The Crucifixion

The CrucifixionHome comparitive.gif (2947 bytes) 

CRUCIFIXION OR CRUCI-FICTION?

by 'Isa Abdul-Tawwab Al-Hawai'i

INTRODUCTION

In the Name of Allah, the
Beneficent, the Merciful

"And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus
son of Mary, Allah's messenger - They slew him not nor crucified,
but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree
concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge
thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for
certain, but Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever
Mighty, Wise." (Holy Qur'an Surah An-Nisa Ayah 157-158)

These two ayahs, from Allah's Holy Word, totally separate
Muslims from Christians beyond any sort of compromise. Prophet
'Isa (saaws) was either crucified or he was not - one or the
other - it could not be both. As Muslims, it is our
responsibility to educate ourselves as to why we hold the belief
that Allah (swt) did not, and would not, allow His Holy Messenger
to die in such disgrace and why Allah(swt) would never require an
innocent man to serve as a "sacrifice for the sins of
mankind".

The dogma of the "crucifixion and resurrection" of
Prophet 'Isa (saaws) forms the central doctrine of all branches
of Christianity. The "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa
(saaws), according to Christianity, served the purpose of
providing a "vicarious atonement" for the sins of all
mankind, that he was the "sin-offering", "the
scapegoat" and "the paschal (Passover) lamb" and
his supposed death was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy
- most especially Isaiah 53. We will examine these claims and,
inshallah, show how crucifying Prophet 'Isa (saaws) would have
served none of those purposes. 

A FEW GROUND RULES 

All quotes from the Holy Qur'an are from the
translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall's work: "The
Meaning of the Glorious Koran". All Biblical quotes are from
the King James Authorized Version Bible, unless otherwise noted.

My comparison of the supposed
"crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to the Torah's
description of Sin-offerings, Passover, Yom Kippur, etc. may seem
like I'm indulging in nit-picking, but if Christians are going to
tell Muslims that the "crucifixion" is the fulfillment
of the Old Testament, then the "crucifixion" should be
more like than unlike these things it is supposed
to be the fulfillment of. I don't think that would be unfair to
expect. After all, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(whoever that was) wrote (Hebrews 10: 1):

"For the law having a shadow of good
things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never
with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually
make the comers thereunto perfect."

"The law" refers to the Torah. The
"shadows of things to come" implies that people should
see the "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) in these
Jewish rituals and holy days. So let's get started.

VICARIOUS ATONEMENT

First, let us define: "Vicarious Atonement". It is
the belief that the sins of an individual, a nation or all
humanity, could be atoned for by the death of an innocent victim.
This victim could be either an animal or a human being.
Occasionally, this victim would embody a divinity, and this
"god" would die as an offering for sin. For a more
detailed explanation, read "The Golden Bough" by Sir
James George Frazer. In his book, Sir Frazer shows how very
common it was for pagan cultures (e.g. the Greeks, the Hindus) to
practice "vicarious atonement" sacrifices. On page 667
of his book, Frazer says: "If we ask why a dying god should
be chosen to take upon himself and carry away the sins and
sorrows of the people, it may be suggested that in the practice
of using the divinity as a scapegoat we have a combination of two
customs which were at one time distinct and independent. On the
one hand we have seen that it has been customary to kill the
human or animal god in order to save his divine life from being
weakened by the inroads of age. On the other hand we have seen
that it has been customary to have a general expulsion of evils
and sins once a year. Now, if it occurred to people to combine
these two customs, the result would be the employment of the
dying god as a scapegoat. He was killed, not originally to take
away sin, but to save the divine life from the degeneracy of old
age; but, since he had to be killed at any rate, people may have
thought that they might as well seize the opportunity to lay upon
him the burden of their sufferings and sins, in order that he
might bear it away with him to the unknown world beyond the
grave."

What does the Holy Qur'an say about "vicarious
atonement"? Let's find out: 

"Whoso committeth sin committeth it only against himself.
Allah is ever Knower, Wise. And whoso committeth a delinquency or
crime, then throweth (the blame) thereof upon the innocent, hath
burdened himself with falsehood and a flagrant crime."
(Surah An-Nisa Ayah 111 - 112). 

