CHAPTER 3: Jesus Christ and Islam
Jesus in Light of Islamic Interpretations
Vatican II’sNostraAetate
sums up the general Muslim perception of Jesus: “Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion” (#3). That said, Christian-Muslim relations are plagued - and hopefully enriched - by a number of ironies. “It is a curious fact of history that whilst Muhammad has been frequently criticized in western and Christian writings, Muslims hold the central figure of Christianity in high esteem.” Not only that, but “Islam is the only religion other than Christianity thatrequires
its adherents to commit to a position on the identity of Jesus”!
Indeed, “[in] the Islamic tradition, Jesus ('Isa) was a Muslim.”
Hence, titles such asThe Muslim Jesus
for an anthology of sayings and stories about Jesus in Islamic tradition.
Although Islam considers Jesus as one of the “prophets,” a highly respected title in that tradition, and even attributes miracles to him, Jesus’ role as teacher is marginal in the Qur’an. Indeed, what the Qur’an rather emphasizes is that God teaches Jesus “the Scripture, and wisdom, and the Torah, and the Gospel” (5:110). The Gospel ([al-]Injil
) is a book given to Christ, and it contains guidance, admonition, and light; the Gospel confirms the Torah and Prophets (5:110; 5:46). In theQur’anic
understanding, Jesus has made lawful to the people of Israel some things forbidden before (3:50). TheHadith
tradition includes a highly interesting parallel to the Gospel traditions: in the “semi-canonical”Bukhārī
collection, in the book on “Hiring” (Kitāab
al-ijāra
), Muhammad is retelling the parable of laborers in the vineyard speaking of the time preceding his own times: “The example of Muslims, Jews and Christians is like the example of a man who employedlabourers
to work for him from morning till night for specific wages.”
There are a few other parallel teachings in theHadith
tradition, including prayer resembling closely the Lord’s Prayer.
This is an indication of the creative adoption of Christian influences by early Islam.
Miracles are of course known and acknowledged in other religious traditions as well. What makes Islam unique is that, on the one hand, the Qur’an does not chronicle any specific miracle performed by Muhammad since the miracle of the Qur’an itself - as the Word of God - is by far the biggest and most important miracle. On the other hand, the Qur’an recounts several miracles of Jesus such as healing the leper andraising
from the dead.
For example, in Muslim Persian literature written in Urdu, Jesus’ role as healer is remarkable, including but not limited to emotional healing of a lover.
The Qur’an also knows miracles such as shaping a living bird out of clay based on the apocryphal Gospels.
A remarkable miracle is the table sent down from heaven spread with good as the divine proof of Jesus’ truthfulness as the spokesperson for God and the divine providence (5:112-115). Muslim commentary literature, poetry, and popular pietycontains
many different types of accounts and stories of Jesus’ miracles which lead to a high regard for the personality andprophethood
of Jesus. For the most well-known Muslim poet, the thirteenth-century Persian SufiJalaluddin
Rumi
, the miraculous birth and life of Jesus with a ministry of miracles, including healings and resuscitations, also become the source of inspiration for spiritual rebirth. His highly influentialMathanawi
, also called the Qur’an in Persian language, praises Jesus for his power to raise the dead and for his wisdom.
The high praises given to Jesus as well as the acknowledgment of the divine proof of truthfulness, however, do not mean in any sense of the word that Jesus would thereby be considered divine on the basis of miracles. Miracles belong to the repertoire of prophets and they attest to their authenticity. KennethCragg
summarizes the meaning of miracles assigned to Jesus in the Qur’an in a way that helps Christian theology to put them in a perspective in relation to Muslim theology: “[I]t is clear that theQur’ran’s
attribution of unprecedented miracles to Jesus is not a cause of embarrassment to the Muslim commentators. On the contrary, from their point of view, since Jesus is a prophet the miracles which God vouchsafes him must be sufficiently great to convince those to whom he is sent. Hence in common with popular Muslim piety the commentators tend to exaggerate the miraculous rather than play it down.”
One would imagine, then, a deep mutual interest into the meaning of Jesus Christ. However, “The question of Christ’s image has been a sensitive one in the history of Christian-Muslim apologetics and dialogue. One might ask whether it has ever been a real issue for dialogue. Most attempted dialogue in this field has been overruled by an apologetic or polemical bias on both sides.” This is the way the Norwegian Islamist and Christian theologianOddbjørn
Leirvik
begins the important study ofImages of Jesus Christ in Islam
.
Behind this uneasiness is the principle of the “self-sufficiency” of the Islamic canonical tradition (Qur’an andHadith
). It simply is the case that the Islamic tradition presents a radically different picture of Jesus Christ.
