Possible Reasons for Contradictory Muslim Views on Jesus' Death

As described above, Muslim interpreters come up with very contradictory answers to the

question of Jesus' death. Some understand the Qur'an to mean that Jesus died around 2000 years ago, while others interpret the relevant texts to mean that Jesus will only die at the end of time, shortly before the Last Judgement. Others come to the conclusion that Jesus would never experience a natural death. In my opinion, there are three main reasons for this chaotic situation:

(i) Neglecting the context:  Many interpreters do not take the context and the audience addressed in these verses into consideration seriously enough. For example, we know that the statements in Al-i İmran 3:55 were made in the context of the visit of a delegation of Arab Christians from Najran. If, when interpreting these verses, one were to take into account those interlocuters' beliefs with regard to the departure of Jesus from this earth, one could do more justice to the original message of the Qur'an in this passage. Likewise, the context of the verses in Nisa 4:157-159 makes it clear that Muhammad is there addressing Jewish views on the crucifixion of Jesus. This is therefore not a clarification or even a correction of Christian ideas and certainly not a correction of the Gospel, but clearly addresses Jewish misperceptions on the subject of Jesus' death. If one were to first study the Jewish oppinions on this subject, Muhammad's answer would make much more sense.

(ii) Rapid harmonization:  Many interpreters are very keen to harmonize the four different Qur'anic statements on Jesus' departure from the earth. Of course, one has to assume that these different statements do not contradict each other, but that does not mean that one has to forego a carefull investigation in how the treatment of the same topic changes in details depending on the target group. The fact that the Qur'an brings up the topic of Jesus' departure to both Christians (Al-i İmran 3:55) and Jews (Nisa 4:157) must be used as an advantage: how does the Qur'an react to the respective audiences' differing ideas; which existing opinions does it support, which does it contradict? Just to mention one example: It cannot be overlooked that the treatment of the topic in 4:157-159 is much more emotional than the same treatment in 3:55. While in 4:157 the Jewish idea is totally rejected and corrected - you have not killed nor crucified; you do not know the truth; you are in doubt - the Qur'an seems to mainly support the opinions of the Christians, that is those who follow the Messiah: ‘… I will make those who follow thee [Jesus Messiah] superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection:...’ (Al-i İmran 3:55). There is not even found the slightest hint that the followers of Jesus could be misguided and needed to be corrected by Muhammad. On the contrary, 'until the day of resurrection' (not: 'until the correction by Muhammad'!) their discipleship brings about superiority over unbelievers. Based on these considerations, it is not very helpful when commentaries do not even attempt to study the statements of the Qur'an in the respective context, but - with the intention of harmonising - only give preference to one of the four passages mentioned above. For example, in the commentary of the Qur'an (Kur'an Yolu Tefsiri) on the official website of the Turkish Ministry of Religious Affairs, the following unhelpful reference is found under verse 3:55: ‘Because the issues of how Jesus' life on earth came to an end and how he was raised to God are closely related to the claims that he was killed and hung on the cross, they will be dealt with in the context of Nisa Sura 155-158'.1 That is, the Qur'an's treatment of the Christian view should be discussed only when the Qur'an deals with the Jewish views. However, when one reads up

on the entry under Nisa 4:155-161, it is only noted dismissively that the statement in Al-İmran 3:55 is not really meaningful compared to the statement in Nisa 4:155-161.2 An attempt at an in depth treatment of 3:55 is nowhere even remotely attempted in that entire work of interpretation. The message of 3:55 is completely covered over by the verses in Nisa 4:155-16.1 Such attempts of harmonising the two texts can hardly contribute to a correct understanding of the subject.

