The Crucifixion and The Qur'an: An Exegetical and Historical Inquiry Into Surah 4:157-158.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Based upon Todd Lawson's book by the same name, this lecture will highlight and analyze the exegetical history of Muslim theo-Christological thought with respect to the highly controversial al-Nisa 4:157 - the only ayah in the Qur'an that explicitly references the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him). What exactly is the ayah saying? Was Christ substituted? Did he swoon? Was he actually crucified? What are the (inter)textual and historical evidences for these positions?
Learn more about Zaytuna College: www.zaytuna.edu
Join our email list for updates on the college, our programs, and events: bit.ly/3aCyBxn
Follow us on social media:
Facebook: / zaytunacollege
Twitter: / zaytunacollege
Instagram: / zaytunacollege
Linkedin: / zaytuna-college
Read articles and papers from our journal, Renovatio: renovatio.zayt...
Listen to talks and lectures from our scholars: / zaytunacollege
Zaytuna College aims to educate and prepare morally committed professional, intellectual, and spiritual leaders who are grounded in the Islamic scholarly tradition and conversant with the cultural currents and critical ideas shaping modern society.
Give the gift of knowledge: zaytuna.edu/give
With gratitude for your support,
Zaytuna College
As-salam alaykum,
Addendum: There is something that I intended to mention in this lecture but managed to overlook. I actually wrote it in pencil in the margin… There is definitely a difference of opinion as to whether or not Imam al-Ghazali is the true author or al-Radd al-Jamil. It seems that the majority opinion among both Eastern and Western scholars is that the text was pseudonymously attributed to al-Ghazali by an unknown author. In the lecture, I take the position of Massignon (d. 1962) and assume Ghazalian authorship in order to faithfully present Lawson’s text and draw out its implications.
A very respected colleague of mine brought to my attention that in al-Mustasfa, a text that is indisputably authored by Imam al-Ghazali, the Imam explicitly endorses the substitution theory. However, it may have been that al-Ghazali changed his mind on the matter later in his life. Allahu ‘Alim. Among traditional ‘ulema, al-Badawi mentions in his Mu’allafat al-Ghazali that Ghazalian authorship of al-Radd al-Jamil is highly questionable. With respect to Western scholars, Lawson gives us the following note (pg. 77, no. 24):
“Thus Hava Lazarus-Yafeh, Studies in al-Ghazali (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1975), pp. 458-87, disagrees with Massignon’s acceptance of its authenticity. The topic was recently broached in G.S. Reynolds, ‘The Ends of al-Radd al-Jamil and Its Portrayal of Christian Sects,’ Islamochristiana, 25, 1999, pp. 45-65, who rejects al-Ghazali’s authorship, and Maha El-Kaisy Friemuth, ‘AL-Radd al-Jamil: al-Ghazali’s or Pseudo-Ghazali’s?,’ in The Bible in Arab Christianity, ed. David Thomas (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2007), pp. 275-94, who is more optimistic.”
Assalmualkuim dear Skeikh if the Quran attests to the authenticity of the Bible (as you have made a very strong case for) how do we understand certain stories that portray various Prophets (peace be upon them) in a negative light within the Bible? Thank you for your amazing talk I'm very happy that you have raised the level of discourse among Muslims on theses issues.
Abdullah Safi. He was referring to the New Testament only i believe. That still has other issues. Mainly the Bible’s of today are not the Bible’s of the time of the Prophet (saw). The Bible’s of today including the New Testament aren’t the same as 1400 years ago. Not to mention they have ~100 different versions of them
@@EmeraldDiamond3 My brother I believe Dr. Ali in other talks explains that the Greek critical text of New Testament as the Injeel referred to in the Quran. Not the average standard New Testament that most Christians read today.
اسلام عليكم ورحمة اللة وبركاته
Dr Ali....i love your lectures. Awesome analysis.
Out of the 3 theories...Substitution, Swoon and Martyrdom...Which is the majority opinion amongst our traditional classical scholars? Like what would be the % in a pie chart?
Rick Nash
You raise an interesting issue - Quran 4:157-158 is not addressed to the Christians - nor is it a reference to Christianity or refutation of their false beliefs as many other verses are (refuting the trinity and divinity and son ship of Jesus) - rather this verse is a refutation and admonishment to the Jews and their claims.
So what about the Christian position on this issue?
Not a single verse or Hadith?
This verse has always fascinated me.
How is it possible that there is no explanation in the Hadith about this verse?
How could the Christians from Najran come and debate the Prophet ﷺ for 2 days without this verse and topic coming up? How could they not have discussed the crucifixion and what it means to them?
It says in the Hadith that the Christians were wearing crosses which the prophet disapproved off - so how is it possible that the crucifixion didn’t come up and verses weren’t revealed about it - considering many other verses were revealed at that time answering the objections and arguments of the Christians.
In some way, this may prove that not all Christians at that time were Paulians and followers of Paul’s false gospel in 1 Corinthians 15.
The mystery continues...
Only just came across this brother and I am an admirer MashaAllah beautiful speech. May Allah preserve you and your family Aameen.
Elhamdulillah for teachers like Dr Ali Ataie who speak in a way that English people can understand very well
A. Groß. Erroneaus indeed... referencing Kabbala Doctrine Satanism
Dr. Ataie’s position is the same one I had upon my first reading of the Qur’an, having approached it as a (former) lay Christian. As I recall, it was among the more striking aspects of the text that convinced me of its divine origin. After these years of acceptance of more popular theories (because I recognize my ignorant position), I now feel more at ease on the matter. More things are in place. Alhamdulillah, and may He reward the faculty of Zaytuna College.
At this point none of any allowable possibilities would convince me that the Qur’an was not authored by God or that I should worship Jesus. If it affirms the crucifixion then it also affirms the resurrection. And in that case I should still expect the return of the Messiah. And if I be alive then, it will settle the matter in my mind. If one the more widely accepted opinions is true then so be it. Either way I accept my ignorance and God’s wisdom. Indeed Allahu alam.
Joel Gaddis. True. In the end we don’t know the truth of the matter and will probably learn about it in the afterlife. I just see many reaches and unresolved issues in dr ataie’s lecture and also believe the substitute theory is the most logical. There is a reason it is the vast majority opinion. But you’re right. Allah knows best.
Joel Gaddis you melted my heart ❤️ May God keep guiding you ! Glory be to God, He is beyond any associations!!❤️
@@joelgaddis3867wise approach
In arabic ما قتل and لم يقتل have different meaning. First is a Negation of an allegation. The second is Negation of Event of Action.
Interesting 🤔, please simplify with ayat you are referring to.
Thanks
@@markward3981 I thinking he was referencing in the video clips ayat : 4:157 An - Nisa
@@ilyasayyub
جزاك الله خيرا
My Arabic is not that advanced but I will check it out. From memory I have a general idea. May Allah protect our Iman
He is an amazing lecturer! He does not leave his audiences dozing off confused because of terminologies and also give some hidden jokes between his passionate lecture!
The best exegesis concerning the crucifixion that our modern day has produced was penned by Jack London. It was his novel titled, The Star Rover, or, previously titled, The Jacket. It concerns the spiritual experiences of a man incarcerated in San Quentin penitentiary, locked in a dungeon, wrapped in a straitjacket, asphyxiated to the point of catatonia, awaiting his own hanging. He transcends time-space in this condition, and lives out other lives, swashbuckling adventures. Not only can the correctional officers and the warden not stop his cheer, but they cannot even perceive his triumphant achievement, which is essentially a conquest of death on a spirophysical, psychospiritual or metaphysical level. Jack London did manage to corroborate both the New Testament as well as the Quran at the same time. This is indisputable. To understand that the Quran is relevant far beyond this world is one key. Islam is a Heavenly system, and the religion of Firdaus; and Islamic practice is not a mere device to achieve station there. Islam pre-existed the Prophet Muhammad, and Jesus, and it pre-existed Adam.
1:19:41 thus ayatul shalb actually affirms that Jesus was crucified, but he was alive when put on the cross. This is truly a non mainstream understanding of the Qur'an text but yet eye opening and put the puzzles into place. Thank you Zaytuna and Prof Ataie.
jesus was put on the cross the coran is clear ua-cam.com/video/qWihPRRwo_I/v-deo.html
??? What Ayat
@@markward3981 ua-cam.com/video/kkKBVHo1-rY/v-deo.html&t
ua-cam.com/video/iNBh-5jKdxs/v-deo.html
For a clearer stance of the Islamic view of the crucifixion, please watch the following video which clearly shows that the humiliation and torture Jesus would have had to endure to get to the cross for God to eventually take his soul, runs contrary to Prophecy in Old Testament and Allah taking Jesus up before his death (4:158):
ua-cam.com/video/Y0glqJGMJS0/v-deo.html
Ali Ataie is a theological and academic powerhouse!
Yes he is once in a life time scholar
Not really. He literally says he doesn't know what happened in 1:35:10 !!! 🤣
THE QURAN MUST BE READ WITH A COGNIZANCE THAT IT IS ENGAGING INTER TEXTUALLY WITH JEWISH,CHRISTIAN AND NEAR EASTERN TEXTUAL AND ORAL TRADITIONS DURING THE LATE ANTIQUITY. As a convert to Islam i had sleepless nights trying to understand this ayah.by far this is the best exegesis of this text.
This exegesis may also explain why the Quran draw from stories Christians consider as apocryphal such as the Arabic Infancy Gospel.The quran is correcting .
