Did God deceive people regarding the Crucifixion from an Islamic Standpoint
Question 1: Does 4:157 mean that God deceived people?
Answer:
Let us examine and unpack this question. Firstly, it is important to understand that the substitution theory is one of the Muslim theories regarding 4:157-158. There are other views like the swoon theory which posits that Jesus went on the cross but was taken down alive. However, all Muslim scholars agree that Jesus was not killed on the cross. The details of the how are not part of Islamic Theology as such. Does this make God a deceiver? Was there some deception involved? Many scholars who hold to the substitution theory do not believe that someone was made to look like Christ by God. They simply believe that there was a confusion and the Romans crucified the wrong man, perhaps Simon of Cyrene. Now can this be deception from God? Doesn’t this happen everyday? People see someone and think it is someone else. It happens to me every now and then and has happened famously in the past for assassinations and arrests. This doesn’t mean God deceived the people, only that their senses were unable to grasp the reality. How many people see a mirage in the desert thinking it is water only to get there and find nothing? Did God deceive them? Think about hallucinations that are well documented. The fact that God allows something to happen which results in us getting false information about reality does not result in a blameworthy deception otherwise God would be a deceiver in all religions then as people are constantly being deceived by their senses.
In fact, doesn’t God cause events which make people who are on false religions think they are correct? How else do we explain the sightings of the angel Moroni to Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) and all the other miracles attributing to religious figures that Muslims and Christians consider false? Even more ubiquitous than this, is when God allows prayers to seem as though they are answered from those following false religions and gives them prosperity, knowing it would delude them into thinking they are upon truth? How would a Christian explain the fact that companions of the Prophet Muhammad saw the moon split when he pointed at it? I’m sure the Christian would think they were deceived, but who was the deceiver?
Interestingly the Bible quite explicitly tells us that God can deceive in the ways mentioned above. See the following verses,
“And the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’
“One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, ‘I will entice him.’ ” ‘By what means?’ the LORD asked.” ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. ” ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the LORD. ‘Go and do it.’ (2 Kings 22:20-22)
Also,
“Then I said, “Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.” Jeremiah 4:10.
The matter is resolved by understanding deception as follows. Firstly, according to many theologians, God’s acts are not subject to ethical judgments because He is the King of Kings. But even amongst those who say His actions are, this type of deception will only be worthy of criticism if:
1. It is such that this deception results in them being taken to task on Judgement Day
2. And if they were not given the ability to discern the truth from falsehood by their God given abilities.
If both of these are not found, it will not be something blameworthy. So if God deceived a person in the desert into thinking there was an oasis, this will not be blameworthy deception unless he takes him to task for being deceived. If God sends false prophets to deceive, and takes those who fall for them to task, this too will not be blameworthy if He gave them the ability to recognise the truth.
In the case of Jesus’ alleged crucifixion, and Islamic scholars through the ages have discussed this, there was no blame on any disciples or companions of disciples if they heard news that Jesus was crucified and believed it. Simply believing that he was crucified is not something they will be taken to task for. As for people who live after the Quran was revealed, and they have been exposed to it, they can be taken to task for still believing in it when God has said otherwise.
Question 2: Does Christianity arising mean Jesus was a failed prophet in the Islamic paradigm?
We need to first realise that in Islam especially, all prophets are the chosen people of God. Thus, they all carried out their duties as they ought to. Some prophets like Noah, preached and preached and yet very few accepted. Yet he is not regarded as a failed prophet. He delivered the message as was his job, the peoples acceptance is on their head. Take Lot for example, he was unable to stop his people from their wretched actions, yet he is not considered a failure. What about Jeremiah and Ezekiel who tried so hard to get their people to give up their evil ways but were not “successful” in that regard. This does not mean they are failures at all. This reflects a failure on the part of the people.
In the case of Jesus, he was quite successful. He had many disciples who all believed in One God and followed the law together with its spirit. It was only after Pauline Christianity came to dominate that his true message was lost. This happened to all the prophets of God prior to him. Decades or centuries after them, there people were deviated into worshipping false Gods. And yet this definitely does not mean Jesus or any of them were failed prophets. Also, in the Islamic paradigm Jesus is set to return and set the record straight on the many matters he has been misrepresented in.
Question 3: Is there another interpretation of 4:157 that can better accord with the historical facts? Could it be understood just like 3:169?
There’s a few things to unpack regarding this. Firstly, there is a very sparse historical record regarding Jesus’ life. So there are no confirmed eye-witness testimonies. The four gospels are actually anonymous and do not claim to be written by disciples. In fact if you read Luke, he seems to be telling you that he went about asking secondary sources. Only the Gospel of John alludes to a disciple being involved, but then too he isnt said to be the author. In any case, there are many Gospels outside the New Testament that explicitly claim to be written by disciples like the Gospel of Peter, Thomas and Mary, yet no Christian believes what’s in there. Many of those were forgeries. Beyond the Gospels, there is only Paul who we can have no certainty regarding, especially considering he never really met Jesus apart from a possible hallucination. The extra biblical record is rather weak as well. From the first 150 years there is only Tacitus and Josephus. These historians never met Jesus and probably never met anyone who knew him either. They were going on what was commonly believed and so they wrote it down. The Josephus quote is widely thought to be a forgery, though not by all scholars. Whilst it is true that most scholars do believe Jesus was crucified, that is only because due to the generally sparse historical record from antiquity, a low bar was set for evidence required to prove something.