(iii) Localisation of the hermeneutical centre: The non-treatment of Al-i İmran 3:55 in the above-mentioned Tefsir work points to another problem: among Islamic interpreters, Nisa 4:157-159 has been chosen as the central statement on the topic of Jesus' departure from the earth. The three other passages are then understood in the light of this arbitrarily chosen hermeneutical centre. As many critics have already pointed out, as a result of that choice, clear statements in the other verses must be reinterpreted with vague auxiliary constructions: (a) The verbs muteveffîke (Al-i İmran 3:55), teveffeytenî (Maide 5:117) and emûtu (Meryem 19:33) could all easily be interpreted as referring to Jesus' physical death. Emûtu (mawt) in Meryem 19:33 is even the word normally used in the Qur'an for death.3 Muteveffîke (Al-i İmran 3:55) and teveffeytenî (Maide 5:117) go back to the stem w-f-y, which occurs 66 times in the Qur'an. Of the 66 occurrences, 25 are in the same form as the verbs in 3:55 and 5:117. Most of these verses undoubtedly refer to physical death, and in one case it is even the death of Muhammad (Mümin 40:77 4). In order to achieve agreement with the commonly accepted interpretation of 4:157f., these verbs are reinterpreted as to mean 'put to sleep' or 'called away' despite the lack of motivation for such a translation in the immediate context. (b) The clear sequence of death - resurrection - exaltation to God in 3:55 and 19:33 is questioned in the light of the interpretation of 5:157f. and changed to the effect that Jesus will first be exalted to God, then see death at the end of time on earth and finally be resurrected for the last judgement: Exaltation to God - death - resurrection (- exaltation to God again). This situation of having to vaguely reinterpret three clear Qur'anic passages simply to justify the interpretation of a fourth passage is not very satisfying. Conversely, if Nisa 4:157-159 were excluded from the discussion and only the other three passages were taken into account, the passages on Jesus' death, as found in detail in the Gospel, would also be clearly supported by the Qur'an.

Another argument against the tendency to elevate Nisa 4:157-159 to the exegetical centre is the fact that it is the most difficult and controversial of the four passages: (1) The common interpretation of Nisa 4:157-159 is based mainly on - according to critics - untrustworthy hadiths5, it does not emerge logically from the treatment of the available text. A real attempt at a grammatical and linguistic interpretation was only attempted by al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144).6 Interestingly, due to his method, he presented a very different interpretation to the common understanding of these verses.7 (2) The felt urgent need to apply for help in the hadith literature when attempting to understand the present passage Nisa 4:157-159 is due, among other things, to the occurrence of a hapax legomena8 in 4:157:9 'Shubbiha lahum'. Unfortunately, this difficult expression stands at the very centre when determining the meaning of this verse. A study of the various attempts to translate this expression is quite entertaining: the translations vary from a fairly neutral, plain rendering of its meaning, 'but it appeared so unto them' (Muhammad Pickthall), to the traditional understanding - for which, however, many interpretative additions must be inserted (see the words underlined) - 'but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)' (Muhammad Musin Khan). Due to the difficulties of interpretation with Nisa 4:157-159, strong and valid reasons for its preference over the other passages would have to be put forward. Unfortunately most commentators fail to show such convincing reasons.

In the further discussion on the topic of Jesus' death I wish to show that by avoiding the pitfalls listed above, a unified interpretation of the four texts on Jesus' recall from earth is quite possible. Since Nisa 4:155-161 is at the centre of Islamic interpretation on this topic, we will turn to this passage first, despite the above-mentioned objections to elevating this passage to the exegetical centre.

---

1 The following reference is made to the interpretation of Al-i İmran 3:55: ‘Hz. Îsâ’nın dünya hayatının son bulması ve nezd-i ilâhîye yükseltilmesi konusu, onun öldürüldüğü ve çarmıha gerildiği iddiaları ile yakından ilgili olduğundan Nisâ sûresinin 155-158. âyetlerinin tefsirinde ele alınacaktır.’ [Translation be deepl: 'The issue of the end of Jesus' earthly life and his ascension to the Divine Presence is closely related to the allegations of his murder and crucifixion, and will be discussed in the exegesis of verses 155-158 of Surat al-Nisaa.']

(Kur'an Yolu Tefsiri Cilt: 1 Sayfa: 584-585 in https://kuran.diyanet.gov.tr/tefsir/%C3%82l-i%20%C4%B0mr%C3%A2n-suresi/348/55-ayet-tefsiri (visited: 30/05/2023).