Hmmm, pretty clear that Islam does not accept the idea of
burdening the innocent with the sins of the guilty. But, of
course, a Christian would not accept the Holy Qur'an as evidence.
So, let us pose the question: "Is the concept of an innocent
man bearing the sins of the guilty compatible with the Jewish
Bible (a.k.a. the Old Testament or Tanach)?" Let's see:

"The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, What mean
ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel,
saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's
teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God , ye shall
not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold,
all souls are mine, as the soul of the father, so also the soul
of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, it shall die....Yet
say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father?
When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath
kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the
iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be
upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon
him." (Ezekiel 18: 1 - 4 and 19 - 20) 

Wow! I guess that even the Jewish Bible says: " Just say
NO to Vicarious Atonement!". Oops! Almost forgot the best
part: 

" But if the wicked will turn away from all his sins that
he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is
lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his
transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be
mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he
shall live. Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should
die? saith the Lord God: and not that he should return from his
ways, and live?" (Ezekiel 18: 21 - 23).

Seems that the Jewish Bible is pretty explicit, God would
rather that the wicked should repent than demanding he die, and
the sins of the evil ones are NOT EVER put upon the righteous. By
the way, the Hebrew Prophet Ezekiel was a Priest and would
certainly know whether or not what he was writing was heretical
teaching or not. 

There is also the little problem of Proverbs 21: 18 which
tells us:

"The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the
transgressor for the upright."

Exactly the opposite of what Christians believe!

So, the verdict is in: "Vicarious Atonement" is not
a Biblical teaching, it is more at home among the pagans than
among the worshippers of the One True God.

LAMB OF PASSOVER

But what about the idea that Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was the
"Lamb of Passover" as Paul of Tarsus said: 

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new
lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is
sacrificed for us:" (First Corinthians 5:7).

A modern Christian writer, Leon Morris, says on page 92 of his
book "The Atonement, Its Meaning & Significance"
(Inter-Varsity Press, 1983): " There is no real reason for
doubting that the Passover was seen as a genuine sacrifice, all
the more so since in due course the slaughter of the lamb or kid
took place at the temple with the priest handling the blood. It
is likely, therefore, that there was some idea of forgiveness of
sin associated with it. It seems that in time all sacrifice was
held to be atoning at least in one aspect and this would be true
of the Passover as of all others." Read that again, "no
real reason", "it is likely", "it
seems", sounds like Mr. Morris does not know for certain.
Since we are discussing something which our Eternal Salvation
might well depend on, the least Mr. Morris - or any other
Christian - should be is absolutely certain ! Well,
is Mr. Morris correct? Our response should be: "What does
the Old Testament about Passover?". Let's open-up the Torah
and see.

"And this day (Passover) shall be unto you for a
memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout you
generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for
ever" (Exodus 12: 14) 

Did you see any reference to sin in there? I didn't. Let's
assume that the Hebrews might later associate Passover with
sin-offerings, but if they did that would have been an
innovation, certainly not Biblical in its basis. For the Jews ,
from the Exodus until the present day, the Passover is a feast to
commemorate the release of the Bani Israel from their captivity
in Egypt. They eat lamb or goat kid for Passover for the same
reason Americans eat turkey for Thanksgiving Day: it is the food
associated with the holiday (Of course, there is no Divine
Command to eat turkey on Thanksgiving). Why lamb ? Well,
according to the ancient Egyptian paganism, the lamb was
considered a sacred god, molesting a lamb was punishable by
death! Similar to the reverence of cows in India today. Of
course, the Hebrew Bible makes it clear that major Old Testament
figures did sacrifice lambs and sheep to God for various reasons
Abel in Genesis 4:4, as well as Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) (saaws)
in Genesis 22: 7 and13. But as Torah says: 

"And Pharaoh called for Moses and for Aaron, and said, Go
ye, sacrifice to your God in the land. And Moses said, It is not
meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the
Egyptians to the Lord our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the
abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and they will not
stone us?" (Exodus 8: 26). 

To get a better picture, imagine Muslims in India publicly
slaughtering a Brahma cow in downtown Calcutta and you get the
idea of this verse. The Jews eat an animal that their former
slave-masters used to worship. Pretty deep, huh?

