, then was resuscitated and taken up to heaven. 43

Again, as usual, we find in Razi a genuine attempt to go beyond the literal reading of the text. He first interprets the word mutawafflka as possibly meaning “completing the term (ajal) of your life,” and “protecting you from the evil schemes of your enemies.” This also means that Jesus was taken up to heaven both in body and spirit, that is, as a complete person. Razi then argues that the word is to be understood metaphorically: “I [God] shall render you | Jesus | as though you are dead,” because when Jesus was taken up to heaven and no news or trace was left of him on earth, he became as one dead . 44 The author takes the term tawwafi to include death, without being synonymous with it. It is rather a general term requiring specification of the kind intended; hence, “and ‘taking you up to Me’ is ... a specification of the kind .” 45 It could also mean that God accepted the deeds (a'mdl) of Jesus, which He caused to be brought before Him . 46 Razi concludes: “What is meant by this verse is that the Exalted One gave Jesus the glad tidings that his acts of obedience and good deeds were accepted. He informed him also that what troubles and hardships he had suffered at the hands of his enemies in the cause of manifesting his faith (din) and sacred law ( shari'ah ) would not be lost, nor would his reward be destroyed.” 47

In this interpretation, Razi may have been influenced by the Sufi view of Christ. He quotes the statement of the famous Sufi Abu Bakr al-Wasiti that God said, “I am causing you to die to your desires and the limitations of your cardinal soul ( nafs)." A * Razi does not, however, carry this interpretation far enough for him to be a good representative of the Sufi view.

The Sufis, while not rejecting the traditional interpretation completely, have attempted to see Christ as the universal perfect man through whom all religions will be unified and humanity brought nearer to God. The significance of the death of Jesus is not in the how and when of history but rather in its meaning to a humanity bound to this material plane of existence by lust, greed, and anxiety. Nor is the significance of his heavenly subsistence with God dependent on whether his body, his spirit, or both were assumed to heaven. Rather, the significance of Christ’s life in heaven is his example as a specially favored human being who has risen beyond this world of material existence to the divine presence. He was taken to the heaven, which, according to al-Hasan al-Basri, “is the locus of the grace ( kardmah ) of God and the dwelling place of His angels .” 49 God wished him to be with the angels in order that “they may attain his grace (barakah), because he is the Word of God and His Spirit.” Jesus may be taken as a concrete example of the spiritual journey of the man of faith from the plane of material existence to the celestial plane where God alone is; there to Him alone belongs judgment and to no one of His creatures.

Jesus will return to share in our human life, and more fully than he did during his first sojourn on earth. He shall then purify the earth from all falsehood and dissension. He shall kill the one-eyed liar, the symbol of all evil in the world. He shall remove the barriers that divide humanity spiritually. He shall marry and beget children. He shall die and be buried with Muhammad in his grave, and the two will be resurrected together . 50 In this final commingling of the bodies of the founders of two of the world’s largest religious communities, we have perhaps the myth expressing hopes often drowned by the clamor of our empty words.

The Search for Meaning: Some Modern Attitudes

The Sufi approach had been unique in the long history of Muslim-Christian relations. It has not, unfortunately, received the attention it deserves as a possible basis for constructive dialogue. In fact, modern thinkers have generally ignored Sufi ideas along with much traditional literature dealing with the interpretation of the life, death, and mission of Jesus.

The Shi'i view of Christ resembles that of the Sufis in some important respects. First, it does not always insist on a literal understanding of the text. Second, it presents an ascetic image of Jesus, and finally, it does not generally favor a bodily ascension of Christ to heaven.

Modern Shi'i thinkers have allowed the possibility that Jesus died and only his spirit was taken up to heaven. One modern commentator has argued that the Jews crucified not Jesus but another whom they mistook for him. Jesus, however, escaped and with his mother spent the rest of his life in hermetic seclusion. The author finds support for this view in the verse, “And we have made the son of Mary and his mother a sign, and led them for refuge to a hill of comfort and flowing water” (Q. 23:50). 51 Jesus then died a natural death, and his body was buried in that hill, while his spirit went up to heaven.