The Qur'an is correction for Galatians.
read gospel of barnabas last chapters, most likely is a forgery but it offers a very interesting plot in the crufixion of judas getting in the cross and the story is amazing very interesting, then its most likely written by a enemy of church fra marino in 1300-1500s but interesting last chapter suggest to read it
'If you are gonna throw fruit,aim higher '😂 May Allah bless Dr.Ali Ataie
So the next topic you should discuss is Isaiah chapter 53. The Jews do not like to touch it. Islam recognizes Yesou' as the Messiah (al Masih) and Chapter 53 of Isaiah makes all this clear ... the crucifixion, the atonement, etc. And nobody can change the words of Allah. The Quran was given to validate the Jewish texts. (musaddiqan)
Well on that, there is a problem, because the Quran makes 2 assertions about Jesus, which cannot BOTH be true! These are the 2 assertions:
*1) Jesus is the Messiah*
*2) Jesus was not crucified*
Theologically, these CANNOT BOTH be true and the reason for this is that there has been noted by some, that there are 2 'portraits' of the Messiah in the Old Testament prophecies. These are:
*1) Messiah ben Yosef (the 'Suffering Messiah of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22)*
*2) Messiah ben David (the 'Kingly Messiah of Isaiah 11 and Psalm 2)*
Jesus according to scripture MUST fulfil one of these two portraits of the Messiah, in order to actually be the Messiah. Either he is (1) Messiah ben Yosef, OR he is (2) Messiah ben David.
Messiah ben David, as portrayed in Isaiah 11 and Psalm 2, will be the Anointed King over Jerusalem who will come in great power and authority to rule over the entire world of nations. Is this a portrait of Jesus, 2000 years ago? No! So he is not "Messiah ben David".
Was Jesus one who Suffered as described in Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 ? Yes! Then he is Messiah ben Yosef, the Suffering Messiah BECAUSE he fulfilled the prophecies if Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 which describe him being Crucified.
....So here is the problem: The Quran places itself in the irreconcilable position of "having its cake and eating it"! In other words it makes the claim that Jesus is the Messiah BUT he was NOT crucified! This is a direct Theological Contradiction!
*There are ONLY 2 possibilities. Either:*
*a) Jesus was NOT crucified and is NOT the Messiah*
OR
*b) Jesus was Crucified and he IS the Messiah.*
It cannot be (a) + (b), because they cancel each other out and its a contradiction!
Put simply, the Crucifixion is the Qualification for Jesus TO BE THE MESSIAH. If he was NOT crucified, then he is NOT the Messiah! But the Quran claims that he IS the Messiah - hence the Quran contains an irreconcileable contradiction, that cannot be removed and is written into it for all time!
This doesn't seem like the same scholar i have been seeing on blogging theology. This is the first time ive seen Ali address an established doctrine of aqeedah without affirming it.
Isa (AS) has not died yet.
I preface this by saying it seems quite plausible that Paul was a Unitarian. That being said, regarding Mithraism, "Edwin Yamauchi, one of the foremost scholars on ancient Persia and Mithraism states, 'The earnest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated after A.D. 140. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. That’s basically what’s wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity.'” (Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus, 169)
beautiful recitation of the quran and its translation in the beginning
QURAN 4;157-8 THEN READ QURAN 3;55......ALLAH IS A FLASE GOD
I disagree with the conclusion of the sheikh. He should have taken the verse 4:159 into consideration.
That verse proves Jesus didn't die. It is saying before his actual death all will believe in him so in other words he hadn't died yet.
There are 2 camps of those who believe in the death of Jesus:
1) he won't came back
2) he was resurrected and will come back
The 1st contradicts mutawatir hadiths and isn't a serious view.
The 2nd has to explain away the athar of Ibn Abbas, the zahir of صلب and the zahir of قتل , the zahir of that verse combined (قتل + صلب), as well as challenges the linguistic beauty of the Qur'an. It also has to explain away "the day I was born, will die and be resurrected" as there is no mention of 2 deaths or 2 resurrections or 2 days. Thus you can see the mental gymnastics that this camp has to go through. Furthermore it has to explain away the idea of no soul tasting death twice (some can argue for exceptions). It also contradicts pretty much all known Sunni mufassirin's understanding of Jesus not having died.
However this camp takes the one reading of متوفيك as its support and pretty much this is the only evidence they have.
Thus you can see why the vast majority of Islamic scholarship took the view that Jesus did not die.
If one reads the tafsirs on the verse of متوفيك, one sees that Ali Ataie did not give, even remotely, a faithful representation of the different linguistic possibilities of the word in this verse. I suggest that readers check out the tafsirs of Ibn Ashur, Tabari, Baydawi, Razi etc on this.
As for the view that the Gospels haven't changed, and attributing this to certain Muslim scholars, then this is a misunderstanding. It is like arguing for the view of certain scholars that the earth is flat. There is now clear evidence for the tampering of the 4 Gospels, which shows that the view that the Gospels haven't changed, is rejected.
Ali Ataie should combine modern facts when understanding classical views and making interpretations.
well spoken, I agree,
Plus, I understand the ayah as they did not kill him, nor EVEN crucify him
crucify could mean 1. hanged and killed by the mean of the cross 2.hanged but not killed
if it meant number 1, if you word the ayah to explain it it would sound like this
they did not kill him nor killed by mean of crucifixion .... this sound redundant
if the option is 2 then it would sound
they did not kill him NOR EVEN put on the cross..
Plus God would not allow his messenger to be killed that way, you may argue some prophets were killed yes, but i doubt it that they were killed in that horrible manner, plus Jesus prayed and in the gospel there is a verse in john saying his prayer were answered... add to that the majority of scholar do not support this innovative way of looking at it.. to me it is clear.. the did not kill him nor EVEN put him on the cross.
Please read this article and find complete truth, if you have an unanswered question:
1. www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/
2. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-son-of-mary-islamic-beliefs/
3. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-christ-died-natural-death/
Hopefully, someone can benefit from it.
I have another point of view: he died, was buried, and his body has been preserved in the grave -- found by an early Muslim in Wadi 'Aqiq, near Madina -- as are the bodies of all prophets. When the promise of Allah comes true, he will be raised back to life from the grave, and will be taken by angels, through the sky, to Damascus; there he will descend so that he can meet the Muslims fighting the Dajjal, and will assist them by killing the Dajjal (and will show them the Dajjal's blood on his spear). Before that, the Muslims will invite him to lead them in prayer, and he will refuse; he will say, among other things, something like "Your leader is the best leader, and Allah is pleased with him; as for me, I have been sent only as a counsellor."
السلام عليكم
جزاك الله خيرا
I think we are in the days spoken of so called scholars of Islam are becoming the most dangerous to the Iman of the masses. How does one use the Bible to interpret the Quran.
اِذۡ قَالَ اللّٰهُ يٰعِيۡسٰۤى اِنِّىۡ مُتَوَفِّيۡكَ وَرَافِعُكَ اِلَىَّ وَمُطَهِّرُكَ مِنَ الَّذِيۡنَ كَفَرُوۡا وَجَاعِلُ الَّذِيۡنَ اتَّبَعُوۡكَ فَوۡقَ الَّذِيۡنَ كَفَرُوۡۤا اِلٰى يَوۡمِ الۡقِيٰمَةِ ۚ ثُمَّ اِلَىَّ مَرۡجِعُكُمۡ فَاَحۡكُمُ بَيۡنَكُمۡ فِيۡمَا كُنۡتُمۡ فِيۡهِ تَخۡتَلِفُوۡنَ
(3:55) (And it was part of His scheme) when Allah said: 'O Jesus! I will recall you51 and raise you up to Me and will purify you (of the company) of those who disbelieve,52 and will set your followers above the unbelievers till the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me you shall return, and I will judge between you regarding what you differed.
51. The expression used is mutawaffika. The original meaning of tawaffa is to take and receive. To 'seize a person's sou!' constitutes the figurative rather than the literal meaning of the word. Here the word is used in the sense of 'recall', for example, the recall of an official from his work. The Israelites had persisted in their disobedience, and despite repeated warnings and admonitions their collective behaviour had become increasingly corrupt. They had killed a succession of Prophets and were out to shed the blood of all those who invited them to righteousness and moral rectitude. In order to complete His argument against them, and to give them a last chance to reform themselves, God sent to them two great Prophets, Jesus and John the Baptist. These Prophets carried with them such overwhelming proof of their designation by God that no ground was left for anyone to disbelieve in them, except those who were obstinately hostile to the Truth and who had become exceedingly bold in their opposition to it.
the classical view of muslim scholars on crucifixion is based on their knoweldge of how God uses the language too.. When Allah's , SW, deny a thing with a word or affirm a thing with a word frequently if it encompasses the 2 meanings of the word. both meaning apply. Notice "they killed him not NOR crucify him" What is the obvious first read on this? that is the answer. example when God said Roman was defeated but will win "fei adna" adna mean the closest land (to Arabia) but Adna means to lowest, and both meaning apply, dead sea area is the closest to Arabia and it is the lowest land on earth (ardh) not sea.
Add to that God deny the killing AND the crucifixion process
Ali Ataie, insinuate , and Shabir pointed out that crucifixion has 2 meaning:
1. crucified and died on the cross
2. crucified but then taken down from the cross without dying.
That is true, but:
if it is the First meaning Allah saying they did not Kill him debunk the first meaning of word "Crucifixion".
If the second meaning happened (nailed to the cross but survived), then the quran would be partially inaccurate because it would miss the first meaning of the word crucifixion (that is he was crucified AND DIED, on the cross). reader need to read that again.. it requires concentration..
Further, If God said "but they did not CRUCIFY him" alone without the verb "kill" then that would be a different story, (it open the possibility that they may or MAY NOT killed him by other mean).
Another point to consider, if the 1st meaning of crucifixion happened, he was killed, : Allah would be saying the did not kill him (that is enough) NOR killed him (by mean of hanging on the cross), that is unnecessary given the first word "they did not kill him which encompass death by crucifixion) so why God added NOR crucified him? this would render a redundant word, though you can argue saying that Quran sometimes use emphatic language, yes that is true but only to affirm a thing further: they did not kill him AND OR crucified him, that is, In the sense of "they did not kill him NOT EVEN he was hanged on the cross).
