Question: Did Jesus die on the cross?
Answer: Allah said in the Quran:
وَمَا قَتَلُوهُ وَمَا صَلَبُوهُ وَلكِن شُبّهَ لَهُمْ
Meaning: “They did not kill him and they did not crucify him. Rather, it was made to look like they had .” (An-Nisaa’ , 157 )
Then in the following aayah it is stated:
بَل رَّفَعَهُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ
Meaning: “Rather, Allah made Jesus ascend to the Sky.” (An-Nisaa’, 158 )
These two statements tell us that Jesus was not crucified or killed, but ascended to the Sky instead. The Second Sky to be more exact, as this is where the Prophet Muhammad met him during Al-Mi`raaj (the ascent to the skies from Jerusalem.)
Regarding the claimed crucifixion, it was narrated from Ibn `Abbas that Prophet Jesus was with twelve of his elite companions in a house. He told them that among them were those who would blaspheme in the future. Then he asked them, “Who among you would want to be made to look like me, be killed in my place, and be my companion in Paradise.” The youngest among them stood up and said, “Me.” Prophet Jesus told him to sit, then repeated the same question. Again, the same young man said, “Me.” Again, Prophet Jesus told him to sit, and again he asked the same question. When the same young man volunteered for the third time, Prophet Jesus received the Revelation that this young man was the one who would be made to look like him and killed in his place. Prophet Jesus was raised to the Sky from an opening in the ceiling of the house. When the Jews came after Prophet Jesus, they saw the young man that Allah had made look like Jesus. They took him, thinking he was Prophet Jesus, and crucified him. This narration was authenticated by Ibn Kathiir in his tafsiir, and he stated that it was also narrated by An-Nasaa’i and mentioned by a number of the salaf.
Authored by Shaykh Abu Adam
Sunni Answers 
Could you provide the references to Ibn ‘Abbas and Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, please? Thank you.
You can find it under his explanations for these two aayahs mentioned.
what is your view on the opinion of shaykh Imran Hosein on crucifiction of Isa Alahi salaam?
found in this book :
http://www.imranhosein.org/content/view/37/66/
What does he say?
Quick question – The verse says – bal rafa’ahu ilayhi – the ‘hi’ im guessing is referring to Allah. However, Allah is not in the heavens where ‘Isa is so how would this be read more correctly in accordance to Arabic conventions?
If one literally translated, it would state “to Him.” It has a hidden annexation, and it’s meaning is, “to His Sky.” The statement shows the importance of the place by this genitive construction (annexation), like when when it is said “Allah’s House” about the Kaˆbah to show the importance of the Kaˆbah. The purpose of these statements are to show the high status of these places, not that Aļļaah is in a place or direction, because Aļļaah is not like created things, and does not need a place. He is the creator of all places and directions, and He existed before them, and He did not change after they became existent.
In page 54 of the book , the shaykh has provided an another opinion regarding the crucifixtion.
it is a bit big to post here.
In neither know the book nor the author.
i had provided a link .
anyway here it is:
http://www.imranhosein.org/content/view/37/66/
the book can be downloaded. scroll to the bottom.
OK, I’ve seen it. It contradicts what is apparent from the Qur’aan, namely that Jesus was never crucified or killed. This author seems to think that he was crucified, and then substituted on the cross. The other idea he appears to have is that Jesus’ soul was taken while on the cross and then returned after that. This contradicts the fact that Jesus was never crucified and even that he never died, because if his soul left he would have been dead. The correct view is what I presented above, since it is supported by ĥadiitħ.
what does Islam say regarding the resurrection of Jesus ?
He was never resurrected, because he never died. Read the above article.
yes. my question was regarding the christian concept of resurrection. was ressurection a complete hoax ?
or did the young man mentioned in the hadith above ressurrect?
i asked about the opinion of Shyk Imran Hosein since his opinion that Isa AS soul was taken for a while and then returned later may explain ressurecttion.
you have commented:
“” This contradicts the fact that Jesus was never crucified and even that he never died, because if his soul left he would have been dead. “”
shyk Imran Hosein has explained about this in his book in the part i have linked above with the help of an ayah that maut is only when the soul is taken and not returned.
I think the original post answers your questions.
the original post only talks about the crucifiction .
what about the resurrection which christian claim took place? does islam consider the ressurrection to be a fake story?
Of course. My post stated “Prophet Jesus was raised to the Sky from an opening in the ceiling of the house.”
Jazakallah Shaykh, that helped a bit. Barakallahu feek.
i realised that Shaykh Imrans views where different than what was understood here:
he had put forward two probabilities, one of which is :
“””” Well then, what did Allah Most High do with the soul after He took it? One possible answer to that question is that Allah Most High substituted one thing for another (tashbih):
• Allah Most High took the soul of Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salaam) while he was
still on the cross,
• Allah Most High thus convinced those who were observing the event
that Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salaam) was dead,
• Allah Most High then returned the soul of Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salaam) after
he was taken down from the cross and when no one was around to
observe. He was then taken up into the heavens from whence he
would descend one day.
