Personal Blog Can the Crucifixion Account in the Bible Be Compatible with Islam?

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

In the bible, a crucifixion is a form of execution. In other words, when you are crucified, you are gone and don't come back. In order for there to be a complete three conditions must have been fulfilled
Requirements for a complete crucifixion
1. Bodily Death: Body functions cease
2. The soul leaves the body and does not come back.
3. You time on earth is finished (Only Allah knows how long your life is).

Because of the nature of the Surah 4: 157 there are two theories in Islam regarding the crucifixion of Christ.

The Substitution Theory: Someone else other than Jesus Christ was crucified (someone was made to look like Jesus Christ and was substituted in his place to be crucified.

The Swoon Theory): Jesus Christ was crucified but was rendered unconscious not killed. He was taken down from the cross and revived so that he never actually died. The crucifixion was incomplete.
An incomplete crucifixion can take one of two forms:

• The person is rendered unconscious but is revived in the tomb with/without human intervention
• The person is temporarily dead but is restored by Allah (God) because it is not yet time for the person to depart.

Gnostic Christianity - Substitution Theory: It was not Christ who was crucified, it was Simon of Cyrene. The writing for this was the "Second Treatise of the Great Seth": Second Treatise of the Great Seth: Simon of Cyrene was crucified in Christ's place. Jesus laughing at the ignorance of the soldiers crucifying the wrong person. Jesus alters his shape. Gnostic text 200CE. It was intended as a homily to rally Gnostic Christians against proto-orthodox Christians (Pauline Christianity).

Ethical Problems with the Gnostic Christian account
(Jesus Christ Laughing): There would be serious ethical problems with this theory because of the brutality of the Roman Crucifixion. Jesus laughing at this torture would be totally out of line with his character. Moreover shape-shifting to look like someone else was not recorded during his ministry.

(Second Treatise of the Great Seth was not intended as a factual history of Christ). It was written in opposition to Pauline Christianity and was never accepted by mainstream Christians.

(Compassionate Nature of Muhammad): It would be impossible and utterly outrageous to try and reconcile Muhammad's compassionate nature with the "laughing Jesus" depicted by Gnostic Christianity

Question I posed to AI: Would it be a accurate assumption that if the prophet Muhammad had witnessed the beating and crucifixion of Jesus Christ as depicted in The Passion of the Christ he would be repulsed and sickened at the cruelty of the Romans?

AI Response: Yes, it is an accurate assumption that the Prophet Muhammad would be deeply sickened by the extreme brutality and torture shown in depictions of Roman crucifixion.

In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa) is a revered prophet of God. Islamic tradition teaches believers to respect and love Jesus. Witnessing such severe abuse toward a holy figure would cause great grief and distress. The teachings of Muhammad strictly forbid torture, mutilation, and extreme physical cruelty against any human being. Islamic law places a high value on mercy, compassion, and protecting people from unnecessary suffering. The violent methods used by the Roman soldiers go against these moral standards.

Gospel of Barnabas: Judas Iscariot transformed to look like Jesus. Most scholars agree this was composed around the 14th century and way beyond the timeline of the life of Jesus Christ.

Problems with the Swoon Theory As Is:
Shortcomings of the Ahmadi interpretation: Ahamadis interpret that Jesus Christ did not actually die on the cross but was taken down and revived. He then relocated to India and lived out his natural life in India preaching his message.

The problem with this theory is that there is no historical evidence that Jesus ever traveled to India. Moreover it would contradict the Quranic injunction that God took Jesus up to heaven during the time he was with his disciples.

The problem with simple unconsciousness: If you watched the film (The Passion of the Christ), you would have gained a good understanding on what Jesus Christ went through. The trauma endured by Jesus at the hands of the Roman Soldiers would have overwhelmed an ordinary individual to try and survive this alone. The primitive medical procedures they had during the first century would have not been able to save someone from the combined flogging and crucifixion.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

Possible reconciliation of the crucifixion of Jesus Chris with the Quranic Verses Surah 2:154 and Surah 4:157.
Surah 2: 154: Never say that those martyred in the cause of Allah are dead - in fact, they are alive! But you do not perceive it.
Surah 4:157: and for boasting, "We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." But they neither killed nor crucified him- it was only made to appear so. Even those who argue for this crucifixion are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever-only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.

Crucifixion as mentioned in the bible was a method of execution. It was meant to kill someone and end their life permanently
The crucifixion of Jesus did not completely fulfill this: His death was only transient (a temporary state).
His bodily functions ceased after he said it is finished because scriptures said he gave up the ghost.
His bodily functions had temporarily ceased but his time on earth had not yet expired. His soul went down into the bowels of the earth for three days (Allah's plan) as foretold in scriptures.

His soul then returned to his body and his physical body was then healed and restored. The nail prints in his hand indicated he was healed and restored by Allah's grace.

He appeared to his disciples as proof that he was Allah's messenger not God incarnate. When he was beaten and crucified, his battered body would have been beyond the scope of medical practice back then or even today to restore him in three days. Only Allah had the power to do this.