Also this verse may shed light " Indeed, the penalty1 for those who wage war2 against Allāh and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment" Quran 5-33
I bet the word crucified here mans dying by crucifixion not just hanged on the cross and taken away!! hence when God said "they did not kill him NOR Crucified him" it means he was not killed by mean of crucifixion... I know this may sound confusing that is why I urge the interested reader to read carefully.
If crucifixion has 2 meanings , 1 die, and or 2 just hanged but survived, and Jesus may have been put on the cross but survived, then Quran would be partially imprecise to meet the second meaning because the main meaning of the word Is killed by mean of crucifixion!! And Quran is far from imprecision.
PLUS when in doubt, I think God would not allow it for his messenger to be killed or humiliated that way. If you argue that there were prophets before him who were killed, the answer will be yes but Quran did not say MESSENGERS, and Jesus was Messenger of Almighty, and not in this atrocious way.
I have a theory about the nuances of the substitute theory, if it ever happened, though as you know as Muslims it is not part of our creed to know what happen to Jesus pbuh. Not even the death of any prophet. To the Church it is different story.
And God knows best
Maybe Allah was refering to Jewish claim in the Talmud that they stoned jesus to death and THEN crucify his already dead body. This is in talmud sanhedrin verse 40ish.
Plus, the quranic verse was a direct answer to the boast of jews that they had killed jesus the messiah right in the preceding verse.
But at the same time this verse also destroys christian claim that he died on the cross.
Wallahuaalam.
Shiek Ahmed deedat r.a. In his lecture crucifixion or crucifiction is a great lesson on this topic and cover it profoundly. May Allah reward him greatly.
Did Dr. Alli disparage Ahmad Deedat for his stance at all in some way even as a Muslim apologist??????????
Khaleed Evans why Ahmad Dedat is called apologist ?
@@khaleedevans9334 ali ataie doesn’t do apologetics anymore like deedat or shabir Ally, he doesn’t do polemical debates anymore because it is bad for nafs he says
@@samatteb1 Because he is an apologist. It's not an insult: In theology, apologetics is rational argument in defense of something-usually something that has been challenged or attacked. To be an apologist within theology isn't to apologise for something-it's to defend something.
@@jurgeni7545 In Christianity, this certainly isn't true. Apologetics had a foundational role in the formation of early Christian theology. I'd say that in the modern era, apologetics is actually characteristic of the most famous (tho not the most scholarly) Muslim public intellectuals. Pretty much all da'is engage in apologetics. The important thing, tho, is that the person who said Ahmed Deedat was engaging in apologetics or was an apologist wasn't insulting him or belittling him or implying something was wrong with Islam: It's just a descriptor of one kind of theological work.
It was an enlightening experience hearing from a Shia scholar mind-piece seeing he be able to quote from both sides of schools equally
this isn't a shia scholar bro lmao
I respectfully disagree with Dr Ali from a plain reading of Quran 4:158. It was he (the Messiah) who was “raised up” not just ‘his soul’. For Allah to raised up a corpse through the heavens is too unreasonable for me.
The presentation is very lucid and his quotes from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts make it impressive. On the whole the lecture seems to support the known biblical view on the crucifixion of Jesus, his death on the cross, his resurrection, and vicarious atonement, despite the categorical statement in the Quran that they (the Jews) neither killed him nor did they crucify him, but it was made to appear so to them. He takes the stand by suggesting that there is a sub-text to be derived from Talmudic and other Jewish works, which should be taken into account and that the Quran is only responding to these claims specifically. This leads to deviation from the obvious meaning of the Quran's words and also introduces extraneous factors in an attempt to reconcile the Quran with the New Testament. To lend weight to his argument, he also refers to the claims of the Ahmadi or Qadiani group who give their own interpretation of events to support their heretical beliefs about their founder being the Messiah. Such claims have been rejected unanimously by all Islamic schools of thought and cannot be taken as representing the Muslim point of view on the subject. Qadianis' founder Mirza Ghulam Ahmad admits that he was planted and nourished by the British (خود کاشتہ) and this was one of the devices introduced by the imperial power to suppress the insurrectionist fervor of Indian Muslims as displayed in the 'sepoy mutiny' of 1857. I am sorry to say that in the prevailing conditions some Muslim scholars bend over backwards in order to adjust the Muslim position and bring it closer to Christian views, even at the cost of contradicting the obvious meaning of the Quran and the clear explanations handed down by ijma'.
السلام عليكم
Yes, thanks for posting. I noticed this also . He , the speaker spell bounds, entertains and impresses with his phrases , quotes , languages and comedy but when one steps back and takes a simple look he is denying/disagreeing with the apparent meaning of Arabic in Quran and well known/transmitted meaning. Also he craftily strengthens the authenticity of Bible, the uses it to pretext his position on the ayat 4:157; this is problematic, the Quran is Al Furqan , it corrects and abrogates other scriptures (said revelations ) not the other way around. His method makes the Bible judge the Quran. We are in a dangerous time . May Allah protect our Iman.
Yup same here
@@markward3981 The fact is, the earlier experts of the Arabic language (the so-called grammarians) who analyzed the verse strictly on grammatical grounds, such as Yahya Ibn Ziyad Al-Farra, Al-Zajjaj, Al-Zamakhshari concluded that the passage was not about Jesus being killed. There is also the source from the well respected Al-Tabari who claims that Jesus was tortured, crucified on the cross and buried on a mountaintop.
@@markward3981 As far as the Qur'an abrogating the Bible, it's interesting that not only does the Qur'an asserts the authority of the Bible, but 'allah' also advised Mahomet to seek guidance from the People of the Book when he had doubts. Scripture is the word of ‘allah’ (Surah 29:46; Surah 3:3-4); No changer of his words (Surah 18:27); You stand on nothing unless you stand by Torah and Gospel Surah 7:157; Surah 5:47; Surah 5:68; Mahomet advised to seek guidance from the People of the Book. (Surah 10:94)
@@lifemaverick6427
Provide sources with specific wording please. Also remember mufassireen (exegesis experts ) are giving their opinion based on facts interpreted . They can be right or wrong. It is useful to see what other experts said , what is the evidence for and against what is claimed and last biases of the author.
JESUS WAS NOT CRUCIFIED: Quran 4:157 says: And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain."
The person on the cross was Jesus' doppelgänger, Thomas who was known as the twin; Taowm in Aramaic and Thomas in Greek. Thomas was a Galilean as were all of the disciples.There are two gospels which mention Thomas' relationship to Jesus. The first gospel mentions Thomas' given name as Judah (Judas in Greek) and his nickname as Thomas, so he is referred to as Judas Thomas. According to the Gospel of Thomas: "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymus, Judas Thomas, recorded." Didymus means 'twin' in Greek The Gospel of Thomas dates to as early as the Epistles of Paul and is composed of the sayings of Jesus
Likewise, the second gospel to reference Thomas' connection to Jesus also mentions that he was known as Judas Thomas. This gospel known as the The Book of Thomas the Contender, was originally written around 150 A. This book states:
“The secret words that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas which I, even I, Mathaias, wrote down, while I was walking, listening to them speak with one another. The savior said, “Brother Thomas while you have time in the world, listen to me, and I will reveal to you the things you have pondered in your mind. “Now, since it has been said that you are my twin and true companion, examine yourself, and learn who you are, in what way you exist, and how you will come to be. Since you will be called my brother, it is not fitting that you be ignorant of yourself.”
Thomas, aka Judas Thomas, was a very loyal follower who volunteered to take Jesus’ place so that Jesus could escape, and Jesus with the rest of the group could re-assemble in Galilee as was planned (Mark 14:28, 16:7). According to the Gospel of John:11, Thomas had earlier volunteered to die with Jesus when Jesus, upon hearing of the death of Lazarus, proposed to return to Judea where there was a previous attempt to stone him to death:
Jhn 11:7 Then after this he (Jesus) said to the disciples, “Let us go into Judea again.” Jhn 11:8 The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews of late sought to stone you, and are you going there again?”… Jhn 11:16 Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”
The confirmation that it was not Jesus on the cross was given by the imposter (Thomas) who declared in Matt 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani is a misquote of Psalm 22 which says in Hebrew: ‘Eli ‘Eli lamah `azab’tani." Jesus would not have made such a mistake as he was preaching the Torah and the Tanakh in the synagogues.This misquotation is an affirmation that it was not Jesus on the cross. This misquotation may have been a subtle scoff to the chief priests, the teachers of the law, the elders as well as other jeering bystanders who were mocking him (Matt 27:41, Mark 15:31, Luke 23L45) that they had crucified the wrong man.
According to Mark 15: 40 there were women followers who also witnessed the crucifixion. These women knew it wasn't Jesus on the cross. They were anxious to get Thomas down before the jeering temple authority found out the truth. The temple authority knew that Jesus was a Galilean and that he would have fled to his clan for protection. If they had discovered the ruse, these priests and pharisees would have sent the Romans after him and his disciples. According to Matthew 28:16 Jesus and his disciples made the journey safely to Galilee where he openly ate and drank with his disciples.
According to Jesus' declaration in Mark 12:25, the resurrected body will be like that of an angel. According to Hebrews 1:14 angels are ministering spirits. According to Jesus in Luke 24:39:"...a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see that I have." Jesus then proceeded to show his disciples his hands and feet which bore no wounds as he ate and drank without difficulty. So, Jesus himself demonstrated that he was alive and unhurt and perfectly able to enjoy a meal because he had not been crucified.
Please Zaytuna give us netizen lecture about Hellenism or anything of the Roman belief. What was its impacts on pre Christianity, on the very territory that Jesus was sent.
yes we need it, certainly
Such a great talk, jazakAllah.