The well-known contemporary Shi'i scholar Sayyid Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i takes the same view, but on different grounds. He first argues that wafdt does not necessarily mean death, unless specified. 52 He argues further that although a literal reading of the words “rather, God took him up to Himself” may suggest a bodily ascension, “God actually meant a spiritual ( ma'naun ) and not a formal (suwarl) assumption, because the Exalted One has no place of the kind occupied by bodies.”’ 5 In this, the author follows a time-honored tradition in Mu'tazili and Shi'i thought that sought to explain metaphorically all anthropomorphic references to God in the Qur’an. Even, he concludes, “if the text indicates literally bodily assumption, heaven means only the locus of proximity to Him and His blessings.”’ 4

Again, in agreement with the Mu'tazili insistence on divine justice and the rationality of all things, Sayyid Tabataba’i interprets the words shubbiha lahum as “seizing someone else unknowingly.” 55 For the Roman soldiers who arrested Jesus and crucified him did not know him. He bases this argument on the role of Judas, who identified Jesus for them. Thus, tasbbih, seeming or appearing, could also mean “mistake” (sbubha), and not the casting of the image (surah) of one man on another. The author offers a final curious suggestion: “Perhaps some historians have mentioned that the stories relating to Jesus, his mission, and the historical events of the rulers and other preachers of his time refer to two men called Christ. The two may have lived five hundred years or more apart. The earlier was the true Messiah, neither killed nor crucified, and the later, the false Messiah, was crucified. Thus, what the Qur’an mentions concerning tashbih is that of Jesus, son of Mary, with the crucified Christ.” Perhaps aware of the historical problems that this suggestion raises, the author adds, “and God knows best.” 56

In contrast with the Sufi and Shi’i views of the death and assumption of Christ, contemporary Sunni thinkers have shifted the emphasis of their arguments to a discussion of the meaning of the cross in the Christian faith and to the question of the authenticity of the Gospel accounts regarding the death of Christ. In this, they have taken an important step toward facing the crucial issues involved in the Christian assertion of the cross as a historical fact of cosmic dimensions, transforming and transcending history. Commentators of the classical and postclassical periods sought through an earnest and painstaking study of the Qur’an to question the historicity of the cross, without, however, grappling with the problems of its significance for Christianity. Modern thinkers, on the other hand, have turned to history, including the Gospel story, for support of their interpretations. They exhibit a fairly accurate knowledge of primary Christian sources, which they discuss not from a Christian but from a strictly Islamic perspective. This approach can hardly serve as the basis for a fruitful encounter of the two faiths.

The modern approach is dialectic and personal, and while it takes traditional ideas into account, it is generally not bound by them. Hence, it is not to tradition that modern thinkers turn for their criticism of Christianity but to the nineteenth-century humanist attacks on religion. In this we see a kind of crystallization of a modern tradition. Early modernists in the Arab world, such as Muhammad ‘Abduh and his immediate successors, all belong to the nineteenth century. Their views have been adopted and in large measure repeated by later thinkers interested in Christianity in general.

Another important characteristic of the modern approach is a tendency to demythologize the Christ of the classical tradition, whether by rejecting tradition altogether or by interpreting it metaphorically. Sayyid Qutb, the famous leader of the Muslim Brothers, relies on the Gospel accounts only for the background of his interpretation of the verses under consideration. His purpose was to “remain in the shadow of the Qur’an.”' He accepts only what the sacred text states concerning the death and assumption of Jesus Christ, commenting that “as for the manner of his death and assumption, these are matters belonging to the unseen ( ghaybiyyah ), and they fall in the category of obscure ( mutasbabbibat ) verses, whose exegetical meaning ( ta’wll ) is known to God alone.” 58

Another modern thinker, Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi, offers a rationalistic view of Christ by interpreting tradition metaphorically. He argues from historical examples of identity confusion that it was possible for the Jews and the Roman soldiers to mistake another for Jesus. Like Moses, who disappeared under the eyes of thousands of his people, Jesus disappeared and died a natural death. As for his ascension, it must be understood as the raising of status or degree with God; as we read of Idris (Enoch), “and We raised him into a high station” (Q. 19:57). Similarly, what is meant by Christ’s return to the earth and his rule over it is “the domination of his spirit and the mystery of his message over humanity in order that men may live by the inner meaning of the law (. sharVah ) without being bound by its outer shell.” 60 For Jesus did not bring a new law to the Jews. He was rather a reformer who sought to manifest the truth. Likewise, the liar (al-Dajjdl) whom Jesus is to kill at the end of time is only a symbol of empty legends, falsehood, and all the evils which would disappear were men and women to live by the spirit of the sacred law and fulfill its injunctions. 61