The restoration of Jesus Christ is proof that Jesus was totally dependent on Allah's power and grace to restore him. In short, his restoration goes against the theory that Jesus was God incarnate (he was not). When his mission with the apostles was finished, there was no further reason for him to remain on this earth. His time expired and Allah took him up to heaven.

In order for a crucifixion to be a "crucifixion" as it is meant in the bible it has to be "complete" (i.e. irreversible and not reversed by Allah).

Three Types of Crucifixion:
Complete Crucifixion: When you are crucified, you are dead and that's the end of it. It is over and done.
Incomplete Crucifixion (Unconsciousness): You are crucified and are in an unconscious state but you are not fully and completely dead. Your bodily functions don't cease, your soul does not leave the body, your time on this earth has not yet expired.
Incomplete Crucifixion (Temporary Death): You are crucified and your bodily functions have ceased and are frozen in time. Your soul does leave the body for a temporary period, but your time on this earth has not yet expired. Your body is severely battered and it is through God's intervention that you are restored.

If Jesus was ressurected within 3 days as the gospels mention, the only logical conclusion is that the crucifixion was not complete but incomplete. It would only be logical to conclude that Jesus needed Allah's power to restore his body.

Why is this significant? Because it means that Allah did not intend for Jesus to die fully and completely on the cross which means the doctrine of the being killed on the cross for the shedding of blood for the sins of mankind is incorrect.

It indicates that Jesus Christ (God's messenger- prophet) had the courage to stay on the path that was foretold by Allah when he was praying in the Garden of Gethsemane.
prayed, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done".

 

[Nina]

This one got me thinking. If Jesus was crucified but his death was temporary and he was restored by Allah, would that actually contradict the Christian understanding of the crucifixion, or could someone argue that the resurrection itself already involves restoration? Where exactly does the theological disagreement begin?

 

[Catherine_Obiajuru]

Wait, I’m a little confused. If Jesus was actually put on the cross, his bodily functions stopped, his soul left his body, and then he was restored three days later, how is that different from saying that he died and was resurrected? What exactly makes the death “incomplete”?

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

Wait, I’m a little confused. If Jesus was actually put on the cross, his bodily functions stopped, his soul left his body, and then he was restored three days later, how is that different from saying that he died and was resurrected? What exactly makes the death “incomplete”?

Crucifixion was a form of execution. All of the other people were dead and gone when they were crucified. Only Jesus came back

 

[classy]

I don’t think resurrection means the original death wasn’t real. That’s basically the entire Christian concept of resurrection. Jesus dying and later being raised doesn’t make the death “incomplete”; it means death was overcome.

 

[Talks]

This is actually the first time I’ve seen someone frame the crucifixion debate around the meaning of “complete” versus “temporary” death. I don’t know if I agree with it yet, but it’s definitely something to think about.

 

[Helena]

Crucifixion was a form of execution. All of the other people were dead and gone when they were crucified. Only Jesus came back

But couldn’t the argument be that Jesus coming back is precisely what Christians mean by resurrection? The fact that the others remained dead doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus didn’t genuinely die.

 

[Rir]

Could the real disagreement here be about the definition of resurrection itself? If resurrection means returning from genuine death, then the Christian interpretation survives. But if resurrection is being used as evidence that Jesus never fully died, then the entire meaning changes.

 

[Glonaa]

This one got me thinking. If Jesus was crucified but his death was temporary and he was restored by Allah, would that actually contradict the Christian understanding of the crucifixion, or could someone argue that the resurrection itself already involves restoration? Where exactly does the theological disagreement begin?

The problem I see is that the argument seems to redefine what resurrection means. In Christianity, resurrection follows genuine death. If Jesus only became unconscious or temporarily stopped functioning, then calling what happened a resurrection becomes problematic.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

But couldn’t the argument be that Jesus coming back is precisely what Christians mean by resurrection? The fact that the others remained dead doesn’t necessarily prove that Jesus didn’t genuinely die.

Islam teaches that Christ was not killed nor crucified (it only appeared that way) but the crucifixion has been accepted as a historical fact. There are two theories in Islam (the substitution theory and the swoon theory. The substitution theory says that someone else was crucified in his place while the swoon theory says that he was rendered unconscious but revived once he was in the tomb.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

The problem I see is that the argument seems to redefine what resurrection means. In Christianity, resurrection follows genuine death. If Jesus only became unconscious or temporarily stopped functioning, then calling what happened a resurrection becomes problematic.

That is very true but Muslims can't believe in the ressurection as taught in Christianity. I am a convert to Islam from Christianity and I have a lot of problems with the substitution theory. Islam has a bad image in the west and I am trying to find some way to bridge the divide.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

Yes, looking at Surah 4:157 strictly through the lens of Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) vs. Classical Arabic can subtly alter how a reader naturally processes its meaning.
While the fundamental grammar rules and core vocabulary of Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) are largely identical, shifts in semantic range, stylistic nuance and cultural context between the 7th-century text and modern usage open up different avenues of interpretation.

