The misunderstood Surah 4: 157 (2)

Author: Harris Abdullah

From our previous study we had touched on Surah 4: 157 concerning the crucifixion of Christ. This passage has indeed been the subject of much discussion and different religious groups have their own conclusions and it is not surprising that some are very much affected by their own prejudices and views. On the phase 1 of our study, we would like to look at the English translation of the quranic text as well as the commentary by the Islamic scholar, Abdullah Yusuf Ali concerning this surah.

Surah 4: 157  – That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

Only a likeness of Isa’s death was shown to them, there was an appearance of his death. Is this to be understood as Isa only appeared to be crucified but was not actually dead in any sense? Is there any way to understand this? The many questions surrounding his apparent (appearance of) death resulted in many doubts and conjecture.

Some basic questions that we can put forth on the first phase of this study:

i)  What were the supporting evidences used by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his text and  commentary on Surah 4:157?

ii) Could those evidences really support Surah 4:157 that mentioned Jesus the Messiah was not crucified and died?

iii) If the Quran is going to base on these evidences, would this have positive or negative implication on the Quran?

The following is taken from Yusuf Ali, Note 663 on Surah 4: 157:

“Some of the early Christian sects did not believe that Christ was killed on the Cross.

–  The Basilidians believed that someone else was substituted for him.

– The Docetae held that Christ never had a real physical or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body, and that his Crucifixion was only apparent, not real.

– The Marcionite Gospel (about A.D. 138) denied that Jesus was born, and merely said that he appeared in human form.

The Gospel of St. Barnabas, supported the theory of substitution on the, Cross.

The Quranic teaching is that Christ was not crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of his enemies: that disputations, doubts, and conjectures on such matters are vain; and that he was taken up to Allah.”

By quoting the teachings of these early Christian sects to support his findings in relation to Isa’s non-crucifixion, we can deduce that Yusuf Ali agreed with their teachings on this matter. However, let us ask some very important questions: Are we supposed to take the views of the early Christian sects as authoritative? And do we interpret the word of Allah in the Quran based on their beliefs and disbeliefs? It is also alarming to see that Yusuf Ali being the stature of an Islamic scholar chose to quote some early Christians sects which held conflicting views and teachings about Isa’s crucifixion. 

Substitution

Referred to by Abdullah Yusuf Ali as ‘The Basilidans’ as proof that the early Christian sects believed someone else died in Jesus’ place. “It was not, however, Christ who suffered, but rather Simon of Cyrene, who was constrained to carry the cross for him, and mistakenly crucified in Christ’s stead. Simon having received Jesus’ form, Jesus assumed Simon’s and thus stood by and laughed at them. Simon was crucified and Jesus returned to His Father.” *^[i] 

The Basilidians’ ideas of Christ being replaced by someone which were also used in the later discovery of the Gospel of Barnabas that is most likely a spin-off from the Basilidians. The Gospel of Barnabas is an apocryphal gospel. However, it is unique among apocrypha in that it is said to be Muslim gospel; that is, it presents Jesus as a human prophet, not the son of God, and as a forerunner of Muhammad s.a.w. According to western scholarship, it is a fourteenth-century forgery, extant now only in Spanish and Italian manuscripts, but even among scholars there are disagreements as to whether or not some of the material contained in the book is older. According to the Gospel of Barnabas, it was Judas Iscariot that was being crucified in place of Jesus.

Now, can anyone tell us who was actually being crucified in the place of Isa? Simon of Cyrene or Judas Iscariot? We cannot have both, can we? Or Yusuf Ali was trying to suggest it did not matter who got crucified as long as it was not Isa himself? It raises another question whether Gospel of Barnabas can even be trusted as an authentic gospel. Chapter 96 of the gospel mentions the following:

The priest answered: “In the Book of Moses it is written that our God must send us the Messiah, who shall come to announce to us that which God wills, and shall bring to the world the mercy of God. Therefore I pray you tell us the truth, are you the Messiah of God whom we expect?”

Jesus answered: “It is true that God has so promised, but indeed I am not he, for he is made before me, and shall come after me.”

Jesus’ denial of his being the Messiah was repeated in Chapter 97 of Gospel of Barnabas as follows:

Jesus answered: “As God lives, in whose presence my soul stands, I am not the Messiah whom all the tribes of the earth expect…….

Now, would anyone who dares to call himself a true Muslim, one who surrenders to Allah wants to subscribe to such nonsense as this? We cannot find a better word than pure blasphemy to describe such daring statement to deny the Messiahship of Isa bestowed by none other but Allah himself on Isa Al Masih.  It is not only telling lies but making Isa a liar. What is equally shocking is that quite a number of people who claim to be believers want to say that this gospel as true. We now leave it you to decide whether it is worthy to believe in such a gospel.

In fact, the idea of substitution could also look like a way to deceive people, as if conveying the idea that Allah wanted the people to think that He had resurrected Isa when in fact He had not. So, He had to find someone else to substitute Isa for the crucifixion. Is this not something close to blasphemy?

Why did Allah need to substitute someone else for Isa for the crucifixion be it Simon of Cyrene or Judas Iscariot?  What is the whole logic for substitution in the crucifixion of Isa Al-Masih? There is no logic because it was not necessary to do that. Would not the idea of ‘substitution’ insult the power of Allah as if to suggest that He had no ability to resurrect Isa if he was crucified? Have we forgotten that the Quran mentions very clearly that Isa Al-Masih had the power to give life to the clay bird, resurrected the dead by Allah’s leave as mentioned in the verse below:

Surah 5: 110 – Then will Allah say: “O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave…….