The mutawatir hadiths about Isa (peace be upon him) do strongly suggest that he may be in a state of trance (wafat), but not in mortal death per say, in a dimension not known to us, and where he is not aging, to come down to kill Dajjal, the false messiah towards the end of time, and then die a normal death.
And Quran, by indicating Dhul Qarnain as highly righteous may be correcting the wrong notion that he is Alexsnder, the Massodonian. The Persian ruler Syrius does appear to be a stronger candidate in this regard, who is also depicted with two horns, was a conquerer, and yes, more likely to be a believer of one true God.
Allah knows best.
Why are Muslims and Christians fighting? If all Muslims understood these things there would be peace.
Ibn Kathir mentioned that the Books of the previous scriptures are of 3 basic status types in their content: That which the Quran and Sunna confirms. That which is not confirmed by the Quran and Sunna, nor is it denied. Therefore we neither believe it or disbelieve rather we believe in the Prophets and Messengers to whom it was sent.And thirdly,that which is denied by the Quran and Sunna.
One way to explain the fact that there is no hadith on this issue is as follows: perhaps the issue just didn't arise. This could happen if there just weren't many people in the Hijaz advocating that Christ was crucified. Allah knows best.
Asking Allah almighty to send salutations and blessings on holy family of prophet Syedna Ibrahim (Abraham) peace be upon him and his progeny
اللَّهُمَّ صَلِّ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كَمَا صَلَّيْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَعَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ، اللَّهُمَّ بَارِكَ عَلَى مُحَمَّدٍ وَعَلَى آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ كَمَا بَارَكْتَ عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَعَلَى آلِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، إِنَّكَ حَمِيدٌ مَجِيدٌ
Allaahumma salli 'alaa Muhammadin wa 'alaa 'aali Muhammadin, kamaa sallayta 'alaa 'Ibraaheema wa 'alaa 'aali 'Ibraaheema, 'innaka Hameedun Majeed. Allaahumma baarik 'alaa Muhammadin wa 'alaa 'aali Muhammadin, kamaa baarakta 'alaa 'Ibraaheema wa 'alaa 'aali 'Ibraaheema, 'innaka Hameedun Majeed
O Allah, bestow Your favor on Muhammad and on the family of Muhammad as You have bestowed Your favor on Ibrahim and on the family of Ibrahim, You are Praiseworthy, Most Glorious. O Allah, bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad as You have blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim, You are Praiseworthy, Most Glorious.
Al-Bukhari: 320
The brother who asked the third question about the idea of Issa coming back as the mehdi is a genius question because it somehwra highlights that Jesus actually transcended to a different dimension and that another character figured him.
No, mahdi who is for told in Daniel 2 ..
If diff form Yahushua ( jesus ) of nazrth meantioned in Daniel 9/26
It's not really, when you realize that the Prophet (pbuh&hf) has prophecized that Jesus will pray behind Imām Mahdi. You then fall into the same mental gymnastics that trinitarians fall into when justifying Jesus praying to the Father while still trying to maintain they are the same person.
the mahdi and messiah has come
ua-cam.com/video/35lSZPkPfiw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/NQErICgt4SM/v-deo.html
*Harmonising the Quranic and Biblical account of the "crucifixion" of Jesus*
The only clear takeaways from Surah 5 verses 157-58 of the Quran are that the Jews failed to kill Jesus and failed to "crucify" him though it appeared to them they succeeded. Yet they still had some doubt on whether they succeeded in killing and crucifying him, have no certain knowledge on the matter and that God raised him onto himself.
Now if we take the reference to the denial that they crucified him to mean they didnt kill him via crucifixion (so an emphasis point, a denial he was debased in death as death via crucifixion in late antiquity was seen as debasement) then a plausible reading of the verses that seeks harmony with the gospels is that it wasnt the crucifixion that caused his death but rather Jesus yielding his spirit to God and God taking his soul up to heaven prior to a "natural" death due to injury. This is supported by another verse in the Quran which says God will cause Jesus to die and raise him onto himself (assumed by most to mean at the end of times but the verse doesn't specify this). This squares up well with the Gospel accounts that suggest Jesus yielded his spirit to God and has Pontius Pilate marvelling at his quick death, indicating an "unnatural" death had occured there.
Thus on this reading the explicit Quranic account is not undermined: The boastful Jews thought they had succeeded in killing him but in fact failed to do so as they were not the cause of his death (the literal definition of killing). Yet this was not visible to them so they assumed he died a "natural" death via crucifixion and therefore had succeeded in killing him. In reality his soul ascended to heaven via his own volition.
With respect to the Jews doubting they had succeeded, a number of points need to be made on plausible readings. First, perhaps they were suffering from cognitive dissonance between what their eyes saw (a dead Jesus via crucifixion) and how quickly he seemed to die (similar to Pontius Pilate). Second, according to Islamic doctrine , the Jews knew Jesus was their Messiah from God (they call him the Messiah, the messenger of Allah in this verse). Perhaps they harboured lingering doubts that they in fact succeeded in killing such a prominent divinely selected figure (cue Old Testament prophecies on the Messiah). And perhaps they heard chatter he was seen alive sometime after. Allahu A'lam.
With respect to Jesus being raised from the dead, the Quran makes no mention of this, either in affirmation or rejection so it cannot be categorically said to be false (we can speculate on why it would be omitted). What it does say is that God countered the Jewish attempt at killing him by raising him unto himself. This could be both literal (raising to heaven, also consistent with some gospel accounts) and metaphorical (Jesus status was elevated as Imam Al Razi states). This reading in no way refutes that he yielded his spirit to the heavens and was reserructed 3 days later. Omission=/= contradiction.
In sum, If we read the two verses in the context of the preceding verses, they are clearly a polemical attack on the rebellious Jews who boasted that they had once again controverted the divine by killing their Messiah from him. The point is that they failed at doing so and Jesus was elavated in rank and to heaven. Detailed explanation on *how* they failed and all the details that followed (including whether Jesus in fact had died via other means) is not the focus here. That regardless of what happened, Jesus and ultimately God won (and in the Sunnah Jesus will return victorious) and the rebellious Jews lost. (The reading that Jesus yielded his spirit and God seized it is consistent with this) Is this not the ultimate message of verses 157-158? That they planned and Allah Planned and Allah is the best of planners?
Jesus was not crucified, nor was he killed. My theory is that Pontius Pilate was well aware that the rabbis wanted Jesus killed as they feared he would usurp their authority. Pontius, after having interrogated Jesus understood the plan of the rabbis. Pontius realized that Jesus was innocent. He saw him as a holy man who was not arrogant but pious, he did not want the blood of an innocent man on his hands. A plan was orchestrated to save Jesus, by crucifying another prisoner in place of Jesus. it's important to note that there were no civilian eyewitnesses of the crucifixion. It typically takes some time or a person to die on the cross. The Jews demanded the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day and asked that they break the ankles of the men to expedite their demise. One of the guards claims to have speared Jesus, whereupon he gave up his spirit.
The supposed burial of Jesus was carried out by Joseph of Arimathea. Later, his tomb, was found to be empty by Mary Magdalene. While all this was taking place, Pontius had Jesus taken to a cave for his safety. There was a large stone, which required several men to place in front of the opening. Jesus was now sealed inside. The story continues, and his mother, Mary, comes to see Jesus in the cave to anoint him and give him food. The question is, how was she aware that he was in the cave? how was she able to move the large stone covering the opening? without help. Later Jesus leaves the cave and is seen by several of his disciples over 40 days. His disciples are shocked because they heard the rumors he had died on the cross. They think he's a ghost. "Look at my hands and my feet. It is I! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have". Jesus proved to them that he was neither crucified nor killed. The Jews heard accounts of Jesus still being alive. Knowing they would never forgo finding and killing him, God then raised Jesus unto himself alive.
Nah, they would’ve knew the difference between the prisoner and Jesus.
I have a question for the lecturer. The Arabs of the time of Prophet Muhammad, May peace and blessings be upon him, were in contact with the Eastern Christians and their vassals of Syria, Egyptian Copts and also the Ethiopian church as well as Jews throughout the region.
It is well known that the Bible’s of these three churches as well as their theological stances on Christology were and are different. The schism of the “Oriental” churches were in 431 AD (The Assyrian church) with the council of Ephesus and 451AD ( The Ethiopian and Coptic Churches) with the council of Chaldeans. All of this is prior the birth and advent of Quranic revelation.
How do you reconcile this with your thoughts upon the nature of the Injeel at the time?
Why would you assume it was that the Syriac gospel summary was Biblical reference of the Arabs when they had relations with three separate churches. In addition, Yemen was a colony of Ethiopia. Have you researched the Gospel and it’s commentaries by the Abyssinian church and it’s relation to the Arabs?
Ali is a joke and so is islam.
1:35:10
Ali outright admits he doesn't know anything about the crucifixion.
That's because allah, the quran, and muhammad are also utterly ignorant about it.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos ironically christians belive that John,Mark,luke,Paul who didnt see jesus know about it also paul who converted 5 years after jesus knows it ... funny why so many christians opinions in first century not 1 or 2 but thousands of different views becaus most never saw jesus and no gospel is wrotte during his lifetime so speculation upon speculation
@@jurgeni7545
sahih muslim and sahih bukhari were both written in the 9th century.
The quran stayed under Hafsa's bed for more than 20 years.
Aisha's goat ate part of the quran.
The quran doesn't even discuss the crucifixion. 4.157 was written to attack the Jews.
Here are a few more:
Use ONLY the quran to answer the following - list the verses that contain the answers:
Do you know who Dhu al-Qarnayn was?
What is the difference between a prophet, a messenger, an apostle, and the Messiah according to the quran?
Who was Abu Lahab? Why is there an entire surah named after him? Use the quran ONLY to answer.
Where and when in the quran did Angel Gabriel introduce Himself to muhammad?
Interesting question.