Remember, when the Prophet Muhammad (saaws) captured Makkah
from the pagans, he was not lax in his dealings with the idols
and shrines of the defeated pagans. They were uniformly
destroyed. The One True God makes it clear in the Holy Qur'an
that paganism is to be trampled underfoot: 

"And say: Truth hath come and falsehood hath vanished
away. Lo! falsehood is ever bound to vanish." (Surah Bani
Israil Ayah 81)

Also, we must compare the supposed "crucifixion" of
Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to Exodus chapter 12, which gives the
details of how the Passover would be observed. Exodus 12: 3 - 6
says that the lamb would be taken out from the flock and set
aside on the 10th day of the month and then killed on the 14th
day of the month. Problem: Matthew 26: 2 - 6 and Mark 14: 1 - 3
make it clear that two days before Passover, Prophet 'Isa
(saaws) was not even in Jerusalem! If he had been arrested on the
10th and killed on the 14th, it would have been in-line with
Exodus 12, but it plainly was not. Also, Exodus 12: 9 says that
the lamb would be roasted over a fire and eaten. Let's be real,
according to Gospel accounts Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was nailed to a
cross, stabbed with a spear and later - after he supposedly
"died" - put into a tomb. Again, no resemblance to the
Passover lamb. Exodus 12: 46 makes it clear that the lamb's meat
would not be carried outside the home where the feast was eaten,
Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposedly "crucified" outside
not only of anyone's home, but outside the walls of Jerusalem
itself! Exodus 12: 9 also says that no bones of the lamb are to
be broken, John 19: 36 says that none of Prophet 'Isa's (saaws)
bones were broken in fulfillment of Psalms 34: 20:

" He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is
broken." .

Problem: I would say it is impossible to pound a nail through
a person's wrists, feet or ankles without breaking the
metacarpal, tarsal and metatarsal bones in those respective
places. If I am wrong here, I would appreciate a doctor telling
me how that could be done. Finally, Exodus 12: 43 to 45 says
quite clearly that no foreigners or uncircumcised may participate
in Passover. All Gospel accounts show clearly that Romans,
uncircumcised pagans, were greatly involved in supposedly putting
Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to death. So, was Prophet 'Isa (saaws) like
the lamb of Passover? My answer is: not even by the wildest
stretch of the imagination.

Ask any Christian: Did Prophet 'Isa (saaws) eat the Passover
Seder the night before he was "crucified"? The answer
will usually come back: "Yes! Of course! it says so in the
Gospels." Certainly, there is Biblical support

"And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and
they made ready the passover." (Matthew 26: 19)

Similar passages are found in Mark 14: 16 and Luke 22: 13. In
fact, you could show the narrations given in Matthew 26: 19 - 30,
Mark 14: 16 - 25 and Luke 22: 13 - 23 to any Jew and ask if these
are descriptions of a Passover Seder and the reply would be in
the affirmative. So, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke, there
was a Passover Seder eaten by Prophet 'Isa (saaws) and his
disciples the night before the "crucifixion".
Therefore, the "crucifixion" supposedly happened on the
morning of the 15th of Nisan, with Prophet 'Isa (saaws)
"dying" by 3 o'clock in the afternoon (Matthew 27: 46 -
50 and Mark 15: 34 - 37).

But, since the Passover Lamb was to be killed on the 14th of
Nisan and eaten on the 15th of Nisan, the similarity of the
"crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) to the Passover
Lamb takes yet another blow to what little credibility it might
have seemed, at first, to possess.

However, the situation does not get any better when we look
into the Gospel of John, in fact it only gets worse! "How
does it get worse?", you might ask. It gets worse because
John has the "crucifixion" occurring on the 14th
day of Nisan! I'm not kidding, look at this excerpt from the
"Passion Narrative" as given by John:

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about
the sixth hour: and he (Pontius Pilate) saith unto the Jews,
Behold your King!" (John 19: 14)

"Then delivered he (Pontius Pilate) him (Jesus) therefore
unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him
away." (John 19: 16)

"The preparation of the passover" is on the 14th
day of Nisan, not the 15th.

Was the meal, eaten the night before, a Passover Seder? Well,
a Seder is eaten on the evening of the 15th of Nisan - so,
according to John, it was not. In fact he simply called the meal
eaten the night before (the night of the 14th)
"supper" in John 13: 2. For further evidence, look at
what else John has to say regarding that night and the following
day:

"For some of them (the disciples) thought, because Judas
had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that
we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give
something to the poor." (John 13: 29)

"Buy those things that we have need of against the
feast"? If, by "the feast", they meant Passover
Seder, Matthew, Mark and Luke said that they had already eaten
it. Yet, in John's entire narrative (John chapters 13 to 17)
there is no mention whatsoever of the basic elements of the
Seder, such as the bread (matzo) or the wine. As I said, John 13:
2 simply called it "supper".