It must be emphasized that Muslim thinkers do not reject the Gospels out of hand as complete distortions of the truth. They are regarded, on the contrary, as containing dear evidence of the essential truth of God’s Oneness and the humanity of Jesus. It is interesting to observe further that throughout Islamic history, the Fourth Gospel, with its Logos christology, has been the one most often cited by Muslim thinkers in support of their arguments. Another document that provided the answer to many christological questions for modern commentators is the Gospel of Barnabas. This is most probably a late work, written under Islamic influence and agreeing with Islam on many crucial points. 62 It was translated into Arabic in the early decades of this century by Antun Saadi, a Lebanese Christian. Since then, it has been regarded by Muslim scholars as coming nearest to the lost Gospel of Jesus (Injil ‘Isa), and has therefore been the source of many of their arguments against Christianity. 60 The Gospel of Barnabas tells us that Judas Iscariot led the Jews and Roman soldiers to arrest Jesus at night in a house where Jesus and the disciples were sleeping. As he entered the house, Jesus was taken away by the angels, who carried him up to heaven. His likeness and his voice were cast upon Judas, who woke up the other disciples to ask where the master had gone. They, however, hailed him as the master and thought him distraught by the fear of death. This Judas was taken and crucified. He lost his mind, so that his incoherent protests were considered as those of a madman. Jesus, however, appeared after three days to his mother and the rest of the disciples to comfort and reassure them, announcing the coming of the Prophet Muhammad, who would fulfill all the things he had taught. 64

The Gospel of Barnabas has provided modern commentators not only with a supposed firsthand report in support of the substitutionist theory but also with what appears as a plausible justification. Thus, we have come full circle back to the earliest interpretation of the words shubbiba labum as meaning “another took his likeness and was substituted for him.” Modern Muslim thinkers have been aware of the claim that Barnabas is a late document. Some have therefore used it only as partial evidence, 65 while others have argued that it is the true Gospel in full or in part, which Christians had hidden for many centuries until it was found in their most sacred institution, the Vatican library. The question of the historicity of the event of the cross remains open, nonetheless, and a more up-to-date study of the Gospel of Barnabas would help greatly in moving Christian-Muslim dialogue from scriptural polemics to the more important task of understanding and appreciating the significance of Christ for the two religious traditions. The critique of the cross as the instrument of redemption by Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida in Tafsir al-Manar typifies both the problem as well as the effort for greater Christian-Muslim understanding. We shall conclude our discussion of Muslim views of the death of Jesus with a brief analysis of this critique.

Rashid Rida agrees with other contemporary commentators in taking the traditions regarding the ascension of Jesus and his return at the end of time metaphorically and with caution. He sees in the Qur’anic reference to Jesus as the apostle of God whom the Jews wrongly claimed to have killed an assertion of Christ’s apostleship, not divinity. He argues further that the Gospels indicate that Jesus himself proclaimed the Oneness of God in the words, “and this is eternal life, that they know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent .” 66 He likewise finds support in the same Gospel for the idea of doubt and conjecture concerning Jesus’ identity even by the disciples: “You shall doubt me tonight .” 67 These works are quoted by most modern commentators, all of whom miss their real significance, both for the evangelist and for Christian tradition in general. The author concludes from this that if the disciples, who know him most intimately, doubted him, then a mistake in identity would not be impossible. Therefore, this story is based on a historical account with an incomplete chain of transmission. Here again, the author of al-Manar echoes the usual demand that the only measure of true report is the model of hadith transmission.

Having thus established his position regarding the problems of interpreting the Qur’anic text, the author adds: “The actual fact of the crucifixion is not itself a matter which the Book of God seeks to affirm or deny, except for the purpose of asserting the killing of prophets by the Jews unjustly, and reproaching them for that act.” 6S The author then proceeds to the more important matter, namely, the Christian belief concerning Christ and the crucifixion. He begins with a detailed discussion of original sin, then the incarnation, and finally the work of redemption.

The author insists throughout on the necessity of reason in judging and accepting the truth of divine revelation. Thus he argues that the story of the crucifixion and redemption is unacceptable to anyone who believes in rational proof. The story implies that when Adam fell, God was for thousands of years seeking a way to reconcile His justice with His mercy. This imputes ignorance to God, and thus it is an act of unbelief ( kufr ). No one in possession of an independent reason could accept the idea: that the creator of the universe could be incarnated in the womb of a woman in this earth which, in comparison to the rest of His creation, is like an atom, and then be a human being eating and drinking, experiencing fatigue and suffering other hardships like the rest of mankind. Then His enemies would level at Him insults and pain, and finally crucify Him with thieves and declare Him cursed accordmg to the Book He revealed to one of His apostles, exalted be He over all this ! 69

No one could believe in such a story on which, Christians claim, depends the salvation of humanity. “We say rather no one believes it because belief (, 'man ) is the affirmation ( tasdiq ) by reason of something that it can apprehend .” 70 The author goes on to ask how can we say that God had reconciled His justice with His mercy through the crucifixion of Christ when in reality this had nullified them both. For God allowed Jesus to suffer as a man without having committed any sin that merited this great punishment. God, therefore, cannot be both just and merciful if in attempting to reconcile the two. He loses them both. Perhaps referring to the doctrine of salvation by faith, the author protests that if the crucifixion would save the person believing in it, no matter how grave his sins and evil his deeds, where would the justice of God and His mercy be? “The claim of the people of the cross, therefore, that clemency and forgiveness are opposed to justice, is unacceptable .” 71 Sayyid Rashid Rida then continues by contrasting this with the idea of salvation in Islam.