This verse has always fascinated me.
How is it possible that there is no explanation in the Hadith about this verse?
How could the Christians from Najran come and debate the Prophet ﷺ for 2 days without this verse and topic coming up?
This proves that not all Christians at that time were Paulians and followers of Paul’s false gospel in 1 Corinthians 15.
I think there is no explanation in the Hadith about this verse because the point of the verse is that Sayyiduna 'Isa, peace be upon him, was a different person from Yeshu'a bar Yosef, who was not a prophet but a saint or holy man and was in many ways similar to Sayyiduna 'Isa, who he talked about as the "Son of Man". The identification of the two men was due to the Christians, and the Muslims followed them in that, thus confirming the prediction in the hadith which says, roughly, "You will follow the ways of those before you until if they went down a hole, you will follow them into the hole". Since Yeshu'a was crucified, as historians agree, and 'Isa, peace be upon him was not crucified, as the Quran tells us, the two men were not identical; the phrase "shubbiha lahum" indicates a confusion between the two men, which happened, though it was through misunderstanding and false stories, not through some physical miracle.
@@omarmirza9957 Wow dear, both are known as the messiah, both are known to have been children of Mary, how can they be two persons? That doesn't make any sense dear, are you the one who made this up? Is there any history for such an interpretation?!
@@faithfulsoldier519 Well, Faithful Soldier, you simply have not thought about this very much. You have not considered the very real possibility that the character one meets in the Gospels is already a conflation of two different people, due to a confusion between them. Just to illustrate, have you never heard the claim that the Quran confuses the mother of Christ with the sister of Moses and Aaron? I do not agree with that idea, but I *am* making a similar claim about the Gospels, and the Christian tradition; they have confused 'Isa with a later figure named 'Yeshu'a'.
Why would it be so hard to believe that two different people were known as 'The Messiah', when we know how easily two different people can be confused with each other in historical texts? 'Al Masih' was originally a name of 'Isa, and subsequently, due to the confusion between the two men on the part of the Gospel authors, the same designation was also given to Yeshu'a. Yeshu'a's mother was probably not named 'Maryam', if we are to believe the gospel of John anyway, (which tells us that Yeshu'a's mother's sister was named 'Maryam'); he acquired the reputation of having a mother named 'Maryam' precisely through being confused with 'Isa. What you are pointing out is merely the result of the confusion between these two men.
We know they are two different people since the names are different and the stories about them are different. ''Isa' is not the same name as 'Yeshu'a'; 'Isa and his companions engaged in some form of military activity; 'Isa had a revealed book; 'Isa was known for the miracle of the table; 'Isa was not the son of Joseph; 'Isa had no brothers; and there are many other differences as well.
I am certainly not the first to point out the two men were not the same; the Christian historian Kamal Salibi in chapter 3 of "Who Was Jesus?", tried to argue for the same. Before him, the sacred writings of the Druze already show an awareness that these two men were different.
The Ishmaelite Mountain Read my commrnts by follow my other comments for reading and resesrching.
Please revisit the topic for my comments referencing KabbalaThalmudicZoharistSatanism that had originated from the time of Plato's hellenistic mystery schools 400BC with hidden agenda to rule the World by AntiChrist. Satanism inside all religions Kabbala Gnostic Doctrine in Hinduism Buddhism Judaism Christian Fundamentalists Crusaders Muslim Brotherhood House of Saud embracing Babylonian Kabbala with the cult of magi of ancient Persia. Quran 2:102. Thr hypocrites in the quran who practice sorcery magic jinn worship are all these Doemeh Qabbala Wolf in Sheep Clothes . They are heretical jews: satanists.
Really enjoyed the lecture, quite informative but I don't understand one point. What is the professor's specific position?
I think we'll have to listen to his other videos to get a clearer picture. I was looking forward to his position and defence.
The Torah of Moses was ordained by the angels and demanded sacrifice as an act of repentance, but the God never wished for sacrifice but it was a common act of repentance and worship, but now when we look to Jesus Christ, repentance fills our hearts for he, being burdenless (ie. sinless), died that we might live, as burden of the letter of the Torah was too heavy for mortals, thus the Word of Allah was made flesh dwelt amongst us, being tempted in every way as we are, but remained purfect, but for our sake took upon himself the curse of the Torah, that all might turn to the God in true repentance without the need to sacrifice or otherwise harm themselves due to the fear that the God would not forgive them.
I mean, are you sure that Imam Ghazali chooses to believe that Jesus was dead? How could he believe that when Quran explicitly denies it. Can you share the reference of what exactly that he said regarding this?
I think the debate is over the word متوفيكم in the Quran. Most scholars take it to mean that God made him sleep but it could also be understood as God took his life. Currently it is common to use وفاة to mean death.
The Quran doesn't explicitly deny it. It just denies that the Jews did it. Big difference.
@@ammanite The Quran says they didnt kill him, it doesnt mean someone else did either. There would need to be a clear statement from Quran or Sunnah for that assertion to be valid. So where is this assertion based on? Based on the Gospel and Orientalist western scholars, if you were paying attention to the lecture. Excuse me if I choose not to accept that and take from the scholars of the Salaf like At Tabari and what is Muhkam in the Quran!
For a layman like me, majority of what Dr. Ali Ataie says in his lectures goes above the head unless you listen, read, re read, give it a listen multiple times in order to comprehend it decently well. He packs in so much info in a space of 2 hours that you wonder how come this information isn't being accessed by everyone on the planet. It's so dense with historical reference, linguistic comparisons, deductions by various scholars of different faiths and million other inputs.
But all this begs the question that why? When we are being told since childhood and Quran also claims that we have made this book easy to understand and recite (I might be wrong and might be paraphrasing here), when it's a book which was revealed for all ages and complete humanity, then how come it becomes so very complex to understand that you need to have an intellect and deep studies like Dr Ali and others in the field of theology and comparative religions and still there's no unanimous consent of what the scripture is saying. Are the believers supposed to only dwell in the study of scripture as done and told Alhumdulillah by masters in this field like Dr Ali and others? Leave aside everything, all worldly affairs and deep dive into the studies? How does one even think of understanding our own scriptures if they think there's a ton of back stories and reference and historical scriptures one needs to go through in order to arrive at their own deductions or comprehend deductions by scholars of all times. Agreed, it doesn't happen in all 6200+ Ayahs, but it does happen. There are different sects which justify their beliefs by quoting verse of Quran for which a different sect will have an entirely different understanding.
Doesn't it allows the islamophobes to attack the Quran? (though they themselves aren't that we'll read in their own scriptires, leave aside Quran and always are on the receiving end of a just debate).
The classical scholars wouldn't have talked about the current day science in their times. Majority of current scholars doesn't have a grip on the sister languages and hence aren't concerned with what the original text says. They rely on the translation while taking a reference or if they are in a debate.
People like me most often than not find themselves hopping from one explanation to other and subconsciously agreeing to the one which is the most recent one or the one which sounds exciting.. ex : Zulqarnanin - from Alexander to Angel to a Prophet to may be Mahdi by some scholars since it just doesn't means 'two horns', it means 'two ages' as well..everyone has their own theories and each of those when listen seems correct.
Now it's said that rather than raising questions why dont you study and do the research yourself - an excellent point to which people like us who wants to learn the scrupture will say , we don't have the Intellect or Age or Means or now the Time on our side..
Is this the reason majority of Ummah doesn't even care to understand Qur'an and are happy reciting a part of it(without understanding a word) once a day to get their daily rewards?
You can think of it like that, but to me it shows the clear depth in which this Qur'an goes into. The parts of the Qur'an that have rulings, or teach us our mandatory Aqeedah are very clear and very easy to understand - and often is accompanied by the example of the Prophet (saw). As for the parts that don't have an actual effect on how we live our day to day lives as muslims - there is so much depth and nuance for those who ponder upon it. Not everyone has to, but those who enjoy it and want to can really delve into it. So when we hear the story of Musa (as) or Yusuf (as) there are ayaat which require deep diving. Words used that are loaded and have a ton of context, and comparisons that can be drawn to biblical accounts of the same stories. It's like its used as proof for the Qur'an, as it claims itself to be the Furqaan, or the criterion by which we confirm what was true of prior scripture and what was misunderstood or incorrect.
@@shaksta4 I mentioned that in my comment that it doesn't apply to all ayaats. But when its said every Ayah is a sign then that means we should be concerned with everything. Majority of the muslims (easily more than 90%) might have just read and not understood the Quran - myself included. My point of concern is this - how are we better than a random John Doe who thinks the universe has a creator. We both are on TAWHEED. Additionally we believe in last and final messenger as well which is part of our aqeeda. Rest, we are reciting quran without understanding, offering prayers without having a clue what we are saying, knows about some sunnah deeds and loads of others which are said to be sunnah but are creation of our own fiqh. We are scientifically and aspirationally at the lower end of graph since we are waiting for Mahdi(as) and Isa(as) since ages to come and rescue us.. we use theories by the very athiest we tend to debate to prove Quran - we interpret and do that only once that theory is in existence.. now when Big Bang theory os also being challenged by James Webb findings, lets see what we come out with now, would we reinterpret the same verse? Or recalculate the age of universe which many youtube scholars have proved from Quran..
Quran is supposed to be understood by all..its written in it.. why so much complexities..why the confusion..to an extent that there are entirely different translations by different sects..how can one be that arrogant to state that my people, my translation, my interpretation is the correct one..your school of thought is wrong.. and we do that! Have been doing it since forever now..
@@shaksta4 btw, there's a scholar in Pakistan who have proved from Quran itself that there's just one book which was given to all the prophets. This Quran...the words Torah, injeel mentioned in the Quran means something different.. and he has tons of followers. So there's that as well.
