DOES NOT REVEAL;
JESUS WAS SUBSTITUTED WITH ANOTHER MAN
ON THE CROSS OR BEFORE
(Revised on October 31, 1999 )
Recently I received from an Imam, a complimentary copy of the booklet 'A
BRIEF ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING ISLAM'. This beautifully illustrated
publication is published by DARUSSALAM, Publishers and Distributors, Houston,
On page 58 appears the
under mentioned English text of a verse from the Holy Qur'an:
...They said, “We killed the
Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of God." They did not kill him,
nor did they crucify him, but the likeness of him was put on another man
(and they killed that man)... (Qur'an,
Last year I purchased a copy of 'THE NOBLE QUR'AN' in English Language.
The cover page states "Interpretation of the meanings of The Noble Qur'an'.
Inside it reads; THE NOBLE QUR'AN Translated by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din
Al-Hilali and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Published by DARUSSALAM, Publishers
and Distributors, P. O. Box 22743, Riyadh, 11416, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Fifteenth Revised Edition. December 1996.
199 appears the under mentioned English text for the above verse 4:157:
"And because of their saying (in boast).
We killed Messiah 'Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of
Allah," -- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance
of 'Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)..."
After reading of the above
text or texts a reader may conclude that Allah (SWT) has Himself
Revealed in His Own Words the;
of 'Isa (Jesus) with another man".
The wordings of the original Arabic text do not
categorically speak of "substitution of 'Isa (a.s.)
with another man". Here is the transliteration of the actual Arabic
text and its literal translation as translated by other Muslim and non
Muslim translators. I hope and pray that this will give the readers an
opportunity to understand the "Words of Allah".
The publishers of 'The Noble Qur'an' have printed the original
Arabic text, side by side with the English text. The text which reads:
"but they killed him not,
nor crucified him, but the resemblance of
'Isa (Jesus) was put over
another man (and they killed that man)"
is the translation / interpretation of the
Arabic text that reads:
"wa ma qatala hu wa ma salabu
hu wa lakin shubbiha lahum"
The variations appear in the translation/interpretation
of the end portion of the verse which reads: "wa
lakin shubbiha lahum"
wa means: And, also, but, whilst.
But, still, nevertheless.
To be made like; A likeness or similitude.
(This could refer to: A likeness
or similitude (of Jesus), or
A likeness or similitude (of Killing), or
A likeness or similitude (of Crucifixion), or
A likeness or similitude (of Killing & Crucifixion)
Was made for them.
Below are the other English translations by
Muslims and non Muslim scholars for comparison:
1. Translation by Allama Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
they killed him not, nor crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them."
2. Translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall:
slew him not nor crucified
but it appeared so unto them;"
3. Translation by Professor Arthur J. Arberry:
they did not slay him, neither crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them."
In the above English translations the translators
have refrained from advocating any specific theory since Allah (SWT) has
not mentioned any of the prevalent theories on the subject in this verse
or anywhere else in the Qur'an. (I repeat "in the
Muslim scholars have in the past advocated
more than one theory which can be also regarded as an applicable interpretations
of the phrase "but a likeness of that was shown to
them". As for an example, Sheikh Ahmed Deedat had written a well
publicized booklet 'Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction' based upon the so called
(The word "swoon" means; to faint).
It is not my place to judge or to declare which
theory is the Reality. All I am trying to emphasize is that since Allah
(SWT) has not categorically declared "Jesus was substituted
with another man", the factual translation should leave the doors
open for the alternate theory or theories. The prevalent theory or theories,
based upon any document or documents other than the
Qur'an, can be included within the footnotes of the verse, for the
knowledge of the readers. They should not form the part and parcel of The
Revealed Text. In Surah Al- 'Imran (3), verse
7, Allah (SWT) clearly reveals that no one knows "the true meanings" of
the verses that are not entirely clear, except Allah.
I am sad to see that people who have an easy
access to propagate the TRUTH - Revealed by Allah (swt), are propagating
their own theory of SUBSTITUTION in the name of Allah (swt). I have also
noticed that the original Commentary written by Abdullah Yusuf Ali on this
subject has also been edited by the publishers or the editors of the revised
To read more on the subject of Shaikh Deedat's
"Swoon Theory" and how it concurs with the biblical texts and the prophecies
by Jesus, please click HERE and
read the text under the sub-heading:
'The Final Days Of The Ministry Of Jesus'.