To convince yourself that, in fact, no one had yet eaten the
Passover Seder, go to John 18: 28

"Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of
judgement: and it was early; and they themselves went not into
the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled: but that they
might eat the passover."

They did not wish to enter the dwelling of a pagan, due to the
fact that pagan Romans had the practice of interring their dead
family members inside their homes. Since they had not yet eaten
the Passover Seder, they did not wish to defile themselves by
entering what was, in their eyes, an unclean place.

So, not only does the "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa
(saaws) not bear the slightest resemblance to the Passover Lamb,
the Gospel accounts of the "crucifixion" do not even
agree as to what day it was supposed to have occurred!

THE SCAPEGOAT 

For people unfamiliar with the Jewish Bible, or Judaism in
general, the scapegoat being referred to is from the Jewish Holy
Day known as : Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement). Yom Kippur is
described in detail in Leviticus chapter 16. The ceremony
actually involved several animals offered as sacrifices: a young
bullock (sin-offering for the High Priest and his family), two
rams ( one as a burnt offering for the High Priest and his
family, the other as a burnt offering for the Bani Israel) and
two goats (one as a sin-offering for the Bani Israel, the other
was the scapegoat).

The scapegoat is what Prophet 'Isa (saaws) is often compared
to. Let's look at the scapegoat's role in the Day of Atonement
sacrifices:

"And when he (Aaron) hath made an end of reconciling the
holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the
altar, he shall bring the live goat: and Aaron shall lay both his
hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all
the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their
transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of
the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into
the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their
iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the
goat in the wilderness." (Leviticus 16: 20 - 22)

The Talmud (the collection of the oral traditions of Judaism,
which have been collected into dozens of volumes of books)
mentions in the volume Yoma 6:6 that this goat would eventually
be pushed off a cliff to make sure that it never come back, their
own interpretation of "letting go of the goat in the
wilderness", I guess. Hence, the past year's sins were never
to return.

There are more than a few problems with this comparison.

First, Yom Kippur occurs on the tenth day of the seventh month
(Leviticus 16: 29) but Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposedly
"crucified " on either the fourteenth or fifteenth day
of the month of Nisan (when Passover happens), which is
the first month of the year (Exodus 12: 2). So, Prophet
'Isa (saaws) was supposedly "crucified" on the
wrong day ! Jews could no more combine Yom Kippur
with Passover than Christians could combine Christmas with
Halloween.

Second, Yom Kippur is a day of fasting and a day of refraining
from all work (again, Leviticus 16: 29). Ask any Jew, the day
before Passover involves a lot of work (i.e. removing all leaven
from the home, cleaning all utensils, etc.) not exactly my
idea of refraining from work. Plus, Passover is a feast day,
not a fasting day. Can you fast and feast at the same time? I've
never tried it, have you?

Third, taking the Talmud into account, we read in all four
Gospels of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) being "crucified", not
pushed off a cliff. Look at any map of Jerusalem in the First
Century C.E. and you will see that the hill of Golgotha, where
Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was supposedly "crucified", is
right outside of Jerusalem - not out in the "land not
inhabited".

Fourth, we don't read in any part of the New Testament of the
High Priest wearing any special linen garments or washing himself
before the "crucifixion" of Prophet 'Isa (saaws), but
Leviticus 16: 4 commands that the High Priest do this before the
sacrifices on Yom Kippur even start. You couldn't omit that part
any more than a Muslim could omit wudu (ablutions) before
performing salat (prayers).

If a Christian compares Prophet 'Isa (saaws) with the
scapegoat of Yom Kippur, ask him/her to read Leviticus chapter 16
and to point-out all the similarities between Yom Kippur and the
"crucifixion". There won't be many, if any at all. 

AN OFFERING FOR SIN

When the Jewish Bible (a.k.a. the Old Testament or Tanach)
talks about "sin" we must do a little extra reading.
Using "The Jewish Encyclopedia" (Funk and Wagnells) as
my source, we learn that in Judaism, there are three kinds of
sin. The lightest is the "het", "hatta'ah" or
"hattat" (literally: "fault",
"shortcoming" or "misstep"), an infraction of
a command committed in ignorance of the meaning or existence of
the command. The second type is the "'awon", a breach
of a minor commandment committed with a full knowledge of the
existence and nature of that commandment. The third, and most
serious, is "pesha'" or "mered", which is a
presumptuous and rebellious act committed against God; or a
"resha'", such an act done with an evil intention.