That both the canonical tradition and the rich and variegated later commentary traditionspeaks
of Jesus Christ so much
can of course potentially build a bridge. But that tradition paints such a remarkably different portrait of the personhood and theological meaning of the ChristianSavior,
makes the dialogue an utterly challenging exercise. Not surprisingly, many observersare seriously doubting
if any “practical results” could come from this dialogue.
The ambiguity about Jesus has characterized Muslim-Christian exchange from the beginning.
There were problems on both sides. On the Christian polemical side, from the beginnings of the encounter a handful of arguments have persisted, often used in an uncritical andunnuanced
manner against any Muslim interpretation of Jesus: (1) What the Qur’an says of Jesus is hopelessly distorted. (2) There are clear mistakes in theQur’anic
presentation of Jesus. (3) Muhammad received much of his information from either heretical or otherwise suspect sources. And (4) There are some elements of theQur’anic
presentations of Christ that are more “Christian” than supposed by the Muslims, including pointers to Jesus’ divinity and the affirmation of his death on the cross.
A typical Muslim engagement for a long time was to add to the existing references in the Qur’an andHadith
mainly on the basis of Christian legends and Gospel materials, including Gospels not ratified by Christians, especially theGospel of Barnabas
, whose influence even today is immense in anti-Christian polemics.
This development culminated in the mystical Sufi spirituality and continues. Some contemporary Muslim theologians have also utilized historical critical tools of NT studies to make their point of discrediting keychristological
beliefs.
Although a serious dialogue has to acknowledge and carefully weigh these kinds of challenges, the reasons for continuing and deepening Muslim-Christian dialogue are integrally related to the matrix of both traditions. In this exchange more is at stake than just the need to make a pedagogical contact for the sake of better relations:
Christology is the heart of Christian theology, and must be taken seriously as a central point of reference in the self-understanding of the Church. For the Church, there is a need continually to rethink the question of Christology in an Islamic context - as part of the more general task of a contextualized theology.
Christology is in fact dealt with as an issue from the Muslim side - both in Muslim polemics, medieval and modern, and in more dialogical contributions from Muslims.
Christology is not an isolated subject, but touches upon fundamental issues in anthropology and theology as well as in ethics. This is true both for Christians and, in a different sense, for Muslims.
On the Conditions of a Dialogue
In order to put the dialogue about Jesus Christ in this particular case in a proper perspective, it has to be noted that in many ways it isnot fair nor
useful to compare Jesus Christ to Muhammad. First of all, even though Christ is of course named a “prophet”
in the Qur’an, it is Muhammad who is the “seal of the prophets” and thus occupies a unique role. That said, unlike Christian faith, which is determined by belief in Christ, Islam is not based on Muhammad but rather on Qur’an and Allah. Neither Christ nor Muhammad in Islamic interpretation is divine, only God is.
The closest parallel to Christ in Islamic faith could be found in Christ’s role as the living Word of God, in relation to the divine revelation of the Qur’an.
(In terms of the dialogue between Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, a topic well worth careful consideration would be whether not only the Qur’an and the Word but also the Jewish Torah would function as parallels.
) However, it is also important to note that in theHadith
collections, a number of sayings seek to clarify the relation between Muhammad and Jesus. Among them is the important, oft-quoted highly respectful statement by Muhammad of Jesus: “Prophets are brothers in faith, having different mothers. Theirreligion,
is however, one and there is no Apostle between us (between me and Jesus Christ).”
As is well known, Muhammad’s own relation to Christianity and Christian tradition in general, especially in the early phases of his career, were fairly positive and constructive.
Because neither the person nor the work of Christ is in any way as central to Islam as to Christianity, the portrayal of Jesus in the Qur’an is set in a different context.
Jesus is put in the line of a number of OT prophets beginning from Moses and Abraham. Furthermore, Mary’s role is much more prominent in theQur’anic
presentation. Both of the two mainsuras
that contain the most references to Jesus, 3 and 19, are named after Mary.
Even the fact that Jesus is a miracle-worker in the Qur’an, unlike Muhammad, does not imply that therefore he should be lifted up higher than the Prophet of Islam; the miracles wrought by Jesus are similar to those performed by Moses and other such forerunners of Muhammad.
In other words, the most the miracles can do for Jesus is to confirm his prophetic status but not his divinity.
Even the fact that Jesus is described as sinless inHadith
and legendary tradition whereas it is not quite certain if Muhammad is - although in theShi’ite
tradition all imams are!- does not make Jesus superior.
