No God but One: Allah or Jesus?: A Former Muslim Investigates the Evidence for Islam and Christianity

by Nabeel Qureshi

  BUT IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR SO

  The more common position among Muslims on Jesus’ death, however, is often called the Substitution Theory. It is the belief that Jesus’ face was placed on someone else. Most often, Muslims argue that this was either Simon of Cyrene, who literally switched places with Jesus as he was carrying the cross to the site of crucifixion, or Judas Iscariot, who justly deserved the punishment for betraying his prophet.

  This is a position that cannot be easily defended with historical argumentation, but it is often supplemented with such arguments, primarily criticisms of the biblical report. For example, a common charge is that the Gospels disagree as to what happened when the women went to the tomb on the third day. Mark’s gospel depicts a youth dressed in white, Matthew tells of an angel who rolled back the stone, Luke describes two men who appeared next to the women, and John says two angels were sitting where Jesus had been. The disagreement among the Gospels reflects the confusion in each of their reports; the writers did not know what actually happened.

  Those Muslims who argue the Theistic Swoon Theory also use these points to supplement their case, and the words of the Quran, “It was made to appear so,” also apply to their theory, but in a lesser sense. Allah performed the miracle of preserving Jesus’ life, and ultimately it appeared as if Jesus had died, whereas he did not. In the Substitution Theory, the words “it was made to appear so” have a much more active sense. The very miracle that Allah performs is making it appear as if Jesus had died, whereas he actually did not.

  CONCLUDING THE MUSLIM RESPONSE

  Ultimately, Muslims respond that, despite how it may have appeared, Allah saved Jesus from the cross. He may have done this either by miraculously preserving Jesus’ body, as is subtly implied in the Gospels, or he may have done it by substituting Jesus with somebody else. On the whole, the biblical records are not reliable, and therefore there is no good reason to trust their account.

  CHAPTER 23

  ASSESSING THE ISLAMIC RESPONSE

  THE QURAN AND THE HISTORICAL JESUS

  Both major Islamic theories regarding Jesus’ death on the cross deserve a careful treatment. Let us consider each closely while digging more deeply into the majority belief of the Substitution Theory by considering the context for some of the Quran’s teachings about Jesus.

  RESPONDING TO THE THEISTIC SWOON THEORY

  Before responding to the argument proper, it is worth noting what the verse of the Quran actually says: “And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him.” The verse appears to say he was never even affixed to the cross, but we and other Muslims who argued the Theistic Swoon Theory took the latter clause to mean, “he was not killed by crucifixion.” So essentially, we interpreted the verse in this way: “They did not kill him in any way, and they did not kill him by crucifixion.” It was a strained interpretation, but pointing out problematic Quranic exegesis does not respond to the argument.

  To test the theory, we should isolate its main point: Although Jesus might have died on the cross under natural circumstances, he did not die because God miraculously preserved him. This, of course, is an explanation that requires a miracle, but we have to frequently remind ourselves that we are trying our best to investigate as objective observers. Should an objective observer conclude that such a miracle occurred?1

  I would argue that an objective observer should not conclude that a miracle has occurred unless there is no other probable explanation, and even then only in special circumstances.2 In this case, there is another explanation, and it is extremely probable: Jesus died on the cross. For an objective observer to conclude that a miracle occurred in this case, one must believe that Jesus’ death on the cross is not even probable. But of course, it is more than probable; it is the obvious explanation.

  Regarding the biblical verses cited as subtle traces of God’s divine plan, it needs to be pointed out that these verses occur in the context of four Gospels that repeatedly proclaim Jesus prophesied his death and that he did die. To extract verses from their context and say they assert the exact opposite of their context is a poor handling of texts, unless there is good reason to do so.

  In this case, not only is there no good reason to do so, but also there is a good reason not to: The verses prophesying and proclaiming Jesus’ death are abundant and clear, whereas these “subtle traces” are often solitary and require an unlikely interpretation. One of the basic rules of proper hermeneutics, whether Quranic or biblical or secular, is to interpret unclear statements in light of clear ones, not the other way around. To ignore the clear statements of Jesus’ death, and to point to these verses as hints that God saved him, is a poor method of investigation.

  Some might point to the Gospels’ varying accounts, such as the scene at the empty tomb, as reason to discard the testimony of the Gospels, but that does not logically follow. A conservative Christian might respond that these verses can all be harmonized: In reality, there were two angels at the scene who appeared as young men. All four Gospel accounts are compatible with this understanding, though none of them say it explicitly. But even less conservative investigators who might agree that the accounts of the empty tomb are incompatible do not need to conclude that this somehow negates the uniform testimony of Jesus’ death on the cross. That does not logically follow.