Obviously, these criticisms are not new, nor are they limited to Muslims. This study is not the place for us to argue for or against them. It must be observed, however, that reason has not been considered, even by Islam, as the final arbiter of faith. Indeed, the Qur’an is replete with instances extolling the divine mystery in creation. Nor does the Qur’an reject the nonrational conception of Jesus, outside the biological law of procreation. Christians have insisted from the start that the cross is an obstacle to human wisdom and rationality. Faith is not logic but the divine gift to man transcending and transforming human wisdom and rationality.

Rashid Rida and Muhammad ‘Abduh were subject to missionary and secularist pressures. Thus, their polemical arguments against Christianity must be seen in the context of Christian polemic against Islamic tradition, both in its religion and its culture. Times have changed, and with the change of time there is a change of attitude. In his Qaryah zalima, 72 Kamil Husayn presents perhaps the first Muslim attempt to see the cross in its true meaning. It is a judgment not against any group of people but against humanity, a repeatable act in any city, large or small, whose inhabitants choose to turn it into a “City of Wrong.” In deciding to crucify Christ, the zealously religious men of Jerusalem agreed to crucify their conscience. Christianity would perhaps agree with this, but it would assert (and here the difference is vast and instructive) that in choosing to crucify their conscience, men and women everywhere and in every age crucify Christ anew.

Conclusion

It has been often argued by Christian scholars of Islam that because Islam was not forged in the face of persecution and martyrdom, it has no place for the mystery of suffering, which in Christianity becomes the foundation for faith, hope, and love. This view, I believe, is at best a simplistic one. The distraught Jacob, the patient Job, the persecuted Abraham, and the martyred Zechariah and his son, John the Baptist, are but a few of the many examples of suffering in the way of God. Their stories, told and retold to the pious throughout Islamic history, have played an important, although little recognized, role in Muslim piety. The Shi "i ethos, which sees suffering as a dominant force in human history, has also played its important role in sensitizing Muslims to the power and profundity of human suffering. Finally, the Prophet, in his moments of agony and depression, under the burden of the divine commission and in his moments of fear and loneliness, had to be reassured by God with the words, “Have we not relieved your breast for you?” (Q. 93:1). Why then, it must be asked, does the Qur’an deny the crucifixion of Christ in the face of apparently overwhelming evidence? Muslim commentators have not been able convincingly to disprove the crucifixion. Rather, they have compounded the problem by adding the conclusion of their substitutionist theories. The problem has been, we believe, one of understanding. Commentators have generally taken the verse to be a historical statement. This statement, like all the other statements concerning Jesus in the Qur’an, belongs not to history but to theology in the broadest sense. It is similar to the Qur’anic assertion that Mary, the mother of Christ, was the sister of Aaron. In answer to the historian’s protest, the Qur’an declares that all the prophets are a continuous progeny (Q. 19:28; 3:34), not, of course, in the strict physical sense. Let us, then, look at the verse again, this time from the point of view of theology, not of history.

The reproach of the Jews, “for their saying: ‘We have surely killed Jesus the Christ, son of Mary, the apostle of God,”' with which the verse starts, is not directed at the telling of a historical lie or at the making of a false report. It is, rather, as is clear from the context, directed at human arrogance and folly, at an attitude toward God and His messenger. The words identifying Jesus are especially significant. They wished to kill Jesus, the innocent man, who is also the Christ, the Word, and God’s representative among them. By identifying Christ in this context, the Qur’an is not only addressing the people who could have killed yet another prophet but is telling all of humanity who Jesus is.

The Qur’an is not speaking here about a man, righteous and wronged though he may be, but about the Word of God who was sent to earth and who returned to God. Thus, the denial of the killing of Jesus is a denial of the power of human beings to vanquish and destroy the divine Word, which is forever victorious. Hence the words “they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him” go far deeper than the events of ephemeral human history; they penetrate the heart and conscience of human beings. The claim of humanity (here exemplified in the Jewish society of Christ’s earthly existence) to have this power against God can only be an illusion. “They did not slay him . . . but it seemed so to them.” They only imagined doing so.