Along with post-Enlightenment Christian theology’s heightened focus on the humanity of Jesus Christ vis-à-vis the divinity in tradition, contemporary Muslim interpreters of Jesus Christ have similarly come to appreciate the humanity in a more profound sense. Of course, it has to be noted that Muslims never did interpret Jesus Christ as divine; however, in theMiddle
Ages, among the Muslim thinkers there was often a more elevated picture of Jesus as a prophet. The Pakistani-born Anglican bishop of the Church of England, MichaelNazir
-Ali makes the pointed remark that many of the traditional and contemporary IslamicChristologies
seem to find a lot in common with Christian interpretations of Jesus that work with “low Christology,” basically reducing Jesus’ significance to his role as a human person.
The American Jesus Seminar’s view of Jesus would be an example.
Of course, the Qur’an contains nothing like the NT Gospel narratives. Instead, there are a number of references to key events in Jesus’ life from conception to earthly ministry to death/resurrection to his eschatological future (the last theme is dealt with in much more detail inHadith
tradition). The eschatological allusions are hardly clear, yet they are highly meaningful to both religions. Especially 4:159 is open to many interpretations depending on how to interpret the events of the cross and resurrection, to be discussed in the context of the Work of Christ.
The only title that is uniquely reserved for Jesus in the Muslim tradition is Messiah (e.g., 4:171). It is, however, difficult to determine the distinctively Islamic interpretation of that term. It is significant that the very samesurah
also names Jesus as “a spirit from Him” (God, obviously). Christian theology has been aware of and interested in Muslim interpretations of this important passage; John of Damascus of the seventh century, in his last chapter ofDeHaeresibus
(On the Heresies
) contains a discussion of this passage.
In Christian tradition, of course, Messiah, the Anointed One, is integrally connected with the Spirit of God. As said, the connection, if any, in Muslim tradition, is an unresolved question. What is clear is the direct linking in the Qur’an with the life-giving power of creation (as in connection with Adam in 15:29). “Christ himself is seen as a creation of the life-giving spirit, but at the same time as a privileged vehicle of the spirit, aided by the Holy Spirit in his mighty signs (2.253).”
Although it would be tempting to read these and similar descriptions, which have clear Christian parallels, through the lens of Christian theology, the warning by the Finnish NT scholarHeikki
Räisänen
is worth hearing: “The Qur’an must be explained by the Qur’an and not by anything else.”
Hence, in theQur’anic
interpretation, “Jesus became an example and a precursor of Muhammad, a guarantor of Muhammad’s message who had experienced similar things.”
Ultimately, the highest status granted to Jesus in the Qur’an is the “highest” predecessor of Muhammad - something like the Baptist to Jesus himself!
That said,
Räisänen
cautiously finds parallels between some NT portraits of Jesus and Jesus in Qur’an. TheLukan
Christology with the focus on subordination of Jesus to God as exemplified in his voluntary submission under God’s plan (Acts 2:22-23) andservanthood
(Acts 3:13; 4:27) provides such parallels.
A tempting way to try to ease the tension between two vastly different portraits of Jesus in these two religions would be to “water down” the NT account of Jesus - for the sake of the dialogue. The classic work in Christian-Muslim relations by KennethCragg
,The Call of the Minaret
warns of that orientation. It recommends that for the sake of a genuine dialogue, Christians should present Jesus to Muslims in the fullness of his personality as it is revealed in the Gospels.
This means that Christians are required to present Jesus to Muslims in the fullness of both his humanity and his divinity. “To concentrate only on elements in Jesus that Muslims can at once accept is to fail Jesus himself,”Cragg
asserts.
Thus, to be content with only Jesus the prophet-teacher would not do justice to the Muslim’s need.
Beginning with the NT narrative of Jesus is to help Muslims stand at the same experience of the first disciples. Of course, “A simplereassertation
of the Christian doctrine of Christ will not suffice,” without a conscious effort to face honestly the difficulties Muslims face in trying to understand the Christian interpretation.
For the sake of a fruitful dialogue, both parties face the challenge. Here the recommendation from the Roman Catholic HansKüng
is worth following. Beginning from the narrative of the historical Jesus of the Gospels, he reminds us of the need to acknowledge the difference between Christian and Islamic interpretations. He advises Christians not to read Christian meanings into the Qur’an:
The Qur’an should be interpretedfrom the standpoint of the Qur’an
, not from that of the New Testament or the Council of Nicaea or Jungian psychology. For the Qur’an, Jesus is a prophet, a great prophet, like Abraham, Noah, and Moses - but nothing more. And just as in the New Testament John the Baptist is Jesus’ precursor, so in the Qur’an Jesus is the precursor - and highly encouraging example - for Muhammad.