Then there's a scholar who has proved that Zulqarnain is actually prophet Mohammad (saw) only. Also, both the prophets (Mohammad(pbuh) and prophet Ismael(as) ) are same. He again has thousands of followers..people like me and you, who are bit serious about religion, searching for stuff to read and understand...and probably ending up banging their head on wall because of all this confusing theories (well that's me)
I am still inclined to believe the substation theory. Reasons being..... 1. Several aHadith about the return of Isa (as) at the end of times and leading the Muslims. It would be a new and unprecedented situation to have someone come back from the dead to lead the people. Possible I suppose. But not inclined to believe it.
2. To me the main word in the 4-157 is the word ‘them’. Made to appear to ‘them’. Who is them? It seems ‘them’ should be referring to the jews who were trying to kill Isa (as). That doesn’t mean the rest of the people living in the time were tricked. They could have been fully aware that Isa (as) was not killed. We just don’t know. The historical accuracy of the time period is not strong. By our own Hadith standards all their history would be considered weak ahadith at best.
3. Allah reemphasizes that ‘they killed him not’. Saying it twice. And also says those who differ are following conjecture and are full of doubts. The main argument and discussion on the matter has been was Isa (as) killed or not. Not who did it. For Allah to emphasize that he was not killed seems to lend to the idea that he isn’t dead. Not that the jews didn’t kill him. What does following conjecture and being full of doubts have to do with who killed him ? That isn’t something people have been arguing about and discussing for years. Now, whether he is dead or not? Yes. That is the main discussion. And discussed often. I find it less likely Allah reiterates ‘for a surety they killed him not’ to refer to the lesser point of contention. But Allah knows best.
Yes that's what I think. Isn't the whole point if he wasn't killed then Christian theology is completely nullified
Jesus peace upon him was raised up, every soul much taste death.. Also there was a miracle birth, his mother one of the greatest women who ever lived.
Please read this article and find complete truth, if you have an unanswered question:
1. www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/
2. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-son-of-mary-islamic-beliefs/
3. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-christ-died-natural-death/
Hopefully, someone can benefit from it.
Abdul Adil. For the actual truth.
ua-cam.com/video/D0wihCN7_X8/v-deo.html
@@EmeraldDiamond3 Here are some more proofs from Holy Quran : ahmadianswers.com/jesus/quran/
Many Qur'anic ayahs are enigmatic because Allah wants us to think think and think. Dig, elaborate, work on historical sources, previous scriptures, old languages. When the shalb is considered solved, we still have more to go. What about Dzulqarnayn, and the sleepers of the cave, and more?
I wouldn't say enigmatic as the Quran describes itself as Mubeen (clear ) however it has Mukhamat (clear , foundational) and mutashabihat (multiple meaning) Ayat (verses ,signs , evidences). Quran Ayat 3:7 educates us on this and how to view them. and Allah knows best.
In Daniel's vision, Alexander is the shaggy goat with the single horn that defeats the two horned ram representing the Medo-Persian Empire. One horn is larger than the other representing Cyrus the Great as the greatest Persian king . Some interpret this as Cyrus being Dhul Qarnayn. But Alexander is the goat, not the two horned ram as stated incorrectly here by Dr. Ataie.
Very informative and interesting.
I watched the whole lecture in a few sittings. But I am not sure if Dr Ali mentioned his position after the teaser near the beginning of the lecture. Does anyhow able to point me to the information? Thanks
I can't recall the source now, but if I recall correctly it was argued that only after the destruction of the Jewish Temple did the Pharisee-unto-Rabbinical Party stress that sacrifice was unnecessary when/where sacrifice was not possible. Prior to this there was a belief in the actual efficacy of the sacrifices, that they were not merely symbolic. I think it would have to be substantiated that pre-70CE Jewish priests and scholars did not believe in the literal efficacy of their sacrifices.
Matthew 16: 21-23
In your lecture at 1:26:35 approximately, you show and mention in surah 3 ayah 55, that Allah used the word die....but in 9 English translations the word raise is used, and in only 1 the word gathering is used.....so I am really curious as to which English translation you are referring to?
You're mixing up two words that occur side-by-side in Qur'an 3, verse 55. "Inni mutawaffika" is being translated here as "I will cause you to die", but the next bit, "wa rafi'uka ilayya" is the part that's translated into English as "will raise you to me".
@@minskdhaka Right but either way, if God is telling Isa (Jesus A.S.) I will cause you to die, that is not the same as saying that I will take your soul when they attempt to kill (crucify) you. Meaning that God telling Jesus "I will cause you to die" could still refer to Jesus' death after his second coming.
@@jimmyele4448 you are correct.
@@jimmyele4448 are you plain stupid or what? Even in Islam Jesus was before time and will continue to judge the mankind at the end days. What is the purpose of his demise at the end? 😅
But sure go follow your false prophet that put his brain 🧠 in his dick. How lovely.
In the surah 3, ayah 55, the word (mutawaffi) is used, which in the Arabic text is from (tawaffa, family 5 of root words wa-fa-ya) which literally means "to take and to receive" and "to seize the soul" is not its linguistic but metaphorical meaning. Here it means "to recall from mission." Allah recalled Jesus because the Israelites had rejected him in spite of the clear Signs he had brought. Since Jesus was a messenger, Allah recall him and will send him back to destroy Israelites (Jews). I hope it clarifies!
بارك الله فيكم
Jesus birth it self is miraculous why cant than Allah cant raise him to Him physically and spiritually . Allah is Al Qadir that's enough for us not need a academic thesis on that. Jazak Allah.
So was Alexander "the Great" a monotheist, who spread righteousness, as in Surah Kahf, or was he a polytheistic, homosexual, who thought he was a son of zeus according to historical evidence?
1:36:09 what is the name he is referring to as catholic islamicist?
I keep waiting to hear another scholar's comment Ahmed Dedat's swoon theory?
He is very articulate and has a lot of knowledge but I disagree with his understanding of verses in the Qur'an about previous Scriptures that the People of the Book had at the time of the Prophet (pbuh).
A scholar of the sub-continent, Hamiduddin Farahi exolained this really well. In order to appreciate the meaning of the verses, one needs to keep them in their context. The Quran seems to use the words "musaddiqal lima bayna yadayhi' what may roughly be translated to mean "confirming that which is between their hands" (i.e. the Scriptures of the People of the Book) in the context of proving the authenticity of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur'an. In other words, it saying that since he (pbuh) verifies the prophecies in their Book, they ought to believe in him and the revelation he is giving them. It is talking in the context of their prediction, not in everything.
A very rewarding listen. Jaz ak allah khayr
There is a vicarious atonement in the Quran where Allah calls the sacrifice of Abraham’s son the great sacrifice, Isaac was replaced with a ram. Also there is a sahih Hadith that says the sins of Muslims would be put on Jews and Christians.
Masha Allah very well explained
Please read this article and find complete truth, if you have an unanswered question:
1. www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/
2. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-son-of-mary-islamic-beliefs/
3. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-christ-died-natural-death/
Hopefully, someone can benefit from it.
Very useful and informative lecture covering the full range of the subject matter. Well presented, a balanced assessment and carefully expressed opinions. Thanks a lot. PS: A useful and reliable Hadith confirms birth of both Mary and Jesus without any 'original' sin /Non Satanic. A recent Quran Speaks show confirms this. Also the gnostics influence of the early Islamic thoughts was not cited. Otherwise this lecture looks like a good work and probably only made possible by a hermeneutics approach which leaves out the usual apologetics and polemics. Hermeneutics is a God/Allah send. Dr Ataie also brings in good comparative finesse.
The belief that Jesus only appeared to be crucified and did not actually die predates Islam and is found in several Apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels.[10]: 41 [21]: 110-111 [22]: 82-86 Although most contemporary scholars argue that the Islamic portrayal of Jesus himself is not docetic, his crucifixion narrative in the Quran could be.[8]: 12 The Greek Father of the Church and bishop Irenaeus in his heresiological treatise Against Heresies (180 CE) described early Gnostic beliefs regarding the crucifixion and death of Jesus that bear remarkable resemblance with the Islamic views, expounding on the hypothesis of substitution:[21]: 111
He [Christ] appeared on earth as a man and performed miracles (apparuisse eum ... virtutes perfecisse). Thus, he himself did not suffer. Rather, a certain Simon of Cyrene was compelled (Simonem quendam Cyrenaeum angariatum) to carry his cross for him. It was he [Simon] who was ignorantly and erroneously crucified (et hunc ... crucifixum), being transfigured by him [Jesus], so that (ut) he [Simon] might be thought to be Jesus. Moreover, Jesus assumed the form of Simon and stood by, laughing at them.
- Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 24, Section 40.[23]: 80
One of the Christian Gnostic writings found in the Nag Hammadi library, the Second Treatise of the Great Seth, has a similar substitutionist interpretation of Jesus' death:[21]: 111 [22]: 82-86
I was not afflicted at all. Those there punished me, yet I did not die in solid reality but in what appears, in order that I not be put to shame by them [...] For my death which they think happened, (happened) to them in their error and blindness. They nailed their man up to their death. [...] Another, their father, was the one who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They were hitting me with the reed; another was the one who lifted up the cross on his shoulder, who was Simon. Another was the one on whom they put the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the riches of the archons and the offspring of their error and their conceit, and I was laughing at their ignorance.[22]: 82-84
The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, likewise, holds the same substitutionist interpretation of Jesus' death:[21]: 111 [24]: 187-200
I saw him (Jesus) seemingly being seized by them. And I said 'What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?' The Savior said to me, 'He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.' But I, when I had looked, said 'Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place.' But he said to me, 'I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame.' And I saw someone about to approach us resembling him, even him who was laughing on the tree. And he was with a Holy Spirit, and he is the Savior. And there was a great, ineffable light around them, and the multitude of ineffable and invisible angels blessing them. And when I looked at him, the one who gives praise was revealed.