The words wa lakin shubbiba labum do not disclose, therefore, a longhidden secret of divine deception; rather, they constitute an accusation or judgment against the human sin of pride and ignorance. They are explained further in what follows: those who have disagreed about Christ are surely in doubt concerning the truth. They have no knowledge; they follow only conjecture, the foolish imaginings of their minds. What is this truth? It is, I think, the affirmation, once again, that God is greater than human powers and empty schemes: “They did not kill him [that is, Jesus the Christ and God’s apostle] with certainty; rather, God took him up to Himself, and God is mighty, and wise.” Again, human ignorance, delusion, and conjecture are all identified as a lack of certainty or firm faith. In the statement “and God is Mighty and Wise,” these human limitations are contrasted with divine power and infinite wisdom. The same verse presents Christ the Word as a challenge to human wisdom and power, and a judgment against human folly and pride. Men may “wish to extinguish the light of God with their mouths,” that is, with their words of foolish wisdom, but God will perfect His light in spite of our foolishness and obstinacy (Q. 9:32).

In their earnest striving for a true understanding of the scared text, Muslim commentators did more than indulge in an exercise of textual analysis. The Qur’an insists on “letting God be God,” and this the Muslim community has taken with uncompromising seriousness. The commentators expressed this insistence with eloquence and power, even at the risk of denying man the privilege of being man. On this privilege, with all its implications, the Qur’an also insists, and with equal emphasis. Man, the crown of creation, “made in the best of forms” (Q. 95:4), is also a “wrongdoing, foolish” creature (Q. 33:72). Yet, in the end, the righteous men and women among God’s servants will inherit the earth (Q. 21:105). Humanity must be fulfilled, and that is possible only through its exemplars, God’s prophets and friends [awliyd').

Christianity has insisted, and with equally uncompromising seriousness, on “letting God be man” in order for “man to be divine.” The gap between an extreme Islamic and an extreme Christian position on this point is admittedly vast. The difference is, I believe, one of theological terminology rather than intent. The final purpose for the two communities of faith is one: let God be God, not only in His vast creation but in our little lives as well. Then and only then could man be truly man, and the light of God would shine with perfect splendor in our mouths and hearts.

Appendix I: An Early Muslim Account of the Passion

When God informed Jesus, son of Mary, that he would soon be departing this world, he was disheartened by death, and sorely grieved. He therefore called the disciples ( hawdriyyun ) together for a meal which he had prepared for them. He said, “Come to me all of you tonight for I have a favor to ask of you.” When they had all come together in the night, he served them himself, and when they had finished eating, he washed their hands and helped them to perform their ablutions with his own hands and wiped their hands and garments. 74

The disciples regarded this as an act below the master’s dignity and expressed their disapproval. But Jesus said, “Anyone who opposes me in what I do tonight is not of me (that is, of my faith) nor I of him.” Thus they concurred. When he had finished, he said, “As for what I have done for you tonight, serving you at table and washing your hands with my own hands, let that be an example for you. You regard me as the best of you, so let no one among you regard himself as better than the others, and let each one of you offer his life for the others as I have laid down my life for you. 75 As for the favor for which I have called you, it is that you pray God fervently that He may extend my term (a/d/).”

But when they stood up in prayer, wishing to prolong their earnest supplications, they were overcome by sleep, so that they were unable to pray. He began to rouse them, saying, “To God be praise, could you not bear with me one night and render me help!” They answered, “We know not what had befallen us. We used to stay up the night in long fellowship (samar), but tonight we cannot keep ourselves from sleep, and whatever supplication we wish to make, we are being prevented from making.” Then Jesus said, “The shepherd will be taken away and the sheep will be scattered.” 76 With similar words he went on foretelling and lamenting his end. He continued, “in truth, I say to you, one of you will deny me three times before the cock crows. And another will sell me for a few pieces of silver and consume my price.” 77

After this, they went out, each his own way, and left him. The Jews then came seeking him, and they seized Sham’un [Simon Peter], exclaiming, “He is one of his companions,” but he denied, saying, “I am not his companion.” Others also seized him and he likewise denied. Then he heard the crowing of a cock; he wept bitterly (Matt 26:75).