On the other hand,Küng
advises Muslims to evaluate Jesus on the basis of the historical sources of the Gospels: “If we on the Christian side make an effort to reevaluate Muhammad on the basis of Islamic sources, especially the Qur’an, we also hope that for their part the Muslims will eventually be prepared to move towarda reevaluation of Jesus of Nazareth on the basis of historical sources
(namely the Gospels) as many Jews have already been doing.”
The implication that the Qur’an gives a faulty picture of Jesus, however, is a deeply troubling challenge to devout Muslims. It goes way beyond the unwillingness to reconsider one’s own interpretative framework. The American-based leading Muslim thinkerSeyyed
Hossein
Nasr, in dialogue withKüng
, made this point in a most pointed way: “To suggest that theQur’ān
had the wrong Christology makes absolutely impossible any dialogue with Islam. . It must always be remembered that for Muslims theQur’ān
, the wholeQur’ān
, and not only parts of it, is the Word of God.”
AgainstKüng’s
historical interpretation of Muhammad’s prophecy, Nasr says:
One should be very clear on this point and on the role of the Prophet in the process of the revelation of the Sacred Text. It is because of this Islamic belief in the nature of theQur’ān
as the direct Word of God that any consideration of the Prophet of Islam as having learnt this view of sacred history and Christology from Jewish and Christian sources is the greatest blasphemy in the eyes of Muslims.
The Divinity of Jesus
The proper place to begin to consider the theme of the deity of Jesus in Islam is to be reminded of the foundational belief in Islam according to which Muhammad is not divine but human. The thirteenth-century Egyptian Al-Busiri’s
poemQasidah
Burdah
makes the point in a polemical way:
Renounce what the Christians claim concerning their prophet,
Then praise him [Prophet Muhammad] as you will, and with all your heart.
For although he was of human nature,
He was the best of humanity without exception.
A contemporary Muslim scholar sets the question of the divinesonship
and deity of Jesus in proper perspective: “Jesus the ‘Christ,’ the ‘eternal logos,’ the ‘Word made flesh,’ the ‘Only Begotten Son of God’ and second person of the trinity has been the barrier separating the two communities [Muslims and Christians].”
This judgment is consonant with Muslim tradition going back to the beginnings. Take one example from the highly respected twelfth-century medieval figure of Al-Ghazali
: in his celebratedThe Ninety-Nine Beautiful Names of God
,
he bluntly speaks of “errors” of Christians who say of ΄Isa (Jesus) that “he is God.” Saying this is similar to looking into the mirror and imagining that the colors seen are the colors of the mirror itself!
When investigating this issue, it is hard to establish exactly howmuch
early Muslim thinkers know of the details of established orthodox tradition when beginning to engage Christian claims about Jesus and the Trinity.
On the Christian side, the first Christian writer, John of Damascus (d. 749 C.E.), indār
al-islām
showed an extensive understanding of Islam and its main beliefs. Two of John’s writings contain an account on Islam: “The Heresy of theIshmaelites
,” in hisDeHaeresibus
(On Heresies
), andDisputatio
Saraceni
et
Christiani
(Dialogue with a Saracen
).
One striking point in John’s account is his perception of theQur’anic
Christology. In hisOn Heresies
, John shows an accurate awareness of the Qur’an’s portrait of Jesus. He knew well what the Qur’an affirms about Christ, such as that “Christ is a Word of God and His Spirit (Qur’an 4:169),” that Christ “was born without seed from Mary, the sister of Moses and Aaron (Qur’an 19:29),” and that Christ is “a prophet and a servant of God (Qur’an 43:59).” John was also aware of the Qur’an’s denial of Jesus’ crucifixion. Thus, according to the Qur’an, John affirms, the Jews “crucified Him in appearance only (Qur’an 4:156); but the Christ Himself was not crucified, nor did He die, for God took Him into heaven unto Himself (Qur’an 4:156) because He loved Him.”
InDialogue with a Saracen
, John used thisQur’anic
account of Christ, especially the two titles that the Qur’an uses to describe Jesus - God’s Word and His Spirit - to defend and prove Jesus’ divinity.
A complicating factor here is that Christian tradition did not of course always speak in one voice - even after Chalcedon. By the time of the rise of Islam, especially the Eastern Christian tradition was deeply divided into different groups and orientations, some affirming, others resisting or revising keyChalcedonian
formulae.
As mentioned above, the virgin birth of Jesus is affirmed in the Qur’an in many places. Two aspects of that discussion are relevant to the consideration of Jesus’ divinity. According to Qur’an 21:91 God “breathed into Mary and caused her to become pregnant with Jesus.