The Gospel of Peter is a docetic Apocryphal Gospel. The British biblical scholar F. F. Bruce, who served as Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the Victoria University of Manchester, wrote in a commentary about this text:[25]: 93
The docetic note in this narrative appears in the statement that Jesus, while being crucified, 'remained silent, as though he felt no pain', and in the account of his death. It carefully avoids saying that he died, preferring to say that he 'was taken up', as though he - or at least his soul or spiritual self - was 'assumed' direct from the cross to the presence of God. (We shall see an echo of this idea in the Qur'an.) Then the cry of dereliction is reproduced in a form which suggests that, at that moment, his divine power left the bodily shell in which it had taken up temporary residence.[25]: 93
John of Damascus, a Syrian Eastern Orthodox monk, Christian theologian, and apologist that lived under the Umayyad Caliphate, reported in his heresiological treatise De Haeresibus (8th century) the Islamic denial of Jesus' crucifixion and his alleged substitution on the cross, attributing the origin of these doctrines to Muhammad:[21]: 106-107 [26]: 115-116
And the Jews, having themselves violated the Law, wanted to crucify him, but having arrested him they crucified his shadow. But Christ, it is said, was not crucified, nor did he die; for God took him up to himself because of his love for him. And he [Muhammad] says this, that when Christ went up to heaven God questioned him saying "O Jesus, did you say that 'I am Son of God, and God'?" And Jesus, they say, answered: "Be merciful to me, Lord; you know that I did not say so, nor will I boast that I am your servant; but men who have gone astray wrote that I said this and they said lies concerning me and they have been in error". And although there are included in this scripture many more absurdities worthy of laughter, he insists that this was brought down to him by God.[21]: 107 [26]: 115-116
In his scholarly monograph Gott ist Christus, der Sohn der Maria. Eine Studie zum Christusbild im Koran (1989, ISBN 3-923946-17-1), the German Roman Catholic theologian and professor of Religious studies Günther Risse [de] states that Muhammad's distorted understanding of Jesus and the Christian faith,[11]: 34-36 along with the misrepresentation of Christian beliefs about Jesus in the Quran and the hadith,[11]: 34-36 were influenced by the non-Chalcedonian (heretical) Monophysite Christianity that prevailed at the time in the pre-Islamic Arabian peninsula and further in Abyssinia, Egypt, and Syria.[11]: 34-36 A similar hypothesis regarding the Gnostic Christian influence on Muhammad's beliefs about the crucifixion of Jesus has been proposed by Neal Robinson, senior lecturer of Religious studies at the College of St. Paul and St. Mary, in his scholarly monograph Christ in Islam and Christianity (1991, ISBN 978-0-7914-0558-1).[21]: 110-111
If the substitutionist interpretation of 4:157 (that Christ was replaced on the cross) is taken as a valid reading of the Qurʾānic text, the question arises of whether this idea is represented in Christian sources. According to Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses, the Egyptian Gnostic Christian Basilides (of the second century) held the view that Christ (the divine nous, intelligence) was not crucified, but was replaced by Simon of Cyrene. However, both Clement of Alexandria and Hippolytus denied that Basilides held this view. But the substitutionist idea in a general form is quite clearly expressed in the Gnostic Nag Hammadi documents Apocalypse of Peter and The Second Treatise of the Great Seth.[11]: 34
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus%27_death#Possible_Gnostic_influences
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel of Basilides
Gospel of Barnabas
The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, a Gnostic text from the third century, claims that Simon of Cyrene was crucified in the place of Jesus.[4] The text is written from the first-person narrative perspective of Jesus, attributing to Jesus statements such as "I was laughing at their ignorance" when the crowd mistakenly crucifies Simon of Cyrene, and asserting that this deception was made possible because "I [Jesus] was altering my shapes, changing from form to form."[5]
The Gospel of Barnabas describes Jesus escaping crucifixion through being raised alive to heaven by a committee of holy angels; afterwards, Judas Iscariot is supernaturally transformed to look identical to Jesus, and is subsequently crucified in Jesus' place.[6] Concerning its date of composition, few academics argue that the Gospel of Barnabas was composed any earlier than the 14th century, although a minority of scholars see it as containing portions of an earlier work.[7]
Paul William Roberts reports in his 1995 travel narrative Journey of the Magi: In Search of the Birth of Jesus, that some contemporary Mandaeans hold that Thomas the Apostle was the twin brother of Jesus and was crucified in Jesus' place.
@@merlinx8703 did you even watch the lecture, because Dr Ali Ataie literally mentioned all of these sources with elaboration in the speech?
It would helpful if the lecturer's name was given in the title or description.
Islam is the truth
This was heavy! I need to watch this again to actually understand it fully
Linah Sofi Read my comments in correcting your knowledge after relistening. Quranic Ayat translation must be groundedwith referencing within the chain of command of the Prophet (SAW).. not on Greek Hellenistic Phylisophy of Plato with hidden agenda. Kabbalistic Luciferian Satanic Doctrine. The cult of the dying god Lucifer who is assigned by the Rabbi to rule over the souls of the dead and worship him with ritual sacrifices.. the cult of magi.. the synagogue of satan ( Revelation) . Quran 2:102.
Please read this article and find complete truth, if you have an unanswered question:
1. www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/
2. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-son-of-mary-islamic-beliefs/
3. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-christ-died-natural-death/
Hopefully someone can benefit from it.
@@MinMin-ng7rr Please read this article and find complete truth if you have an unanswered question:
1. www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/
2. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-son-of-mary-islamic-beliefs/
3. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-christ-died-natural-death/
Hopefully someone can benefit from it.
You must have the IQ of a potato. Just replace 'heavy' with 'pointless'.
Kudos to your great efforts. May Allah reward you abundantly? I want to quote bellow, the hadith and references, of the Allah's mercy you alluded to in your response to a question from the audience :
Narrated `Aisha (RA): The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news because one's good deeds will not make him enter Paradise." They asked, "Even you, O Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him)?" He said, "Even I, unless and until Allah bestows His pardon and Mercy on me."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, Book 81, Hadith 56)
That was a really good talk. A question to answer is how do we reconcile the fact that Alexander the Great was a known pagan with the Quraic view?
He was a pagan?
@@sawmaniac12 Yes. Since this comment I have done some more research and it turns out that the syriac romance novel was influenced by the Quran and not the other way around so Dr Ataie was wrong in his assertion that Alexander the Great was dhul qarnain.
Furthermore, Dhul Qarnain was a title given to someone who unified the western (Greek) and Eastern empires (persian). Only three people whom we know about have achieved this; Cyrus the Great, Darius the Great and Alexander the Great. Of these three, Cyrus and Darius are the two strongest candidates. It was the Jews who asked the Prophet (SAW) about dhul Qarnain and the Jews revere Cyrus as he freed them from their babylonian enslavement so it likely that they were referring to him. The issue with Cyrus is that we do not know if he was monotheistic.
Darius is also a strong contender because he was strictly monotheistic. He even has an inscription where he says the empire was given to him by the grace of God - wording that is very similar to that in surat Kahf.
Alexander is not a strong candidate because he was a known pagan as well as possibly a homosexual.
cirrus = dzul qurnain , not alexander
In the Quran, Allah speaks 'directly' to Dhul-Quranayn, if you think Alexander or Cyrus has the status so high in the sight of Allah, then good luck to you!
@@klaaskay2685 not Alexander for sure, but in the book of Isaiah, Cyrus is directly called "Messiah" or the anointed one. In other places in the Bible, Cyrus is alluded to either through prophetic inauguration, or remembrance. I believe that Cyrus of Persia is the only man that fits the profile of being 1. A mighty ruler who pretty much saved the Children of Israel, and 2. A righteous ruler who submitted to the one true god
JESUS VOTED INTO DIVINITY LIKE THE ROMAN EMPERORS: If Jesus had no biological paternal parent as the Gospel of Luke claims, then he does not have a paternal line. However, there is an historical explanation of Jesus' transformation from denizen to Deity. It appears that the author of Luke was so hellenized that he attempted to give Jesus the same status as that of Greco-Roman heroes who were sired by a deity and became kings as Perseus, Oenopion, Romulus, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and their royal heirs whom the Roman senate declared to be divi or gods. etc. So, the author of Luke crowned Jesus with the same laurels that crowned the 'divine' heads of their Greek and Roman occupiers. The botanical candidates for Jesus 'crown of thorns' are: Laurus nobilis, Prunus laurocerasus, Ruscus hypoglossum, Euphorbia milii and Ziziphus spina-christi. All of these plants resemble the laurel crowns worn by the Greek and Roman leaders who claimed paternal descent from a divinity. So, it appears that Luke was following the example of the Roman emperors whose paternal lines were well known but were voted into divinity when they entered into office. By publishing the genealogy of Jesus, Luke, in imitation of the Roman Senate, acknowledged the paternity of Jesus, but voted Jesus into his kingly office as a divinely sired demigod and crowned him with laurels or a laurel like plant to complete the transformation from citizen to Caesar or from denizen to Divinity. In case the gospel reader missed the point, Luke, like every other gospel author, reported, that a plaque affixed to the cross read rex Iudaeorum or βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων or ( מלך היהודים) or all 3 together with a few other words added depending on the Gospel. This is not biographical information. This is propaganda aimed at the gentiles.
Dr Ali ataie are u sayi g Alexander is dhur qanain? And from this lecture u seem to believe christ was crucified from ur position. Bcos ur previously lectures seems nt to suggest so. Pls clarity.
I agree with you. This lecture is a bit confusing. Mr. Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik elaborated better and proved from the Bible that Jesus was never crucified.
We need to understand the difference between prophets and messenger since Dr. Ataie use the word "prophet". The major difference is that all messengers are the prophets but not all prophets are messenger. And messengers NEVER died nor got assassinated in the path of God, whereas, prophets were murdered. And since Jesus (pbuh) was a messenger he was never crucified, which Qur'an states in 4:157.