Allah knows the Realities...
A Recent Christian Criticism:
prolific writer and critic named Andrew Vargo writes in his opening passage
under the heading; Responses to Akbarally Meherally's site, Section B Part
7 under the heading "answering-islam":
"Mr. Meherally, in this
section, tells us that the Qur'an does not explicitly say that another
man was substituted for Jesus on the cross."
He then adds: "I
agree. The Qur'an does not say that another man was substituted on the
cross for Jesus."
(Thanks, Mr. Vargo for your outright support...
A little later the critic raises issues from verses
5:75, 3:144, 3:46 and 19:33 of the Qur'an along with the text from verse
under study (4:158), on the following specific subjects:
a) Jesus was no different from other messengers
b) Jesus taught when he was
of old age.
c) Allah raised Jesus
up unto Himself.
Basically speaking or briefly, the Christian critic
who has read the various translations of the Holy Qur'an, tries to point
out that these verses from the Qur'an contradict the claim that Jesus did
"swoon" (fainted) on the cross and did not die.
He was literally raised up.
My Response: The
"Swoon Theory" does not claim that Jesus who did "swoon" (faint) on the
lived ever after and became immortal.
The Bible records that Jesus met his disciples
never made a public appearance. Obviously, one who had survived the process
of "Crucifixion" ( a Decreed Punishment), would not risk staying in the
area of his trials and be detected by Jews or the Roman soldiers. He probably
could have moved on to another location or he went into hiding. There is
no reliable historical record of what happened to the entity that showed
his hands with nail marks to the doubting Thomas. Who can say that this
entity who had the physical body
did not live to be old and pass away like many other Messengers of Allah
that have passed away before him?
The Bible records
Jesus was not old
when he was put on the cross. The critic mentions "he was about 33 years
old - hardly an "old age". If
the critic had reflected positively with an open mind he would have noticed
that the "Swoon Theory" has in fact a support from the Qur'an
since it mentions about the "old
age" of Jesus. Only an entity (Jesus) who
not die on the cross and did survive the attempt of his enemies to do that
could live to be of old age and
die like the other Messengers.
As for the text
"I (Jesus) shall be
raised up to life (again)" of verse 19:33 (translation by Yusuf Ali), here
Allah (SWT) is speaking of raising again in the future, on the Day of Judgement.
Please read also 19:15.
the Christian critic quotes "Nay, Allah raised
him up unto Himself" from verse 4:158 and
tries to prove Jesus was literally raised up in his body by Allah. The
Arabic phrase (rafa'u) used for the translated words "raised him" also
translates "exalted him". Any Arabic dictionary could confirm that. The
translation of the same root word in the verse 94:4 speaks of the exalting
of prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Please also read verse 2:253.
In the original unedited
copy of the translation of the Qur'an by Abdullah
Yusuf Ali (published from Lahore), the footnote number 664 continues and
"...another (school of thought) holds
that he (Jesus) did die (v.120) but not when he was supposed to have to
be crucified, and that his "being raised" unto God means that instead of
being disgraced as a malefactor, as the Jews intended, he was on the contrary
honoured by God as His Apostle: see also next verse. The same word rafa'a
is used in association with honour in connection with al-Mustafa in xciv:4"
I hope the critic
would make the necessary amends on his web site.
With Love and Peace... Akbarally
Another Criticism by a Christian
The reader has invited my attention
to the end part of Luke 24:51, which in King James Version reads:
"... he (Jesus) was parted from them
and was carried up into heaven".
I wish to invite the readers attention to the footnote written by the editors
of 'New Revised Standard Version' after the above text. It reads: "Other
ancient authorities lack
and was carried up into heaven".
FYI, the next verse 52 in
K.J.V. reads: "And (they) worshipped him,"
The footnote in N.R.S.V. reads: "Other ancient authorities lack
and worshipped him".
To read other articles by the author, click:
Please send your comments to author
Akbarally Meherally at email@example.com