The second is related to God’sword
which, according to the Qur’an, God cast (sent forth) to Mary. Although theQur’anic
tafsir
does not speak in one voice about many details in these accounts, including the exact meaning of the reference of “Our spirit,” whether to the angel Gabriel or God, and the relation of the “spirit” here to theQur’anic
reference where Jesus is called “a spirit from Him” (4:171), from the point of view of Christian theology the idea of the agency of the divine Spirit in the virgin conception is significant. Alongside the Spirit, there is also a reference to the word in the conception of Jesus. In one of the most significant passages about Jesus in the Qur’an, 4:171, the reference to “spirit” and the coming of Jesus as the “word” are connected: “The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him.”
Again, there are exegetical debates in the Islamictafsir
, not least concerning the meaning of the word being “conveyed” and, of course, the meaning of the term “word” in itself in reference to Jesus. Notwithstanding those debates, from the perspective of Christian theology, two important points follow: first, the linking of the coming of Jesus into the world via the agency of the Spirit and Word as well as the birth of Jesus through the pure, obedientvirgin
Mary without the intervention of a male parent. Those two, however, should be put in a perspective. No more than similar statements in Christian theology, do these Muslim references seek to establish the divinity of Jesus. They are meant to speak of a high status as a religious figure of Jesus, the Son of Mary. It is important to remember that in the very same passages in the Qur’an (4:171) in which the reference to the Spirit and Wordoccur,
there is also one of the strongest denials of the Trinity and the divinesonship
of Jesus: “So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” - Cease! (it
is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.”
Although assumed everywhere, there is only a handful directreferences
to the Christian claim of Jesus as the Son of God and his divinity in the Qur’an. It bluntly denies those claims (4:171; 5:17, 72, 73, 116; 9:30; 19:35).
A relatedQur’anic
denial is the idea that Allah had a son (2:116; 4:171; 10:68; 17:111; 18:4; 19:35, 88; 21:26; 23:91; 39:4; 43:81; 72:3). The mainarguments in these passages for not having a Son is
God’s transcendence and the fact that Allah already possesses everything that is in the world: “He hath no needs!His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth” (10:68).
In general the idea of God begetting is denied at the outset (37:152; 112:3, among others).The idea ofsonship
is also denied in the Qur’an because it was seen linked with Allah having a consort (6:101 among others).
Incarnation
To the credit of early Muslim polemists and commentator it has to be acknowledged that they were fairly well aware of the many different interpretations and nuances among various Christian interpretations of incarnation. Indeed, these early Muslim thinkers often considered the nuances in Christian interpretations more carefully than usually happens in contemporary debates as Muslims tend to treat Christian interpretations of Christ without muchnuancing
between very different types. In the past, the three Christian “schools” ofMelkites
, Nestorians, andJacobites
were carefully analyzed by several Muslim writers for their differences in negotiating the “two natures.”
The Muslim rebuttals of the Christian doctrine of the incarnation of Jesus Christ, as presented in theanti-Christian
Muslim literature during the first centuries - in light of the Muslim understanding of what the Christian doctrine was teaching - can be classified under two broad sets of arguments:
First, incarnation is inconsistent with both Muslim and Christian Scripture. With regard to Muslim Scripture, on the one hand, Muslim scholars quotedQur’anic
passages which refute Jesus’ divinity (e.g., 5:72, 73). On the other hand, theQur’anic
passages speaking of the mere humanity of Jesus (e.g.,5:75 )
were employed in this regard. When it comes to the Bible, the Muslim scholars devoted considerable attention to the sayings that speak of Jesus’ humanity, such as his being the Son of David and Abraham (Matt. 1:1), he ate, drank, slept, traveled, rode a donkey, suffered, and died; similarly, his need to pray (Matt. 26:39; 27:46; John 17), his temptations, ignorance, and so forth, were included in this way of reasoning, as well as the highly contested claim that according to John 14:16 Jesus foretold the coming of Mohammed, theParaclete
. These were all meant to show that even with Christian Scripture, God-man incarnation is not compatible. On the other hand, Muslim commentators also downplayed the importance or Christian interpretation of a few passages in which they saw direct claims to Jesus’ divinity.
Second, these early Muslim commentators argued that the Christian doctrine of incarnation is inconsistent with Muslim and Christian teachings at large. On top of this argumentation was the central Muslim idea oftawḥīd
, the oneness of God, which by default rejects all notions of not only incarnation but also the corollary Christian doctrine of the Trinity.Tawḥīd
was seen as taught not only by the Qur’an but also by the Bible, especially the OT (Deut. 6:4).