2 In connection with the treatment of Nisa 4:157: ‘Burada sayılanlar arasında yer alıp açıklanması gereken önemli bir tarihî vak‘a Hz. Îsâ’ya yönelik ihanet ve bunun sonucunda meydana gelen olaylardır. Gerçi Âl-i İmrân’da (3/55) Hz. Îsâ’nın “vefat ettirilmesi ve Allah nezdine kaldırılması” konusuna temas edilmiştir. Ancak orada da bu vefatın ve kaldırılmanın nasıl ve ne zaman olduğu konusunda açıklık yoktur. Burada açık olarak ifade edilen husus ise Hz. Îsâ’nın yahudiler tarafından katledilmediği ve aşağıda açıklanacak olan “salb” (çarmıha germe) olayının da Hz. Îsâ üzerinde gerçekleşmediğidir.’ [Translation by deepl: An important historical event that needs to be mentioned and explained here is the betrayal of Jesus Christ and the events that occurred as a result. Although in Al-Imran (3:55), the subject of "the death and lifting up of Jesus" is mentioned, there is no clarity as to how and when this death and lifting took place. What is clearly stated here is that Jesus was not murdered by the Jews and that the "salb" (crucifixion), which will be explained below, did not take place on Jesus.] (Kur'an Yolu Tefsiri Cilt: 2 Sayfa: 176-181 in https://kuran.diyanet.gov.tr/tefsir/Nis%C3%A2-suresi/648/155-161-ayet-tefsiri (visited 27/10/2022)

3 Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, p. 40.

4 'So persevere in patience; for the Promise of Allah is true: and whether We show thee (in this life) some part of what We promise them,- or We take thy soul (to Our Mercy) [neteveffeyenneke] (before that),-(in any case) it is to Us that they shall (all) return’ (Mümin 40:77).

5 ‘Research has been unable to produce any ahādīth on the crucifixion of Jesus which go back to the Prophet (ḥadīth nabawī), or of that category termed ḥadīth qudsī, i.e. ḥadīth which transmit the direct speech of God. The oldest authority for any tradition on the subject is Ibn ‘Abbās. Aside from the tafsīr attributed to him, later exegetes cite him as an authority for traditions about this verse.’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, ss. 71f.). ‘For several reasons, the traditions associated with Ibn ‘Abbās are generally thought to be untrustworthy, at least as far as the ascription is concerned’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, s. 78).‘By far the most popular versions of the substitution legend are related on the authority of Wahb. He is the Yemeni scholar of the earliest times who is best known for his knowledge of Judaism and Christianity. Ground-breaking scholarship on him and his literary legacy was published by Professor Khoury of Heidelberg. Wahb is the source of many traditions dealing with other biblical subjects and in modern times much of his exegetical and biblical tradition has been anathematized as “Isrā’īliyyāt”, that is, faulty knowledge foreign to Islam. In light of this, it is somewhat ironic that the most influential traditions denying that Jesus was crucified are traced to his authority. As the author of several books on various subjects, Wahb acquired a reputation that varied from trustworthy to “audacious liar.”’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, pp. 74f.).

6 ‘We have seen an interest in grammar before with al-Zajjāj. But it is still true that no one before al-Zamakhsharī went into such detail on grammatical problems in their tafsīr.’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, s. 153).

7 With his grammatical-linguistic exegesis, Al-Zamakhshari contradicts the traditional interpretation based on the substitution hadises by explaining that the verse does not say that Jesus was made equal to a person or a person to Jesus, but rather that what was veiled from the Jews is about the topic of discussion, namely Jesus' crucifixion: ‘If it is “the affair” that is rendered obscure and not Jesus who is “made similar” to someone else or someone else who is “made similar” to Jesus, then this makes room for a break with the substitution legend and its use in solving the linguistic problem in the Qur’an.” (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, p. 153).

8 Linguistics: 'A 'Hepax legomenon' is a word or an expression that occurs only once within a context: either in the written record of an entiren language, in the works of an author, or in a single text. ... Hapax legomenon is a transliteration of Greek ἅπαξ λεγόμενον, meaning "said once".’ (Wikipedia contributors. Hapax legomenon [Internet]. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia; 2024 Jun 15, 18:58 UTC [cited 2024 Jun 24]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hapax_legomenon&oldid=1229250528.).

9 ‘This phrase represents the single Qur’anic usage of this form of the root. As an example of hapax legomenon, it is among some of the most controversial locutions in exegesis. This distinction should not be forgotten in the following chapters where lexical equivalents are rarely offered for shubbiha. All definitions of the verb have been obtained by deducing a general meaning of “substitution” from the legends [hadiths on substitution] .…’ (Todd Lawson, Crucifixion, p. 48).