  In addition, the Theistic Swoon Theory does not cohere with important historical realities. For example, it casts Pilate in a God-fearing light, willing to collude with Jews to save an innocent man. Historically speaking, the opposite appears to be true. Pilate was ruthless and did not hesitate to kill Jews if it meant preserving order and Roman rule. This is true in history, as Josephus records Pilate’s willingness to kill innocent Samaritans3 as well as steal from the temple treasury and beat to death those who protested.4 And it is true in the Gospels as well, for even though he did not consider Jesus guilty, he ordered him crucified when faced with the threat of treason.

  Finally, and very problematic for the careful historian, the Theistic Swoon Theory gives no account for the inception of the Christian church. What was it that drove the early Christians to preach Jesus crucified and resurrected if they had themselves colluded in saving him? Were they liars, or must we discard additional reams of evidence and argue that they did not preach a crucified and resurrected Messiah? Ultimately, this theory requires the investigator to disregard not only all the evidence about Jesus’ death but also our entire understanding of early Christianity, though it is formed from dozens of sources. This is an important matter to which we will return in the midway summary after part 8.

  RESPONDING TO THE SUBSTITUTION THEORY: THE QURAN AS A SOURCE ON JESUS’ LIFE

  The Substitution Theory is even less of a historical argument than the Theistic Swoon Theory, and it must be remembered that no objective observer should conclude God conducted a miracle when an obvious explanation is available. Why would anyone argue that Jesus did not die and that God instead transposed Jesus’ image onto someone else? In this case, there really is little room for doubt: The basis for this Islamic belief is simply that the Quran asserts this.

  To be fair, though, we should assess the potential that the Quran is correct. Do we have good reason to believe the Quran might know something about Jesus that the New Testament missed? Of course, we have to remind ourselves that we are investigating as objective observers, and we cannot start off with the assumption that the Quran is inspired by God.

  Unless we can trace the Quran’s teachings about Jesus to an earlier time, we have to conclude that it is testimony six hundred years late and over six hundred miles removed, and it is therefore unlikely to tell us anything more accurately than the Gospels, whose accounts come from the lifetime of Jesus’ eyewitnesses and from the vicinity of his very community.

  But the Quran’s teachings about Jesus can be traced to an earlier time. Much of what the Quran teaches was taught before. For example, let us consider 5.110: “When Allah says, ‘O Jesus, Son of Mary, remember My provision upon
you and upon your mother; when I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit and you spoke to the people while in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and when you made the likeness of a bird from clay, with My permission, then you breathed into it, and it became a bird with My permission; and you healed the blind and the leper with My permission; and when you brought forth the dead with My permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you . . .’ ”

  We will focus on the two teachings in italics, starting with the latter: the Quran teaches that Jesus miraculously gave life to clay birds. We find no narrative context for this miracle; it is simply provided in a list of Allah’s provisions for Jesus.5 But for those familiar with apocryphal gospels, they will already know the context of this story, because it is famous.

  In the middle of the second century, people began to produce stories about Jesus, “fan fiction,” if you will, often situating their stories in his mysterious childhood years and focusing on his ability to do miracles. These fictitious gospels are called the infancy gospels. One of the more entertaining examples is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

  In this infancy gospel, Jesus is five years old and particularly mischievous, often bullying other boys with his supernatural powers. While Jesus was by a mountain stream making puddles, another boy came and released the puddles, so Jesus cursed him and straightaway the boy withered. Later, another boy happened to run past Jesus and bump into his shoulder, so young Jesus cursed the boy, who died immediately. The parents of these boys came to Joseph and told him to control Jesus, at which Jesus struck them blind. When Jesus’ tutor tries to teach him respect for elders, five-year-old Jesus rebukes him and begins to teach the teacher instead! Everyone was amazed at what kind of child Jesus was.

  It is not until his teacher exclaims in frustration that Jesus must be an angel or God himself that Jesus laughs in approval and heals all the people he cursed. So the story continues, with boy Jesus using his miraculous abilities to curse some people, to cure others, to carry water inside his clothes, or even to fix furniture. His mischief relented whenever people exclaimed that he must be God or an angel of God. In order to give the story an air of reality, the author concludes by tying this story into the gospel of Luke, in which Jesus is twelve years old and in the temple, where the elders were amazed at his knowledge, just as they were in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

  It is this entertaining fiction that gives us the context for the Quranic teaching that Jesus gave life to clay birds. Early in the story, when a certain Jew saw Jesus making clay birds on the Sabbath, he went to Joseph to accuse Jesus of doing what was unlawful on the sacred day. Knowing that fashioning clay birds on the Sabbath is unlawful, but playing with live birds is not, mischievous little Jesus blew life into the birds so he could get away with his indiscretion. Without providing the context, the Quran refers to this famous account in 5.110, assuming it to be historical truth.