The next morning one of the disciples went to the Jews and said, “What will you give me if I lead you to Christ?” They gave him thirty pieces, which he took and led them to him. Prior to that, however, he |or: it] so appeared to them. [The clause wa kana shubbiha ‘alaybim qabla dhalik is inserted here without further explanation. It could mean that the disciple Judas bore his likeness or that they imagined something; no doubt the phrase is inserted to harmonize a Gospel account with Islamic exegesis. From here on, it is not clear who the actual object of the story is.] Thus they took him, after ascertaining that it was he, and tied him with a rope. They dragged him, saying, “You raised the dead and cast out Satan, and healed those who were possessed, can you not save yourself from this rope?” They also spat on him and placed thorns upon his head. Thus they brought him to the wood on which they wished to crucify him. 78 God, however, took him up to Himself and they crucified what seemed | like Christ] to them. | It is interesting to observe that the clause fasalabu ma shubbiha lahum does not necessarily imply a person but a thing; otherwise, man shubbiha lahum would have been more appropriated

Then Jesus remained seven [days?] [we are not told where, but perhaps in heavem]. Then his mother and the woman whom Jesus cured from madness [Mary Magdalene?] came to weep in the place where the crucified one was. Jesus came to them and said, “For whom do you weep?” They answered, “for you.” He said, “God has taken me up to Himself and no harm befell me. For this is a thing which only appeared to them. Go now and tell the disciples to meet me at such and such a place.” So they met him, eleven, but the one who sold him and led the Jews to him was missing. Jesus asked his companions about him and they said, “He regretted what he did, so he hanged and killed himself.” Jesus said, “Had he repented, God surely would have turned toward him.” [It is clear from this that Judas was not the one substituted for Jesus. At this early stage, the identity of the substitute was left unspecified. |

Jesus then inquired from them concerning a youth who followed them called John (Yuhannah). [The use of the Syriac “Yuhannah” rather than “Yahya,” as well as the fact that John has no special place in this story, indicates that the source of the tradition was clearly the Fourth Gospel.] He answered, “He is with you. Go now for everyone of you will speak the language of a different people. [This is perhaps a vague allusion to the descent of the Holy Spirit. 79] L.et him therefore warn them and leave them.”

Appendix II: The Christ of Sufism 80

Jesus was taken to heaven because his entrance into worldly existence was not through the gate of lust; therefore his departure from it was not through the gate of death. He rather entered through the gate of power ( qudrah ) and departed through the gate of majesty (‘ izzah ). [In heaven] God gave him wings and clothed him with light and removed from him the desires for food and drink, Thus he flies with the angles, and is with them around the throne. For he is human and angelic, heavenly and earthly.

If, then, it is asked, why did God not return Jesus to the world after He had taken him up to heaven, the answer is that he shall return in the end to be a sign for the hour (‘ilm li sd'a), that is, the Day of Resurrection and the seal of general walayah [saintshipj. For after him, there is no wall (saint or friend of God) with whom God would close the Muhammadan cycle (al-dawrah al-Muhatnmadiyyah). [For in this] is its great ennoblement, in that it will be closed by a prophet-messenger who will be subject to the sharVah. Both Jews and Christians will believe in it [that is, Islam], Through him [Jesus] God will renew the age of prophethood for the community ( ummah ). He shall he served by the Mahdi and the men of the cave. He shall marry and beget children. He shall be one of the community for Muhammad as the seal of his aivliya’ and heirs with regard to waldyah. [Sufi theology posits two concentric cycles of prophethood and waldyah, beginning with Adam and ending with Muhammad, the seal of the prophetic cycle. That of waldyah will continue until the end of time. Jesus, however, will have the great privilege of culminating both cycles, being the perfect wall and perfect prophet.] For the spirit of Jesus is the manifestation of the greatest name, and an effulgence of divine power . . . ; he is the manifestation of the universal divine name, a primordial inheritance.

---

Notes

1. The numbering is of the Egyptian edition and all Qur’anic translations are my own.

2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Musnad, ed. Ahmad Muhammad Shakir (Cairo: Dar al-Ma'arif, 1375/1955), vol. 15, hadith 7902ff. See also Muslim bin al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Nisaburi, Sahih Muslim , ed. Muhammad Fu'ad Abd al-Baqi, 1st ed. (Cairo: Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya, 1375/1955), vol. 4, hadith 141-49.

3. See also Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Jarir al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-bayan ‘an ta'wil ay al-Qur'an, ed. Mahmud Muhammad Shakir and Ahmad Muhammad Shakir (Cairo: Dar al-Ma‘arif, n.d.), 6:461.

4. See, for example, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protevangelium of James in Edgar Hennecke, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 1 , trails, and ed. R. McL. Wilson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963).

5. Michel Hayek, al-Masih fi al-Islam (Beirut: Catholic Press, I 961 ), 2 I .

6. al-Tabari, Jamt' al-bayan 'an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, 9:367, hadith 1 0779.