A related concern among Muslim commentators is the incompatibility of incarnation with God’s transcendence, affirmed firmly in both faiths. The idea of God becoming flesh violates in Muslim sensibilities the principles of God’s glory and greatness. Hence, it is unworthy for a sovereign God to be human. According to the ChristianCragg
, however, “the crucial question has to do with the nature of the ‘greatness’ we affirm.”
“The question between us is not aboutwhether
there is God’s stake in our humanity buthow
far it might go in what it entails within the divine power and whether what we have in Jesus might or might not be the measure of the answer.”
Does the incarnation or thekenosis
of God oppose God’s greatness? On the contrary,Cragg
argues, it is in Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, that what Muslims desire to assert regarding God’s greatness is in effect. It is in Jesus Christ, “God in Christ,” that God achieved his intention toward humanity. “For is that sovereignty truly sovereign if it fails to take action against the empire of ignorance and evil in humankind?”Cragg
asks.
Furthermore, Jesus’ physical conception and birth as part of the doctrine of incarnation were seen as incompatible with both Christian and Muslim teachings. A logical problem here is the exact moment of uniting of two natures, whether in conception or birth or afterwards. A final Muslim concern about the incarnation is that it involves itself inShirk
, the greatest sin of all, associating with God what should not be associated with him. By believing in “God in Christ,” Christians are somehow “deifying” a creature, the Man of Nazareth.
Is there a way to negotiate or soften the impasse without unduly compromising the core teachings of both traditions? KennethCragg
has widely argued that one such attempt could be built to the central Christian idea of “God in Christ” (2 Cor. 5:19).
That idea, rather than the “Word made flesh” (John 1:14) may provide some stimulus and avenues for mutual re-thinking. He wonders if there is “not a Christian sense of God in Christ truly compatible with the Islamic awareness of divine unity?” And, he asks if, conversely there is “not an Islamic sense of Christ compatible with the Christian understanding of divine self-revelation?” The first response has to merely be that there hardly exists such a convergence. And more importantly, whether or not that can be found, cannot be based on anything else but the basis of “the inner authenticity of their respective apprehension of the divine.”
If the reasoning is based on something else, it can only result in a poor apologetic and even a worse, “dialogue.” Some have attempted to find the convergence in a forced Christian reading of theQur’anic
passages that speak of Jesus as “a spirit from God” or “a word from God,” as discussed above. Muslim interpretation of those passages does not yield any divinity, and thus a Christian understanding of incarnation; even if, in an unlikely event, there could be found exegetical or hermeneutical reasons in the study of these kinds of passages towards a more Christian understanding, the theological structure and inner self-understanding of Islam hardly allows that.
Instead,Cragg
suggests that the idea of “God in Christ” - which can be expressed as “having been sent” from God (John 3:16) - may find a better hearing in Islam when related to the centralQur’anic
idea of the prophets and the Qur’an itself as the Word of God as having been sent. “Rasūl
, the ‘sent one,’ is of course the fundamental definition of the prophet in Islam.Rasūliyyah
,
or ‘mission from God’ is the agency of the Qur’an on earth. SuchRasūliyyah
isculminatory
, in the Islamicbelief,
of a sequence of divine address to the human situation, though [sic] a long succession of prophets and messengers.” In other words, both religions speak of the divine mission, sending. With all their profound differences,Cragg
surmises that the idea of the divine and human interpenetration is there, “and, in that interpenetration, the real involvement of the divine in the temporal and the constant concern about the genuine mandate of the eternal.”
There is both “human aegis” and “divine fiat” at work in here, somewhat similarly to the Christian understanding. Although Muhammad is always considered to be short of divinity, given his role as the “instrument” in the process ofTanzil
, thereception of the Qur’an, the Word of God, “The Quran, as divine word, is intensely a human phenomenon, and takes its place in human history.”
That Muhammad or even the Qur’an are not considered “divine” is not to downplay their uniquemediatorial
role for humanity to know God’s will, in order to “submit,” be a Muslim; rather, this hesitancy has everything to do with the protection of the source of revelation and sending in God, the unity of God.
It is of course ironic - and promising for the dialogue with Islam - that along with the doctrine of incarnation, affirmation of “God in Christ” because ofsentness
, Christian theology from the beginning had to fight against idolatry whether in the form of contemporary mystery cults with myriads of gods and goddesses or the emperor cult.Christians
faith is strictly monotheistic as is Islam. This defense of monotheism, based on the transcendence and majesty of God,Cragg
helpfully reminds us, “is far from being a divine dissociation from [hu
]mankind
.”
The Muslim idea ofsentness
of course confirms that Christian claim.