  The same verse of the Quran also says that Jesus spoke to people while in the cradle. Sura 19 of the Quran, the chapter named after Mary, gives more details. Verse 23 shows Mary in the throes of childbirth, driven to lean against a palm tree. In her pain, she says, “O, I wish I had died before this!” In response, Jesus, to whom she is giving birth, says, “Do not worry, your Lord has given you a stream beneath you.” Shortly thereafter, when her people asked her if she’d had impious relations, she gestured to Jesus implying they should ask him themselves. They respond, “How can we speak to a child in the cradle?” Baby Jesus responds, “Indeed, I am a slave of Allah. He gave me the scripture and made me a prophet.”

  This account has striking parallels with another infancy gospel, the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Savior, otherwise known as the Arabic Infancy Gospel. In its introduction, after a few historical blunders regarding Joseph and Caiaphas, it says, “Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”6 Baby Jesus’ proclamation in the Quran sounds very much like an Islamic version of baby Jesus’ proclamation in the Arabic Infancy Gospel.

  RESPONDING TO THE SUBSTITUTION THEORY: THE GNOSTIC INFLUENCE ON 4.157

  Many other Quranic teachings can be traced to earlier fictional accounts, but the important one for now is the message of 4.157: “He was not killed, nor was he crucified, but so it was made to appear.” Is there reason to believe that this teaching predates the Quran, and perhaps is more reliable than the gospel accounts?

  As it turns out, another well-known second century source taught exactly this. It is the Gospel according to Basilides,7 a Gnostic teacher whose school of thought lasted for centuries after his death. The word Gnostic refers to secret knowledge, as the Gnostics believed that people needed secret knowledge to be freed from the material world, which is inherently evil.

  Irenaeus records what Basilides taught about the death of Jesus on the cross: “He [Christ] did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them.”8

  So Jesus was neither killed nor crucified, but it was made to appear so because he switched faces with Simon of Cyrene. This correlates exactly with the Substitution Theory, the majority interpretation of the Quran. But why did Basilides teach this? Was it because Basilides had access to some historical truth? If so, perhaps the Quran knows something the New Testament does not.

  Gnostics had a wide range of beliefs, but one of the most common was that there are many gods that have emanated from the Father, the unborn god. Basilides subscribes to this belief, teaching that the first emanation of the Father is the nous, or mind of the Father. That is Jesus, the firstborn god. After other emanations producing lower gods, it was the lowest god who created the material world. According to Basilides, that is the God of the Jews, along with his angels. The Father sent Jesus to deliver Gnostics from the God of the Jews, the creator of this evil world.

  Since the material world is evil, Basilides teaches Jesus must not have had a material body, and therefore he could not have been crucified. We find this stated in the passage that immediately follows:

  For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world.9

  So the Quranic teaching about Jesus that “they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but so it was made to appear” seems to trace back to a second-century Gnostic source. This late, fictitious gospel is propagating “secret knowledge” to support its polytheistic worldview, not providing historical information about Jesus’ life. We can be confident that the account in 4.157 is not the kind that an objective investigator would consider reliable as historical evidence, and therefore we must reject the Substitution Theory.

  RESPONDING TO THE SUBSTITUTION THEORY: A FINAL WORD ON CONTEXT

  A Muslim investigator, such as I was, might be tempted to respond that the Quranic verses are from Allah, not from these fictitious sources, and that they are historically sound regardless. But as before, I needed to frequently remind myself that I was investigating as an objective observer and could not conclude this without assuming the Quran was inspired. The chronological priority of the fictitious gospels is obvious, as is the fact that their accounts are not historical
ly sound.

  But there is an even more powerful reason to challenge that notion. The information in these three passages makes excellent contextual sense in the fictitious gospels but little or no sense in the Quran. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Jesus blew life into clay birds as a miraculous mischief-maker, which fits the context perfectly; in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, he spoke words at birth because he was the eternal Word of God; in the Gospel according to Basilides, he was neither killed nor crucified because he was divine and did not have a material body.

  But in the Quran, why does Jesus give life to clay birds? No reason or context is provided; the Quran simply refers to a well-known account. Why can baby Jesus speak at birth? Again, no reason is provided; he just can. Why was Jesus not crucified, and why was someone else made to appear like him? The Quran does not suggest a reason; it simply asserts this secret knowledge as true.

  These three accounts fit much better in the context of the fictitious gospels, and given that the Quran is a later source than all of them, we ought to conclude that the Quran’s ideas about Jesus come from these late, fictitious sources that are historically unreliable and theologically opposed to Islam.

  CHAPTER 24

  CONCLUSION

  JESUS DIED ON THE CROSS

  Leaving Mike’s house that evening, I did not change my mind about Jesus’ death. One can rarely overturn a lifelong belief overnight. But one thing was becoming clear to me: My belief that Jesus did not die on the cross was based on faith in Islam, not facts of history. Historically speaking, the evidence regarding Jesus’ death was categorically in favor of Christianity and against Islam.