Now, what "sin-offering" do the Christians associate
with the "crucifixion"? Hard to say, really. The author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews (whoever it was) said in chapter 10
verse 10:

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."

and later, in verses 18 and 19:

"Now where remission of these (sins and iniquities) is,
there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren,
boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,"

We are faced with a problem: the Jewish Bible was written
mostly in Hebrew and a sprinkling of Aramaic, the New Testament
was written entirely in Koine Greek, so we have to compare the
Hebrew and Greek words for "sin" as best we can. I'll
use "The New Testament, Greek and English" (American
Bible Society, 1966, 1971, 1976) and "Greek-English
Lexicon" by Liddell and Scott (Oxford University Press,1986)
as my source for the Greek words, we discover that the New
Testament uses the word "amartia", which means
"sin", "failure" or "error"; and
also "parabasis", which translates as
"transgression" or "an overstepping". So, we
can surmise that "amartia" is equivalent to
"het", and that "mered' or "pesha" is
roughly the same as "parabasis". Follow me so far?
Okay.

So, how do we find-out which kind Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was
supposed to die for? Let's look at the Greek text of John 1: 29:

"The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and
saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin
(amartian) of the world."

So, the word "amartian" is used, roughly the same as
the word "het", now we've got something to work with.
But wait! Didn't we already establish that "amartia"
and "het" are sins that are committed accidentally
? What sense would it make for God to incarnate Himself to die by
slow torture on a cross for sins committed by accident or by
ignorance? Allah (swt) forbid such blasphemy!

So, what did Prophet Yahya (John the Baptizer) (saaws) mean
when/if he said "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin
of the world."? When was a lamb offered for sin/amartia/het
? Look no further than Leviticus chapter 4. This chapter
spells-out the who/what/when/where/why/how of Sin-Offerings. 

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the
children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance
against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things
which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of
them:" (Leviticus 4: 1 - 2)

Well, that's clear. Accidental sins committed through
ignorance, not done purposefully. Ask a Christian what is meant
that Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was an offering for sin. Most likely
they won't know what they mean by that.

To put another nail in the coffin to bury this argument in, do
yourself a favor: read Leviticus chapters 4 and 5. Certain
individuals, making their sin-offering, were required to bring a
specific animal of a specific gender. The High Priest offered a
young bullock, the whole congregation of Israel offered a young
bullock as an offering for the community, a ruler offered a male
goat kid, and a commoner offered a female goat or female lamb.
Since Prophet 'Isa (saaws) was born male, not female,
obviously the last example does not hold. You can't have a male
who is supposed to be "the Lamb of God" who is "an
offering for sin" when the animal specified is supposed to
be a female lamb. Does that make sense? No, of course not.

Leviticus 5: 1 - 13 mentions other offerings for other
offenses, such as withholding testimony, touching unclean things,
or taking incautious oaths. The various atonement-offerings for
these offenses included: a female lamb or female goat kid; for
people unable to afford a lamb or goat, two turtledoves or two
young pigeons; or, for the very poor, an offering of flour.
Notice, again, that the lamb mentioned is female.

Lastly, the"'asham", or
"trespass-offering", mentioned in Leviticus 5: 15 - 19
was actually a penalty paid in the form of a sacrificial offering
to God. For misappropriating property that belonged to the
sanctuary or had been contributed to it; or, in some cases when
one had sworn falsely concerning his responsibility toward the
property of others; a ram would be offered. A ram - right gender
and species, but it's not a lamb and the offenses it atoned for
would not necessitate God incarnating Himself. It's not likely to
be a sin most individuals would manage to find themselves
responsible for.

"Wait!" you might ask, "wasn't he supposed to
have died for all mankind?". Let's look at Matthew 26: 28
Prophet 'Isa (saaws) is quoted as saying:

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed
for many for the remission of sins (amartioon)."

"Many"? That looks like a group of people. But a
lamb wasn't offered for a group, it was offered for an
individual. A bullock was offered for "the
congregation". In the whole New Testament, Prophet 'Isa
(saaws) is never referred to, or compared to, a bullock.