7. See appendix I for the complete text of this tradition.

8. See, for example, Abu’l-Faraj Jamal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘AM bin Muhammad al-Jawzi al-Qarashi al-Baghdadi, Z ad al-masir fi'ihn al-tafsir, 1st ed. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1384/1964), 2:224; Abu ‘Abdallah Muhammad bin Yusuf bin ‘AM bin Yusuf al-Hayyani, commonly known as Abu llayyan, al-Bahr al-muhit (Riyadh: Maktabah al-Nasr, n.d.), 2:373 and 3:389; and for a good review of the various ideas up to his time, see ‘Imad al-Din AbuTFida’ Isma'il ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-'azim (Cairo: Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya, n.d.), I:573ff.

9. al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan ‘an ta’wil ay al-Qur'an, 9:370, hadith 1 0781.

10. Ibid., 370.

11. Ibid., 370-71; cf. Matt 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42.

12. See Baghdadi, Zad al-masir fi ‘dm al-tafsir, 2:244ff.; Abu Tahir bin Muhammad al-Fayruzabadi al-Shirazi, Tanwir al-miqbas min tafsir ibn ‘Abbas, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1370/1951), 68; for Shi'i examples, see Abu ‘Ah al-Fadl bin Hasan al-Tabarsi, Majma ‘ al-bayan fi tafsir al-Qur'an (Tehran: Sharikat al-Ma‘arif al-lslamiyya, A.H. 1373), 3: 135.

13. See the previous footnote. See also Abu’l-Barakat ‘Abdallah bin Ahmad bin Mahmud al-Nasafi, Madarik al-tanzil wa haqa’iq al-ta’wil (Cairo: Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al ‘Arabiyya, n.d.), 1:203; and Muhiy al-Sunna bin Muhammad bin al-Husayn bin Mas‘ud al-Baghawi, Ma'alim al-tanzil (n.p.: Matba’at al-Salihi, a.h. 1249). Sec the commentary on Surah 4:157-58, no pagination.

14. See the two previous footnotes, and Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-‘azim, l:366ff. and 573 Ff .

15. Isma'il Haqqi, Tafsir rub al-bayan (Istanbul: al-Matba‘a al-‘Uthmaniyyah, A.H. 1130), 2:317. See also al-Qadi Sana’allah al-‘Uthmani al-Mazhari, Tafsir al-mazbari (Hyderabad: n.p., n.d.), 2:280.

16. al-Tabari, Jami ' al-bayan ' an ta'wil ay al-Qur’an, 9:370-71 .

17. See, for example, Abu Ja‘far Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Tusi, al-Tibyan, cd. Ahmad Shawqi al-Amin and Muhammad Habib Qusayr (Najaf: Maktabat al-Amini, n.d.), 3:383; and Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-'azim, 1 :575, for his discussion of the various traditions.

18. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-'azim, 1 :574.

19. Ibid., 574; cf. John 20:26-27.

20. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-'azim, 1:574.

21. Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abdallah Mahmud bin ‘Umar al-Zamakhshari, al-Kasbsbaf ‘ an haqa’iq gbawamid al-tanzil wa ‘ uyun al-aqawil fi wujuh al-ta’wil (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-‘Arabi, n.d.), 1:587.

22. al-Qadi Nasir al-Din al-Baydawi, Tafsir al-Baydawi (Cairo: Muhammad ‘AliSabih, 1951), 135.

23. Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-kabir , 1st ed. (Cairo: al-Matba‘a al-Bahiyya, 1357/1938), 11:100.

24. Ibid.

25. Ibid., 1 1:101.

26. al-Sayyid Hashim bin Sulayman bin Isma'il bin Sayyid ‘Abd al-Jawwad al-Husayni al-Bahrani, al-Burhan fi tafsir al-Qur’an (Tehran: Chapkhaneh Aftab, n.d.), 285.

27. Ibid., 285. See also ‘Abd 'Ali Janqalarusi al-Huwayzi, Tafsir nur al-thaqalayn (Qom: Matba'at al-Hikma, a.ii. 1382), 1:287.

28. al-Bahrani, al-Burban fi tafsir al-Qur’an, 285.

29. Abu Muhammad ‘Abdallah bin Muslim bin Qutayba, Tafsir gbarib al-Qur’an , ed. Ahmad Saqr (Cairo: Dar Ihya’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabiyya, 1348/1958), 136.

30. al-Tabari, jami ' al-bayan 'an ta'wil ay al-Qur’an, 9:376.

31. al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-kabir, 11:101. See also Haqqi, Tafsir rub al-bayan, 2:318.