Isa’s power to give life obviously comes from Allah who is the only one with the power and authority to confer such power on Isa Al-Masih. In this case, would resurrecting Isa from dead too difficult for Allah? Therefore, the idea of substitution does not make much sense but only serves to speak lowly of Allah’s power.

Docetism and Marcionism

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Docetism as “a belief opposed as heresy in early Christianity that Christ only seemed to have a human body and to suffer and die on the cross.”

Marcionism is defined as “the doctrinal system of a sect of the second and third centuries A.D. accepting some parts of the New Testament but denying Christ’s corporality and humanity and condemning the Creator God of the Old Testament.”

The earliest ideas among the Christian sects occurred during 100-138 A.D. that do not believe Isa Al-Masih was killed on the cross/crucifixion were the Docetist and most likely from this root that sprang forth The Marcionite Gospel (sometime in 138 A.D.). According to the Docetic view, Isa could not die (except in illusory appearance) because he was not a human being but a divine being. Isa was God and not man, having only an outward appearance the likeness of a human being. Since Isa is a divine being, it is impossible for him to suffer. Since crucifixion involves intense suffering (and death), it was not possible for the divine Christ to be crucified and to die. Does it not sound more like a Greek mythological concept that is contrary to the Scriptural and Experiential Truth that are found in all the three books of Yahweh/Allah?Also, the teaching of Marcionism is primarily Docetic, denying the human nature of Christ.

Is this the kind of ‘illusion’ or ‘appearance’ that Yusuf Ali wanted to mean in his explanatory note; the illusion that Isa only seemed to have a human body but in fact he has an heavenly body because he is regarded as a divine being?

Are we to accept the idea of ‘appearance’ or ‘likeness’ here in the Quran as being mere illusion? Does the word ‘appearance’ can only be understood as ‘illusion’?  When you say the ‘Shahadat’, do you mean that you appear to say it or do you really mean to say it? Or when one says he looks like his brother or sister, does it really mean resemblance or just an illusion? So, appearance can take the meaning ‘resemblance’ but it doesn’t mean as ‘same’. 

Therefore, if we were to accept the teaching of Docetism and Marcionism in this matter of Isa’s crucifixion, would this not be a blatant contradiction to the Quran revelation on Isa Al-Masih? Unless one is blind, one ought to see. Even the Injil talks about the virgin birth. Both books, Al-Quran and Injil have stated that Isa Al-Masih was created in the womb of the virgin Mary and she gave birth to Isa Al-Masih who is completely true human being with a true physical body. Thus, to deny the humanity of Isa is to deny the truth in the Quran and Injil.

Moreover, if we were to follow these sectarian ideologies, would we not be put into further shaky position as there are already people saying that Al-Quran borrows the ideas from these sects? If this is the case, then the Quran does not come from God but from these sects. The compounded problem if we continue following the teachings of substitution or illusion consequently would lead into a fraud arising from this illusion as if it is even approved by Allah Himself. Wouldn’t that be abominable and blasphemous towards Allah’s character?

Conclusion on Phase 1:

i)  If the teaching of early Christians sects were used to interpret Surah 4: 157 that Christ is a divine being, having only a phantom body, that means we deny his humanity and agree with the teaching of Trinity by the Christians that he is the Second God in the Godhead(or God the Son). Both the denial of Isa’s humanity and upholding his divinity are strongly against the teaching of the Quran and the Scriptures (New Testament Gospels/Injil and the Hebrew bible) as a whole.

ii)  Or you would prefer to take the Gospel of Barnabas, a probable spin-off from the Basilidians where this later writing doesn’t reflect much credible acceptance according to the scholarly world. It could be just a good reading material but that doesn’t reflect the Scriptural and Experiential Truth. We also could not conclude who actually had been crucified in place of Isa, is it Simon of Cyrene or Judas Iscariot. Besides, as we have seen, the Gospel of Barnabas contains serious lies for eg. Isa himself denied that he is the Messiah. There is also fabricated story that Isa mentioned he was not worthy to untie the hosen of Muhammad SAW which is an obvious attempt to belittle the position of Isa Al-Masih. If such account is true, would this not be mentioned in the Quran since the Quran was revealed to Muhammad s.a.w? In the same chapter 97, Isa even said that the name of the Messiah is admirable followed by the prophecy of Muhammad, which indicated that the Messiah will be none other than Muhammad s.a.w. himself. We leave it to our dear readers to decide whether it is worthy to subscribe to such lies and whether to believe in the accounts of Judas’ crucifixion in place of Isa as recorded in this apocryphal writings.

iii)  If you receive some ideas of the ​​Basilidians or the Gospel of Barnabas, then your credibility as a true believer is in question because you cannot just take some of the writings and reject the rest. This is selective proposition which is unacceptable to those who are honest in exegetical and forensic work. Finally if you accept these sectarian ideologies, you concur that the Quran revelation is based on the sects’ ideas and to a certain extent agreeing to Greek mythology. In which we believe this doesn’t give any glory and honour to our Great Author who is Allah/Yahweh our true living God, the unique/one of the kind that has no equal to man- made ideas/writings/gods.

From what we have already seen, whether you accept or not accept the sects’ ideas, someone still had to be crucified, is it not? Since most of the prophets experienced some kind of rejection and even slaying from their own people, so why would Prophet Isa Al Masih experience a different kind of treatment?

Will be continued in Phase 2….