Do the Christians realize how they have sold their souls to a
Doctrine of Confusion? Inshallah, they will learn before the Day
of Judgement, if not...

ISAIAH 52: 13 to 53: 12

This chapter is taken, by most Chistians, as a prophecy by
Isaiah of the future sufferings of the Messiah. However, it does
not stand-up to critical examination. Let's look at it closely.

We must ask: how do the Jews interpret this chapter? After
all, it is their Bible. Actually, Isaiah 52: 12 to 53: 12
is the fourth of what are called the "Servant
Songs" of Isaiah. Jews interpret these verses to refer to
the dawning of the Messianic Era, speaking of God's promise to
exalt the Bani Israel in the future and the gentile nations will
realize that they had unjustly persecuted the Bani Israel. Isaiah
52: 13 says:

"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very high."

The Bani Israel are frequently called "The Servant of The
Lord", with the entire nation spoken of as a single
individual. For example, Isaiah 41: 8 - 9 says:

"But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have
chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken
from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men
thereof and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen
thee, and not cast thee away."

In fact, the Christian Church Father, Origen, wrote in his
book "Contra Celsum" (translator: Henry Chadwick;
Cambridge Press) "I remember that once in a discussion with
some whom the Jews regard as learned I used these prophecies. At
this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole
people as though of a single individual, since they are scattered
in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering
of the Jews among the other nations many might become
proselytes."

A big problem with the idea of this chapter referring to the
Prophet 'Isa (saaws), coupled with the idea of the Messiah being
God Incarnate is the statement "he shall be exalted and
extolled, and be very high.". If the Servant is God, 1) how
can God be His own servant? and 2) God is already exalted and
extolled and very high, He does not need to become something He
already is.

But what about the lamb of Isaiah 53: 7?

"He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened
not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a
sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

Well, the image of an innocent person or the Bani Israel being
compared to a lamb or to sheep, is not unique to Isaiah 53. 

"But I was like a lamb or an ox that is brought to the
slaughter; and I knew not that they had devised against me,
saying, Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof, and let
us cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be
no more remembered." (Jeremiah 11 :19)

Psalms 44: 11 compares the Bani Israel to sheep given over to
slaughter:

"Thou hast given us like sheep appointed for meat; and
hast scattered us among the heathen."

Another problem with Isaiah 53: 7, according to Gospel account
of the trial of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) given in John 18: 21 - 23
the exchange was recorded thusly:

"Why asketh thou me (Jesus)? ask them which heard me,
what I have said: behold, they know what I said. And when he had
thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with
the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the
evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?"

Not exactly a "silent sufferer" was he?

If any Christian tells you that Isaiah 52: 13 to 53: 12 refers
to the Messiah, ask him how many children Prophet 'Isa (saaws)
had. Isaiah 53: 10 says:

"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him
to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure
of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."

The word translated "seed" is "zerah" and
in the entire Jewish Bible the word "zerah" always
refers to physical descendants, never to spiritual
disciples. Spiritual children would be referred to as
"ben".

Isaiah 53: 10 says his soul would be a sin-offering,
yet Hebrews 10: 10 said that we are sanctified by the offering of
the body of Prophet 'Isa (saaws). Which was it? His body
or his soul? Sounds like somebody can't decide.

Is this confusion really worth betting your Eternal Salvation
on?

"PROPHECIES"

Let's start with an easy one. Matthew 27: 9 - 10 says quite
plainly:

"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy
(Jeremiah) the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces
of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom the they of the
children of Israel did value; and gave them for the potter's
field, as the Lord appointed me."

Problem: this verse does not exist anywhere in the Jewish
Bible.

Second, John 19: 34 says:

"But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his (Jesus)
side, and forthwith came there out blood and water."

This verse is supposed to show the fulfillment of prophecy,
according to John 19: 37

"And again another scripture saith, They shall look upon
him whom they have pierced."

The verse that was supposed to be fulfilled is Zechariah 12:
10, let's see:

"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of
supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have
pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his
only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in
bitterness for his firstborn."