The core sentence in question reads:

Here is how the shift from Classical Arabic to Modern Standard Arabic impacts the interpretation of this specific verse:

1. The Passive Verb Shubbiha (شُبِّهَ)

In Modern Standard Arabic: The verb shubbiha is most frequently understood in modern contexts to mean "it was made to resemble" or "it was simulated." When a modern speaker reads this, it heavily prompts the imagination toward a physical substitution—the idea that someone else's face or body was modified to look like Jesus, leading to the substitution theory common in later classical commentaries.

In Classical Arabic: The semantic scope of shubbiha in the 7th century was much broader. It literally means to make something obscure, ambiguous, or a matter of conjecture (tashbeeh). Interpreted this way, the phrase shubbiha lahum means "it was made ambiguous/unclear to them" or "the matter was obscured for them." Rather "it was made ambiguous/unclear to them" or "the matter was obscured for them." Rather than a physical clone or lookalike, the text in Classical Arabic can more readily be read as a comment on the state of mind of the executioners—they were in utter confusion, doubt, and chaos regarding what actually occurred

2. The Direct Object of the Confusion

In Modern Standard Arabic: Because MSA prioritizes straightforward subject-verb-object clarity, a modern reader naturally searches for the pronoun object. The phrase shubbiha lahum is often mentally completed as shubbiha [ʿĪsā] lahum ("Jesus was made to appear to them [as someone else]").

In Classical Arabic: Classical Arabic syntax frequently utilizes open-ended impersonal passive constructions. The phrase can elegantly mean "the situation was made to appear so to them" (an impersonal "it"). Modern academic scholars often point out that the 7th-century audience would not automatically assume a human substitute, but rather that the event or fate of Jesus was shrouded in mystery.

3. The Definition of Ṣalaba (صَلَبَ)

In Modern Standard Arabic: Ṣalaba has a very fixed, highly specific meaning: to crucify on a T-shaped or Latin cross, mimicking the Western/Christian historical understanding of Roman crucifixion. In Classical Arabic: The root ṣ-l-b carried broader connotations of binding, impaling, or exposing a body on a wooden stake or tree trunk to die publicly. In the historical context of 7th-century Arabia, the rhetorical weight of saying "they did not kill him nor did they ṣalabūhu" was a direct refutation of the specific Jewish claim mentioned earlier in the verse ("We killed the Messiah"). In classical rhetoric, it denies that his enemies achieved a definitive, humiliating triumph over him, as God vindicated His prophet.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394957051_THE_REALITY_OF_JESUS'_DEATH_IN_Q_4157_A_SUMMARY_OF_VIEWS_AND_A_NEW_PROPOSAL_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_JEWISH-CHRISTIAN_CONTROVERSIES

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=467378109498393

https://www.alim.org/quran/compare/surah/4/157/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/394957051_THE_REALITY_OF_JESUS'_DEATH_IN_Q_4157_A_SUMMARY_OF_VIEWS_AND_A_NEW_PROPOSAL_IN_THE_LIGHT_OF_JEWISH-CHRISTIAN_CONTROVERSIES

https://www.academia.edu/44934296/Who_Killed_Jesus_A_New_Reading_of_the_Quran_4_157_

 

[Nina]

@Glonaa
But isn’t “genuine death” itself part of the point being disputed? If that’s what Muslims reject in this case, then using genuine death as the definition of resurrection doesn’t really settle the argument.

 

[Nina]

That is very true but Muslims can't believe in the ressurection as taught in Christianity. I am a convert to Islam from Christianity and I have a lot of problems with the substitution theory. Islam has a bad image in the west and I am trying to find some way to bridge the divide.

I think that’s actually what makes this discussion interesting. If someone who came from Christianity into Islam still has questions about the substitution theory, then clearly the issue isn’t as simple as “one religion says this and the other says that.”

 

[Toke]

What stands out to me is that both sides seem to be starting with different definitions. One side is saying resurrection necessarily presupposes genuine death; the other is using Jesus being restored after the crucifixion as evidence that his death was temporary. Until we agree on what happened to Jesus physically, neither side can really use “resurrection” as proof of its conclusion.

 

[brapper90001]

this site is so autistic I love it.

 

[SophieR]

Maybe the interesting question is this: if both Christians and Muslims agree that Jesus appeared after the crucifixion, why does one tradition interpret that as resurrection from death while the other rejects the premise of his death? What evidence gets us from the same broad event to two completely different conclusions?

 

[Gingi]

If the argument rejects the idea that Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice, then what does it make of the Christian passages that explicitly connect Jesus death with forgiveness of sins? That’s probably the biggest theological challenge to this position.

 

[Onion NullOnion Null is verified member.]

If the argument rejects the idea that Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice, then what does it make of the Christian passages that explicitly connect Jesus death with forgiveness of sins? That’s probably the biggest theological challenge to this position.

I'm Muslim so I am doing this from kind of a Muslim perspective. Christians will always connect the crucifixion of Christ with the forgiveness of sin. What I am looking at is this: Can Christ draw us closer together even though we will never agree on religious doctrine?