The only difference from the accepted Christian belief and the above
interpretation of the Qur’an is that the period of time which elapsed between
the event on the cross and the ascension of Jesus was one in which Christians
recognized him as dead. In the above interpretation of the Qur’an, however, he was not recognized as dead precisely because the soul was returned to the
body.
Those who object to the above possible explanation of the Qur’an argue that
Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salaam) was never placed on the cross. They interpret the
Qur’anic statement “they did not crucify him” to imply that he was never
placed on the cross. They come to this conclusion on the basis of their view
that crucifixion (in the sense in which the Qur’an uses the term) implies
simply being put on the cross and does not necessarily require such a person to
actually die on the cross. Commenting on Surah al-Maidah, 5:36, the
commentator of the Qur’an, Ibn Kathir, holds the view that crucifixion
necessarily implies death. “””
regarding the commonly known view he said:
“”” There are many distinguished scholars of Islam, however, who
subscribe to the theory of substitution. Those who object to this interpretation
argue that it ascribes to Allah Most High a manifest act of injustice since it
declares of Him that He caused an innocent man (i.e., innocent of any of the
charges leveled against Jesus (‘alaihi al-Salaam)) to be crucified in place of Jesus
(‘alaihi al-Salaam). But Allah Most High has repeatedly declared that no soul
would bear the burden of another soul (al-‘Anam, 6:164; Banu Israil, 17:15;
al-Fatir, 35:18; al-Zumar, 39:7; al-Najm, 53:38). “””
Pathetic, who among the scholars said that letting an innocent man be crucified would be injustice from Allaah? This is a Muˆtazilite type argument and does not hold water at all. Allaah is the owner of all creation, and He does with it whatever He wills, and He has no judge. Injustice is to do something to another’s property without a right, and this does not apply to Aļļaah, because all things and all rights belong to Him. Even our ideas of what is fair and what is not are mere creations of His.
That being said, and in any case, the man willingly took Jesus’ place, as stated in Ibn ˆAbbaas’ narration above.
Moreover, the Quran plainly states that Jesus was not crucified. This means he was not crucified. Crucified means crucified, and it does not mean dying.
agree , but Allah has revealed in the Quran that no soul shall bear the burden of another soul.
it is also pointed out above that crucification implies death according to Ibn Kathir.
And Allah knows best
I do not understand what “crucifixion implies death” is supposed to mean when it is explicitly stated that Jesus was not crucified, and there is nothing in the fact that a substitute was crucified that contradicts “no soul shall bear the burden of another soul,” because “burden” means the “burden of sin.”
ill have to ponder over it more. if crucification impled death then there would not have been a reason for Allahu Taala to mention killed and crucified seperately.
Salam Alaykum,
What about the view of Ahmad Deedat which he expressed in his books, where he says that Isa (AS) was put on the cross, but was taken down alive and that he never died the entire time he was on the cross.
Is this view acceptable whatsoever or should it be totally discarded?
It must be totally discarded, since the Qur’aan states that Jesus was not crucified.
dear shaykh,
is there ijma on the substitution theory?
has the hadith reached the level of authenticity required so that it can be used as a proof?
is there any probability of books like “gospel of barnabas” influencing this theory?
bro defendingislam,
Was it Ahmed Deedat’s belief or was he using bible to refute the chritians?
Question: is there ijma on the substitution theory?
Answer: I do not know of any scholar that does not subscribe to some version of it.
Ahmed Deebat specialized in refuting christians. He was not an Islamic scholar. Some say he knew more about christianity than about Islam. If a knowledgeable listens to his debates and tapes they will discover numerous errors on his part.
Salam Alaikum
Ahmad Deedat did do a great service to refuting christians and christian missionary work in modern times. It is an understatement to say that regardless of Sunni, shia, or wahabi, people have benefitted from the arguments and refutations that he formulated and showed, in refuting christians and countering their missionary work and propaganda. People benefit from his work to this day, in the specific subjects concerned (Islam vs christianity and falsehood of trinity and obscene amount of corruption in modern day bibles – and maybe to a limited extent Islam vs judaism too)
However, As Mutakallim said, he was NOT an Islamic scholar, much less, one of Sunniism. He was however one of the “lightest” of la-madhabiys if one can actually call him a la-madhabiy in its true sense as he kept his personal sectarian inclinations quite private and had enough self respect and decency to not delve (deeply… perhaps) into matters he didn’t have expertise on unlike the absolute and utter moron that is Zakir Naik who has made a mockery of just about anything he has touched, Islam, refutations of kufr, inter-faith dialogue, sectarianism within Islam, you name it- along with a couple others.
In short Ahmad Deedat portrayed himself as “neutral” Muslim in terms of sectarianism within Islam, or at least within the claimants to Sunniism, ie real Sunnis fake sufis and wahabis. What he really was, Allah knows.
Anyways, I remember distinctly reading in his books that he was of the belief that Jesus (3alaihis salam) was NOT crucified. He even quoted the verse: Wa’maa Qataloohoo wa’maa Salaboohu.