AlthoughCragg’s
creative reasoning hardly convinces many Muslims, its gains are twofold. First, it helps continue conversation which, as mentioned, is not based on a cheap and useless compromise but rather seeks to operate on the basis of the inner logic of both traditions. Second, it helps Christians understand better the inner logic of Muslim monotheism and its relatedness to their own faith.
The Christian Theology of the Cross in Light of the Islamic Interpretation
Not only with regard to the source of salvation but also, consequently, with regard to the means of salvation, there is a sharp difference between Christianity and Islam: “The cross stands between Islam and Christianity. Dialogue cannot remove its scandal, and in due course a Muslim who might come to believe in Jesus has to face it.”
One of the reasons why the suffering Messiah does not appeal to Muslims is that “paragons of success and vindication” such as those of Abraham, Noah, Moses, and David are much more congenial with the vision of God’s manifest victory on earth. Says M. AliMerad
, “in the Quran, everything is aimed at convincing the Believer that he will experience victory over the forces of evil.” Furthermore, “Islam refuses to accept this tragic image of Passion. Not simply because it has no place for the dogma of the Redemption, but because the Passion would imply in its eyes that God had failed.”
The single most important dividing issue between Islam and Christian faith is the crucifixion. Muslim tradition does not speak with one voice regarding either what happened on the cross or necessarily even of its theological meaning. Yet it is true that “almost all Muslims believe that the crucifixion did not occur or that a substitute was executed in Jesus’ place (popularly, Judas of Iscariot fills this role). Jesus, then, did not die. Instead of dying, rising and ascending as in the Christian sequence of events, he was born,lived[
,] then was raised to heaven like Enoch and Elijah in the Bible, without dying.”
Furthermore, the whole of Muslim theology unanimously “denies the expiatory sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as a ransom for sinful humanity.”
In Islamic view, such a sacrificial, atoning death is not needed because of the lack of the doctrine of theFall
and sinfulness as in Christian tradition.
Christian theology has been aware of and interested in Muslim interpretations of crucifixion from the beginning of the encounter. As early as the seventh Christian century (the first Islamic century) John of Damascus, in his last chapter ofDehaeresibus
(On the Heresies
), discusses the keyQur’anic
passage (4:157).
Attacks against the Christian teaching of crucifixion have played a significant role in Muslim anti-Christian polemics and continue to do so as illustrated in the widely influential pamphlet by the Indian-South African AhmedDeedat
,CrucifixionOr
Cruci
-fiction?
The Qur’an contains only one explicit passage to the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, 4:156-9:
(156) And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny;
(157) And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them [or: “but a semblance was made to 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.
(158) But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
(159) There is not one of the People of the Scripture but will believe in him before his death, and on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them -
The most common interpretation of theQur’anic
account of Jesus’ crucifixion is that while it appeared that the “Messiah, Isa son ofMarium
” was killed on the cross, he was not; rather, “Allah took him up to Himself” (4:157-58).
By and large, Muslim tradition denies the killing of Jesus.
The typical explanation is that one of the disciples took his place and was killed while Jesus was taken by Allah.
This “substitutionist
theory” is by far the most common view in Muslim commentaries and popular piety.
Jews, “the people of the book” (4:159) wrongly believed they had killed the Messiah.
When it comes to the verse 159, most Muslim commentators believe that it refers “to the still future death of Jesus, who had been raised alive into heaven and would return to kill the Antichrist.”
On the basis of 3:55 and 4:159, Jesus has a role to play on the Day of Judgment. The most common Muslim opinion is that Jesus will return to earth before the Last Days, marry, have children, fight victoriously the forces of evil, and then face a natural death.Hadith
teaches that in his return, Jesus will destroy the cross;
after all, the cross is abhorrent to Muslim intuitions. In sum: on the one hand, Muslim tradition denies that Jesus was put to death on the cross (4:159); on the other hand, it teaches that Jesus will die later (4:159; 19:33), but before his “natural” death, will return for a certain ministry.
When it comes to the crucial verse of 4:157, it is instructive to note that whereas John of Damascus simply dismissed theQur’anic
teaching that allegedly denies the crucifixion, some thirty years after his death, the Nestorian (Mar Timothy)Catholicos
Timothy I
responded to the Muslim Caliph that Jesus died only according to his human nature. Timothy appealed to two importantQur’anic
verses, both of which traditionally have been understood as making a reference to Jesus’ death (though, of course, not in the context of crucifixion): 19:33
and 3:55.
He believed that on this basis it was established that Jesus died and rose again. The Caliph’s response was something to be expected: Jesus’ death lies in the future.
Christian apologetic has advanced two different positions as a response to the standard Muslim denial of Jesus’ death on the cross.