Why does John 19: 37 say: "look upon him",
but Zechariah 12: 10 says: "look upon me"?
What's going on here? Also, why does Zechariah switch around
"they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and
they shall mourn for him"? Who is "me", and
who is "him"? Your guess is as good as the Christians'.
What about the part of Zechariah 12: 10 that mentions: "and
they shall mourn for him as for a firstborn son"? According
to all Gospel accounts, beyond the circle of disciples
that Prophet "Isa (saaws) had, no one was mourning for
Prophet 'Isa (saaws) after his "crucifixion" and
"death". In fact, John 20 :19 mentions that the
disciples were in hiding after the "crucifixion".Why?
"For fear of the Jews", that's why. So much for
mourning.

What do the Jews have in their Bible, which the Christians
have no control over the content therein? Here's what the Tanach
(Jewish Publication Society) says:

"But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants
of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall
lament to Me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over
a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a
first-born."

Quite a difference. So, we must ask: "who is right and
who is wrong?" or rather: "who is lying and who is
telling the truth?" How are we supposed to know which is
accurate, especially since the Christian Bible's verses of John
19: 37 and Zechariah 12: 10 don't even agree with each other?

Just one more. 

The Christians tell us that Psalms 22: 16 predicts the
"crucifixion" so clearly:

"For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked
have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet."

Well, the Hebrew text reads: "like a lion they are at my
hands and feet." Why the difference? The Hebrew text has the
word " k'ari" for "like a lion",
"ari" means "a lion" the "k' "
makes it mean "like a lion". The text the Christians
use has the word "karah", translated as
"pierced". Interesting problem. Even more interesting
is the fact that in the entire Old Testament the word
"karah" is translated as "dig", "to
dig" or "to open up", only in Psalms 22:16 is it
rendered as "pierced". Why is that? I have no idea. 

The Holy Qur'an warns us:

"Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with
their hands and then say, 'This is from Allah,' that they may
purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their
hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn
thereby." (Surah Al-Baqarah Ayah 79)

This ayah could easily apply to Christians who seem to alter
the text of the Jewish Bible unhesitatingly.

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

The Holy Qur'an tells us:

"He (the angel Jibreel) said (unto Miriam): So (it will
be). Thy Lord saith: it is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We
may make of him (Prophet 'Isa) a revelation for mankind and a
mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained."

"A revelation for mankind" is more accurately
translated as "a Sign unto mankind". Just what is this
"sign"? 

Examine the religions which surrounded Palestine in the first
centuries of the Common Era, you will see that one of the most
common belief systems was that of the "dying god" who
was born of a virgin, performed miracles, died a horrible death
and rose from the dead. They believed that an innocent victim
could bear the sins of the nation (a.k.a. "vicarious
atonement").Notice that Christianity, especially the
Catholic and Orthodox Churches, is more similar than
dissimilar to pagan faiths - especially with the worship of
"saints". Yet, Islam, which spread into many of the
same areas as Christianity had centuries earlier, is more dissimilar
than similar to paganism. 

There is the Sign Unto Mankind, alhamdulillah.

We accept the Virgin Birth, But we believe it occurred at the
Word of Allah (swt), not because of any sexual liaison between a
"god" and a virgin girl or a "Holy Spirit coming
upon some-one" and "the power of the Highest
overshadowing anybody". All it took was Allah (swt)
saying:"Be" and it happened, just that simple.

Miracles performed by Prophet 'Isa (saaws) were not from any
divine power of his own but from Allah (swt). 

We deny the death of Prophet 'Isa (saaws) solely on the word
of the Holy Qur'an. We see what is said of his "death"
and we reject it, not because we hate him {Allah (swt) forbid},
but because we love Allah (swt) and believe that Allah (swt) can
forgive sins and transgressions simply with sincere repentance
and intention to correct your life.

A FINAL WORD

Inshallah, this article will be updated as I make corrections
to any errors that I may have made and as I continue my research.
I pray that Allah (swt) will guide me. All good that comes from
this article is from Allah (swt), all mistakes have been my own. 

 muntadalogo.gif (2234 bytes)This
Page was last updated on Tuesday, June 16, 1998
Islamic Information Office Comparitive Religion WebSite - isa@iio.org

Hosted by Muntada Computer Services webmaster@muntada.com
  


**This file was converted from HTML to TEXT using a TRIAL version of**
**Markup Remover 1.1 (C) 1998 by Aquatic Moon Software http://www.aquaticmoon.com/**
**This message does not appear in files converted after the program has been liscensed.**