I think what is mentioned above by defendingislam is probably from the booklets “What was the sign of Jonah” or “Who moved the stone?” and is to show the christians that DESPITE all that we have in the bible in its current form, it STILL points (ie the corrupted bible) towards a non-crucifixion of Jesus ‘coz Deedat stated clearly in his books that the Islamic belief is that Jesus did not as much as get on the cross.
Thats as I know the issue. Allah knows best.
Assalamu alaykum
As far as I know, Ahmed Deedat was basically a sunni,in fact,one article on his official website exposes the wahabis. You can read it here: http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/frameset.asp
Also, in one of his lectures, he was speaking about christmas, and said, if the date of christmas i.e 25 december was confirmed as the birth day of Isa Alayhis salam, then there would be no problem in celebrating it, just as we celebrate milad un nabi sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam on 12th rabi ul awwal. Now, we all know that no wahabi ever celebrates milad un nabi, so no question of a wahabi ever legitimizing it or even hinting at its permissibility.
Naik, on the other hand, is a complete fool, who thinks he knows better than all the islamic scholars of the past.His debates with people like William Cambell made him very popular in the muslim community,to the extent that and many gullible muslims started accepting whatever he said, even in matters of creed and fiqh; blind following at its best!
As far as the issue of crucifixion is concerned, I heard a debate between Shabbir Ally and Mike Licona, where Shabbir spoke about this point, and he mentions ‘tafsir Al Kabir’ By Imam Ar Razi, and said that in that tafsir, Ar Razi wrote that there are many contradictory interpretations on this matter and so only Allah knows what exactly happened.I haven’t gone through the tafsir myself, so anyone interested may look it up.
Salam Alaikum
Hizmet Books, which is one of the greatest fruits of the hard work of students of Turkish Ahlus Sunnah scholars, and a lighthouse of Hanafi fiqh and basic Maturidi aqidah along with matters of tasawwuf and the signs of TRUE men of tasawwuf in accordance to Imam Rabbani’s (rahimahullah) teachings along with the classical scholars of the Ummah, says:
QUOTE-
Disbelievers disguising themselves under certain names introduce themselves as Muslims. They prove that Islam is a true religion and the only way to happiness by debating with the Christians and the Jews. Those who understand this immediately become Muslim. But Bahais, Qadianis, Shiis and Wahhabis attract these poor people to their corrupt groups by deceiving them. The Physics scholar Abdussalam, who won the Nobel prize, is a Qadiani. Ahmad Deedat, who attracted Christians to Islam in 1980 by debating with them, is not of the Ahl as-sunnat either. Such people prevent new converts to Islam from attaining the true path of the Ahl as-sunnat and eternal happiness.
-UNQUOTE
http://www.hizmetbooks.org/Islam_and_Christianity/16.htm
Allahu a3lam… from personally watching his videos etc., I never got an indication of him having an inclination to ANY sect, at least publicly. However, what Hizmet Books says, is mentioned here.
—-
Slightly off topic, but wahabis and shias are reasonably well exposed in our times. A greater fitnah seems to be cropping up, one of FAKE men of tasawwuf, who are batinis and mutazila amongst other deviancies and claim to be Ahlus Sunnah, when in fact they are nothing but closet bid’atis, often times with filthier aqaid than wahabis and shias, and their sweet and slow-acting poision often goes undetected to innocent Sunnis, because such people claim to be Sunnis and also pretend to refute wahabis.
Masha Allah Sheikh Abu Adam has countered and refuted some such deviant aqaid on this blog (classic example… the utterly retarded concepts of imkan al-kadhib and jaiz ‘aqlan espoused by mal3oon’s whose own ‘aql is not jaiz to begin with).
Another source that points out to some other such deviancies in the name of Sunniism is Hizmet Books. Just like the scholars through out Islamic history, they too say that without correct aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah and adherence to the shariah, there is no wilayah or karamah etc.- and categorically state that despite (innocent Sunni) people’s nafsanic wanderings towards someone’s supposedly sweet character or good oratory skills or unnatural/extra-ordinary feats, the first thing they should look for in a scholar or claimant to being a tasawwuf sheikh is the absolute correct aqidah of the Ahlus Sunnah and adherence to the shariah.
A detailed read through of their books will expose quite a few of these bid’ati wolves in Sunni skin in our times too.
I might be entering this discussion a bit late, seeing that a lot has gone before. I have watched a few lectures of Dr. Imraan Hosein. Initially, I was impressed, but detected a hint of boastful arrogance. At first, I brushed this thought aside. However, when I heard his statement about “most of the muslims clinging on to the fairy tale” of believing that Jesus (as) was not crucified. I have come to the conclusion that yes, in fact Dr. Imraan’s opinions are just that and that he is likely wrong more times than he is right. Also, I would add that “this is the parting between me and him”. (Haza firaqu bayni wa baynikum). So, the Quran is quite clear Jesus was not killed, neither was he crucified. And I wholeheartedly concur with sh. Adam, that crucifixion is crucifixion. Furthermore, Dr Imraan’s statement implies that the Quran is a fairy tale. That is offensive. Hence the definite parting and distancing from him and his view.