The first one is illustrated in Timothy’s position - as softly and ironically as he put it - namely, that the Qur’an is inconsistent in, on the one hand, affirming the death of Jesus (19:33; 3:55) and, on the other hand, denying it (4:157). The second apologetic way of argumentation has advanced the thesis that, indeed, the Qur’an is not denying the crucifixion. This position rests on three interrelated arguments: (1) Not only the two passages mentioned, but other passages in the Qur’an affirm the death of Jesus (5:17, 75,117
). (2) What 4:157 denies is the indestructibility of the divine nature but not the death on the cross of Jesus according to his human nature. This was indeed Timothy’s Nestorian position and this interpretation was also affirmed, for example, by Paul of Antioch of the twelfth century.
This reasoning is in keeping with standard Muslim view according to which the soul of martyrs is not really “killed” but rather taken up to God, and thus martyrs are “alive” with God (3:169). (3) On the basis of the biblical teaching that makes Jesus’ death a matter of his voluntary submission rather than something forced upon him by humans (John 10:17, 18), the Qur’an (4:157) is merely denying the arrogant claim by the Jews of having killed Jesus.
In sum: this second line of Christian apologetics is saying that indeed, the Qur’an is consistent and thus affirms the death of Jesus, at least when it comes to his human nature.
It is clear without saying that this interpretation hardly has convinced many Muslims.
Two major exegetical questions surround the interpretation of 4:157-58, namely, the meaning of “Allah took him up unto Himself” (v. 158) and “a semblance was made” (v. 157, following Robinson’s rendering). The former has to do with what really happened to Jesus if he was not put to death on the cross. The latter relates to the question of who, instead of Jesus, was crucified. Muslim commentary literature on these passages is endless, and Christian apologetics has also engaged them widely from the beginning.
The Arabic wordtawaffā
means literally “to receive” but has been interpreted also as “to die” when Allah is the subject. Indeed, there are 2 times when this verb appears in relation to Jesus (5:117; 3:55) and 3 in reference to Muhammad’s fate (40:77; 13:40; 10:46). It might be significant that in many current translations these three passages relating to Muhammad are interpreted as denoting dying, as in 10:46: “Whether We let thee (O Muhammad) behold something of that which We promise them or (whether We) cause thee to die, still unto Us is their return, and Allah, moreover, is Witness over what they do” (10:46). On the contrary, in both of the two cases in which reference is made to Jesus’ fate, the literal meaning of “to receive” (or its equivalent) is used in translations.
According to Robinson, the Christian interpretation, which goes back all the way to the seventh Christian century, as discussed, makingtawaffā
mean death also in the case of Jesus, has some strong support behind it. The other remaining 24 references in the Qur’an are all in some way or another associated with death, along with the 3 instances relating to Muhammad’s fate. Furthermore, even those classical commentators who as a rule denied the death of Jesus on the cross still acknowledged that normally the verb denotes death.
That said, Robinson contends that in light of theQur’anic
and commentary literature, the issue is still complicated and far from settled. The complications include the observations that only in the 5 passages that relate to Muhammad and Jesus, “the verb is used in the active voice with God as the subject and with one of his prophets as the object.”
Whatever the final exegetical or lexical conclusion, Islamic theology has firmly settled the issue contrary to the Christian view.
Regarding the meaning of “a semblance was made to them” in 4:157, Robinson’s conclusion expresses virtual unanimity in Muslim theology: “Despite differences of opinion about the details the commentators were agreed that 4:157 denies that Jesus was crucified. The most widespread view was that it implies that the Jews erroneously crucified Jesus’ ‘semblance’ and not Jesus himself.”
KennethCragg
offers a comprehensive, highly nuanced judgment of the state of affairs when it comes to the dispute between Muslim theology and Christian theology regarding the cross and its meaning. The crucifixion entails three interrelated aspects, namely, “the act of men in wrong, the act of Jesus in love, and the act of God in grace.”According toCragg
, whereas Muslim theology affirms the first two aspects, “[w]hat
the Quran, and with it the whole corporate mind of Islam, denies is the third dimension, i.e., God’s act. It is this which is totally precluded by every category of theology and faith.” In order to bring home that point,Cragg
pointedly expresses the Muslim judgment: “‘God wasnot
in Christ reconciling the world to himself’: he was with Jesus withdrawing him to heaven.”
That judgment is valid even in light of the fact that between theAnselmian
focus on law and legal demands and Islam there is some resonance. In Islam, disobedience brings about punishment. However, the difference lies in how death is related to punishment: whereas in much of traditional Christian theology death is a result of sin, in Islam it is not, death is natural.
And apart from that question, Islam does not know the Christian kind of doctrine of atonement for others’ sins.
0%
Author: Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen
