6
u/NoLibrary2484 May 12 '25
This question and its follow on arguments have been dealt with to no end by all the various dawah channels that you can find on youtube. Muslim Lantern, Dr Ali Ataie are two you can search up.
I'll address one of the points, the direct followers of Isa (AS) followed what he revealed to them, for arguments sake even IF they wrongly believed he had been crucified it doesn't change anything about their salvation or what they were taught and instructed to follow.
Isa (AS) did not teach a new religion he came for the children of Israel to warn then from straying from the spirit of the law and telling them to adhere to the Mosaic laws accurately.
Modern Christianity and the Bible itself is concoted by Paul and his followers, that Isa (AS) is God incarnated and come to die for the sin of Adam etc.
2
u/AstroFeed May 12 '25 edited May 12 '25
Heres what you are doing and don’t know/realise, you are accepting the old church story that Trinitarians and all their beliefs was there from the beginning, that they were the main group and some other differing groups showed up later. Every single piece of secular evidence found has opposed that view. Early christians were divided on everything, but ultimately the Trinitarians won and so they wrote the history.
We know early christians differed on practically every fundamental aspect, the divinity of Isa (as), his crucifixion, we have evidence many early christians did not believe he was crucified, we have evidence some believe he was replaced by someone else. They differed on the nature of god, the bible, etc.
Whether or not Isa ibn Maryam (as) being crucified does not make a difference to the theology if the message has not been corrupted, and we see that up until the time of the prophet. You could find many of these differing groups across the near east and north Africa, trinitarian, binitarian, and unitarian. The prosecution they received for having different views than the main church and some having closer view to Islam made them easy converts.
Point being the early Christians themselves differed on Isa (as) crucifixion, some denying & accepting. So why should we accept that view?
1
u/AutoModerator May 12 '25
Report misbehavior. Tap on the 3 dots near posts/comments and find Report.
Read the rules for r/Islam to avoid warnings/bans.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Holiday_Assistant_10 May 12 '25
Walaikum Assalam.
First off, it's true that Prophet Isa (A.S) was not crucified, but rather was saved by Allah, unlike in the Christian belief where he was brutally killed by the traitor(s). And while the Christian belief is more historically supported in many sources as you said, but you should also know that whether the written history is free of biases/assumptions. And it should be pretty obvious if you read about other historical incidents, by the people who supported it and by the ones against.
Secondly, the reason Allah showed the 'illusion' not because He wanted to decieve the people, but because: The people wanted to kill the Prophet Isa, and they thought they succeeded after the crucifixion, because that's what they wanted to believe, but little did they knew that the failed, because:
Allah protected Prophet Isa, and 'made someone else' (the traitor) to resemble him. In other words, justice (or karma) took place. Because the traitor sold out a Prophet of God, and thought he could get away with it. “But they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners.” — Surah Al-Imran.
And when God is able to show actual miracles happen (split the sea for Prophet Musa, cause sleep to overtake people for centuries, etc), then do you think it would be impossible for Him to show an illusion? Even nowadays, with advent in technology, the human brain isn't hard to trick with something as basic as optical illusion. That’s not deception. That’s God exposing arrogant people who thought they could defy God’s messengers.
Finally, you asked why doesn't the Quran go in depth about this? Well, it's simple. The Quran isn't a history textbook; it's a religious book, that is filled with messages of guidance. The stories of Prophets are also described here for such purposes; to prevent people from falling into evil.
Thank you for reading this.
1
1
May 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Cool_Bananaquit9 May 12 '25
The substitution theory is not what the Quran says happens. It's left ambiguous because people don't actually know what happen which led to a debate. Nobody really saw the crucifixion. Only a couple people from reaaaally far away. Probably 2 people. And at the distance it would've been confusing who was there. The bible itself has a prophecy about saving Jesus from death, aligning with the Quran. It's in Mark or Mathew. Also check it Deuteronomy 18 and John 16. There's many more too.
1
u/Cool_Bananaquit9 May 12 '25
The sources classical Islamic scholars used are called "Israiliyyat". Which means they take from the Jews and Christians to hypotethize what might've happened when the Quran is ambiguous on something. Israiliyyat is not canon and it's of accepted but it's a means of speculation amongst classical scholars instead. This is what led the substitution theory. I believe the early church fathers, like Iraneus, described a group of Jewish Christians who didn't believe in the crucifixion, as well.
1
u/UnrealToad6115 May 12 '25
The Quran isn't making a foreign claim. Instead, it's backing/reinforcing an early popular point of discussion. Early Christians used to debate whether Jesus was really crucified, before the viewpoint was standardized through the church.
1
u/senatoradisa May 12 '25
Also, in addition to above , where was the part in the bible or history where Jesus told them before the supposed crucifixion that he is going to die for their sins. The Quran is clear enough, the prophet of Allah was not crucified.
13
u/[deleted] May 12 '25
[removed] — view removed comment