32. See, for example, al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-kabir, 1 1:101; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-'azim, 1 :573. For a different view, see Baghawi commentary on Surah 4:158.

33. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-'azim, 1:574-75.

34. See, for example, Q. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33.

35. See al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan 'an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, 6:455, for his detailed discussion. See esp. Zamakhshari, al-Kasbsbaf 'an baqa’iq, 1:366.

36. Zamakhshari, al-Kasbsbaf 'an baqa’iq, 1:366.

37. al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan 'an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, 6:456-57.

38. Most commentators mention this as an alternative. Modern thinkers generally insist on it.

39. al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan 'an ta'wil ay al-Qur’an, 6:457.

40. See al-Shirazi, Tanwir al-miqbas min tafsir ibn ‘Abbas, 39.

41. See Michel Hayek, al-Masih fi al-lslam, 225; cf. Matt 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44.

42. See al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan 'an ta’wil ay al-Qur’an, 6:458; and Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al-Qur’an al-'azim, 1:366.

43. Muhammad bin ‘Ali bin Muhammad al-Shawkani, Path al-Qadir: al-Jami bayna fannay al-riwaya wa al-diraya min ‘iltn al-tafsir (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, n.d.), 1:346, citing Ibn Asakir, who reports on the authority of Ibn Munabbih.

44. al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-kabir, 7:72.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid. See also al-Shirazi, Tanwir al-miqbas min tafsir ibn 'Abbas, 39: “I shall cause your heart to die to the love of this world.”

49. Haqqi, Tafsir rub al-bayan , 2:318.

50. Mazhari, Tafsir al-mazhari, 2:57.

51. Muhammad ‘Ali Hasan al-Hilli, al-Mutasbabah min al-Qur'an , 1st ed. (Beirut: Dar al-Fikr, 1965), 1:204.

52. Muhammad Husayn Tabataba’i, al-Mizan fi tafsir al-Qur'an (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-A‘lami, 1970), 3:207.

53. Ibid., 3:208; see also al-Tusi, al-Tibyan, 2:478.

54. Tabataba’i, al-Mizan fi tafsir al-Qur'an, 5:132.

55. Ibid., 5:133.

56. Ibid.

57. Sayyid Qutb, Fi zilal al-Qur’an , 5th cd. (Beirut: Dar Ihya' al-Turath al-‘Arabi, 1386/1967), 4:587.

58. Ibid., 1:595-96.

59. Ahmad Mustafa al-Maraghi, Tafsir al-Maraghi, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1373/1 953), 6:12-13.

60. al-Maraghi, Tafsir al-Maraghi, 3:1 69.

61. Ibid., 3:170.

62. Gospel of Barnabas, ed. and trans. by Lonsdale and Laura Ragg (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907).

63. See, for example, Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra, Muhadarat fi al-nasraniyyah, 3rd ed. (Cairo: Matba‘at Yusuf, 1385/1966), 57ff.

64. Gospel of Barnabas, 48 Iff.

65. See, for instance, al-Maraghi, Tafsir al-Maraghi, 3:13; and Sayyid Qutb, Fi zilal al-Qur’an, 6:587.

66. Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Rida, Tafsir al-Manar, 2nd ed. (Cairo: Dar al-Manar, a.h. 1367), 6:18; Oxford Annotated Bible, Revised Standard Version, ed. H. G. May and B. M. Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1 973), John 17:3; see also John 20:17.

67. Rida, Tafsir al-Manar, 6:19. This does not appear to be a direct quotation from the Gospels. Cf. Matt 28:17 for a possible parallel.

68. Rida, Tafsir al-Manar, 6:23.

69. Ibid., 6:26.

70. Ibid., 6:26-27.

71. Ibid., 6:27.

72. Muhammad Kamil Husayn, Qaryab zalima (Cairo: Matba'at Misr, 1958), 1-3; trans. Kenneth Cragg under the title City of Wrong (Amsterdam: Djambatan, 1959).

73. al-Tabari, Jami‘ al-bayan 'an ta'wil ay al-Qur'an, 9:367ff.

74. The author changes the washing of feet to that of the hands; cf. John 13.

75. I translate this word nafs as “life” in this context. This clearly theological statement has never been investigated by Muslims thinkers. Cf. John 15:12-14, for parallels.

76. Cf. Matt 26:31.

77. Cf. John 13:38 and 13:21.

78. This is no doubt a telescoped account of the trial of Jesus, based essentially on John but echoing the passion story of Matthew and Luke as well.

79. Cf. Acts 2:1-11.

80. Haqqi, Tafsir rub al-bayan, 2:3 1 8ff.