4:157 does not only say that Jesus was not killed. It says ولكن شبه لهم which, no matter what translation you take, refers to the fact that although he wasn’t crucified, people thought he was. Therefore, the Quranic narrative is not just that Jesus was not crucified, it is that he was not crucified but people thought he was. Now every single piece of historical evidence only proves that some people living after Jesus thought he was crucified, and not that he was actually crucified because we have no confirmed eye witness accounts. Thus the historical record does not really go against the standard interpretation of 4:157.
As for 3:169. This simply is stating that those who have been killed in the way of God are still alive, although in another, perhaps more complete sense. It does not negate the fact that they did taste death, which was the soul leaving the body. In Islamic theology, after death, the souls continue to live in the grave, although their level of life is not of the same level as those who died in the way of God. Therefore this verse does play into our understanding of Jesus, in that when he does die, he will still be alive in a different sense. However, it says nothing about whether he was crucified or not. That is clearly stated in 4:157 where it is negated. Besides, in other verses of the Quran God says he protected Jesus, for example 5:110.
Even the prophecies of the Messiah in the Old Testament and the one Satan applies to Jesus when he tests him implies that God will save him.
Question 4:
There are two hypotheses on the table:
H1: Jesus died by crucifixion.
H2: Jesus did not die by crucifixion, but Allah tricked people to believe so.
My question is on what basis should an objective evaluator accept H2 over H1?
Answer:
As with any two hypotheses, we look at the evidence that supports each one. We also try to be charitable an accurately portray both views. So for example, I could say, what sounds more plausible
H1: God sent his messengers to teach the worship of one God from the inception of humanity, taught the chosen people about One God, but then at the time of Jesus decided to change all that and reveal that its actually 3 persons in one being.
H2: God was consistent and so were His messengers, however others altered the message of Jesus as they did other prophets.
Notice the way I phrased H1 was to make it sound more absurd than it is. A Christian would probably phrase it differently and not speak about God suddenly changing etc. Yet even in this case, the outward sensibility of the statement in and of itself is of no consequence. The real decider will be the evidence to support each hypothesis. If God said that statement is true, then thay would be what we would believe and if He supported statement two that would what we would believe. Similiar with your question. Wherever the evidence points we follow.
However, there is one extra consideration that is paramount in these discussions. What counts as evidence. So too Christians, the Bible counts as evidence but not to atheists. Therefore this will result in them reaching different conclusions. I’ll give two examples.
Number 1: The historicity of the Exodus
According to secular historians, the story of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt across the Red Sea to the Sinai and the subsequent wandering the desert for 40 years of almost 2 million people is not a historically verifiable truth. In light of the archeological records, the population statistics and ancient Egyptian history, this story cannot be verified and is implausible and should not be believed. This is a logical conclusion for those who do not accept the Bible or the Quran. However for those Christians who believe the Bible is the word of God, they have evidence that shows that it did happen. That evidence is the fact that God said it did in the Bible. So too Muslims believe it because God said it in the Quran and God is all knowing. The issue then is of what is considered evidence and what isn’t. It is upto the Christian to show the atheist that the Bible is from God and if the Atheist accepts that he will accept the exodus. Think about the parable between this and whether Jesus was crucified or not, I will elaborate on it a little later.
Example 2: Did the human species evolve from prior species?
According to atheists, based on the fossil evidence, the DNA and other biological factors, human beings seem to obviously be evolved from prior humanoid creatures. However, those who accept the Bible or the Quran have an extra source of evidence which tells them that although it seems like that biologically, we have direct explicit statements from God telling us Adam was created and not evolved. Therefore, with this extra source of knowledge they will differ with the atheist. The correct belief will depend on whether these Holy Books are really from God. If they are, then the belief of Adam being created and not evolved would be true.
Having understood these examples, let’s move on to the question you cited.
H1: Jesus was crucified
H2: Jesus was not, but people came to believe he was.
Now, if an objective evaluator believes that the Quran is from God, then regardless of the archeological or historical evidence, they will believe that Jesus was not crucified, just like the Christian would for the exodus and the wandering. The question then becomes, can we prove that the Quran is divine and preserved? The answer to that is emphatically yes. There are many miracles in the Quran which will prove to the objective evaluator that it is from God. Together with this, it’s preservation is impeccable. Thus based on this, an objective evaluator would accept it as being from God and then therefore accept that Jesus was not crucified.
However, what about the person who hasn’t yet accepted the Quran or the Bible. For this person, even then, there is no solid evidence either way. There is only evidence, as discussed before, that people thought he was crucified.
For the person who accepts the Gospel as being divinely inspired, he or she would obviously believe Jesus was crucified. However, there is too much of evidence against the reliability of the New Testament to allow a neutral observer to believe that it is verbatim the inspired word of God. There are too many contradictions, mistakes and historical errors.
In essence then, the argument boils down to what counts as evidence and what doesn’t.
I just want to reiterate the point that Islam does not expect people who didn’t receive the Quran to believe that Jesus was not crucified. If they believed that because of what they heard, and they didn’t receive contradictory information, then so be it. Many prophets were actually killed by their people so there is nothing inherently impossible about this. However, when one believes that a death was needed for God to forgive, or that God is one being made up of three persons then this is an issue that they could be taken to task for.