Alhamdulilah
99% of the new testament is narration, where is the direct word of God through Jesus?
Did Jesus not say: "thank you Lord, you always answer my prayers" when he raised a man.
Then did he not pray to be relieved of the "bitter cup" [that humiliation by the enemies of God] ?
So what happened, did god not answer Jesus's prayers??
The God that created Jesus in the womb of Mary & substituted Abraham's son with a lamb, can easily protect his prophet & send down a sacrificial entity to be sent to the cross.
And are we to believe the Romans, Paul the enemy of Jesus or the narrations of people that never saw Jesus & borrowed from him?
No I'll take the word of God in its pristine form straight from the mouth of his final prophet, that laid all matters to rest & exposed the lies of Rome & the Rabbis that plotted his murder.
Allah reduced all of them to fools & sent them to the movie theater. Rewarding challengers with delusion.
Jesus was specifically sent to the Jews, to bring them back from corruption & the falsities of the scribes & Rabbis, had they followed him, Allah would have destroyed the Romans & freed them, like he did with the Babylonians. But instead they clung to this world & opted to reject & frame him w/false accusations of claims to divinity.
That dominant faction of Jews & Rabbis conspired to challenge God & murder their own savior & that not only split the Jews in two, but God's reply to the breaking of his covenant was painful.
The Roman occupation stays, the Jews Scattered, scepter is withdrawn & the line of prophets broken. A line in the sand is drawn & now they must beg & repent at his door.
The Church in Rome thought to capitalize on the remains w/it demi-Godery, but then God sends Mohammad, a bane on them & a comforter for the world.
Please read this article and find complete truth, if you have an unanswered question:
1. www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/
2. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-son-of-mary-islamic-beliefs/
3. www.alislam.org/articles/jesus-christ-died-natural-death/
Hopefully, someone can benefit from it.
so he saved Jesus but not mohammed? looool come to Christ
@@rachelnkemokoro2004_ we follow second coming of jesus
@@abdula2853 good. so folow the injeel. if you deny Jesus Christ you deny the father that sent him
@@rachelnkemokoro2004_ we follow injeel
Twaffa---- in Quran ,is mentioned several times for death.
Judas Iscariots name is mispelled his name is judas sicari. The sicari were Jewish men who hated rome and they would assassinate pro Roman jews or hellenists jews. The Sicari were also called rebels. But the greeks didn't have a word for rebels so they used the word bandits. The point is the romans are trying to make fun of a man named juddas macabee a rebel before isa who fought the same thing isa pbuh and his followers fought. Hellenism.
Check the Crucifixion by Dr Jerald Dirks on UA-cam
Doody Muhammad @ i agreed more on dr dirks theory..... but he didnt eloborate who was the fake messiah
I agree with Dr. Gerald Dirks research into the Bible on the two Messiahs (or the two people named Jesus) at the scene of the Crucifixion with one added thing. That is, THE CRUCIFIXION OF JESUS IS THE CRUCIFIXION OF HIS MISSION AS THE MESSIAH. The WISDOM is hidden in the first name of BARABBAS (BAR ABBA or SON OF THE FATHER) not shown in the KJV of the Bible. If I am correct, when the Bible shows Jesus the Messiah as crucified (the mission of Jesus as Messiah) and Jesus BARABBAS escaping crucifixion, then it is saying they KILLED his attempt to save HIS PEOPLE. Jesus, the Son of the Father or "bar abba" is freed while Jesus called the Messiah is crucified. The Bible CLEARLY shows that Jesus came ONLY for the LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. Kazar Jews in Israel today ARE NOT the Jews Jesus is referring to. Who are the real Jews? When those people do not know who they are, then that is the CRUCIFIXION of Jesus as the Messiah (his mission to his people) However, the actual servant of God is freed (Jesus BARABBAS or Jesus Son of the Father). The point is Jesus, the Son of the Father IS THE SAME PERSON as Jesus the Messiah. In their own ways, I think the Bible and Quran are both showing that powerful people went through great lengths to obscure the REAL MISSION of Jesus TO HIS PEOPLE.
What a shambles! Thanks! 🤦🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️ and we are the ones who say they are in doubt and only believe in conjecture?
God blesses you and all your companian
This verse is simply stating that the belief held, expressed and perpetuated by the Jewish religious leaders that they were responsible for killing Jesus is wrong. Jesus death was permitted only on the express permission of God almighty and according to his eternal plan for the redemption of humankind. It’s such a shame that’s it’s clear meaning has been so distorted over time and is not reconciled with the other two verses in the Quran that clearly states that Jesus died and God almighty rose him up to himself. It’s time for Islam to reject conjecture and proclaim the truth the Quran clearly professes.
jesus was put on the cross the coran is clear ua-cam.com/video/qWihPRRwo_I/v-deo.html
But, but-----any thing mentioned in HADEES about this ???
Acts of John
Gospel of Basilides
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Thanks
1 John 4
KJV
1+ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2+ Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3+ And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Zhul Qarnayn was NOT Alexander...and not sure why time was even wasted studying the Gospel of John. It's compiled, written, edited in ~70 C.E. Much. much too late and riddled with errors. Unlike the other gospels that are somewhat riddled with errors.
Unlike the hadith which was written 150 to 200 years after momo's death!!!
Yet, the hadith is 100% reliable and authentic!!! 🤪
@@JohnGeometresMaximos Wrong on both counts, chump. Muslims themselves will tell you hadith are not 100% authentic. We know there are weak and fabricated ones, and, we know which ones they are. Unlike 99% Christians and their fairytale Gospels.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos Here's the difference. Your bible, the holy book you rely on, is corrupted, changed, and no original copies remain. Muslims actually have a system for hadiths that in essence identifies exactly which ones are unauthentic. Not to mention that hadiths are not their holy book. Also, you got the years wrong. The hadiths were recorded during the time of their prophet.
@@TFengineer
What is Ahruf and Qira'at? 🤣
@@JohnGeometresMaximos Respond to their points...stop dancing around🤣
Maashaallah
Ma sha Allah
1:40:00
Lewis Scott Martinez Scott Taylor Christopher
Since the name "'Isa" is different from the name "Yeshu'a", on the one hand, and the name "Yahya" is different from the name "Yuhannan", on the other, we are dealing with different figures than those who lived in first century Palestine. The stories in the Quran are quite different from those in the Gospels as well: there is no baptism, no scene of disturbance in the temple, 'Isa uses no parables, peace be upon him, no Messianic confession, no Messianic secret, no issue of dining with sinners, no debates with Pharisees, Scribes, and so on.
The Christians mixed up two different people, and the rest of the world has adopted the same confusion.
Wow 🤯🙉
@@philipsayegh5737 "Wow" is correct, given that a hadith tells us that we will follow the ways of those before us.
@@omarmirza9957 keep following the ones before my friend, keep following without using your brain, but don't claim all knowledge and all Holy and falsify other religions I recommend you read SURAT AL ANFAL "67", SAHIH BUKHARI "KITAB AL DYANAT", KURTUBI tafseer "SURAT BARA'A12". SURAT AL BAKARA 217. Use your head man. And if you want more resources on how absurd your forefathers were I will give you more material to study. How funny, Christians got it wrong and the whole world got confused but you got it right🤭 WOWWWW.....very impressive
@@philipsayegh5737 Allah guides whoever He wills to a straight path; He blesses whoever he wills in whichever way He wills; and when Allah wills good for someone, nothing will hold it back.
@@omarmirza9957 and you're so sure that you know the mind of God and confirm it, just because someone else told you and you have some scriptures that is suppose to be true.....
We shouldn't be saying for any leader the great, because this adjective is only for Allah swt, in my humble opinion
Your opinion doesn't matter, nobody's opinion does, only Allah's and the prophet's.
1:35:23 I think the fact that there are no hadiths on this topic makes it more likely that the Bible narrative actually happened, otherwise that would have been something that was contested/questioned during the life of the Prophet (pbuh).
Yes it seems quite obvious that Christians would have brought this up when they debated with the Prophet (SAAS) and the fact their is no Hadith on this regraded seems to prove the Biblical narrative, Allah knows best.
"the fact that there are no hadiths on this topic"
he said they aren't sahih. not they don't exist.
Great lecture! I do not believe in the substitution theory, I think Allah took his soul, ie he fell asleep and his soul was returned in the tomb.
But if youre saying the real Jesus went on the cross, then the verse that says he was not killed or crucified is a contradiction to that. And the verse clearly makes a distinction between kill AND crucifixion i.e. Jesus never was crucified, as in nailed to the cross, nor was he killed, as in died on the cross.
"Crucifixion" or "CruciFICTION" ?...
You are stupid like Muhammed
@@templarsknight7285 dont call Muhammed stupid unless you wont your head off he exploited your religion
ActuallyAelohim is God, it is Jehovah that Gnostics saw as Satan, the Demiurge. Jehovah who Edwar Meir, the Jewish historian said was a Calamity, a Ruthless demon who shuns the Light, and is a mountain God that only comes at night is the one they consider Satan. Jesus was never considered as God the Father, or Elohim, whom you call Allah. Allah is AElohim according to Gnostic Catholics, He ie whom you call Allah and the Egyptians called The All. Jesus call AElohim 'Father' and he told the Pharisees their Father (Jehovah) was the lier and crimina from the beginning of times. The Protestans so called 'Christians' confuse everything and call Jehovah God. A bloody mess I would say they have made of aall.
well thats why its fascinating 3 abrahamic religions have 3 languages arabic aramaic hebrew and the only religion wich diverted from the language is christianity wich new testament was written in greek jesus never knew greek, and spread in italy and greece in wich jesus was not from there but was jewish, Elah/elohim, allah, alaha is basically the same different languages similar is THE GOD (in singular THE ONE GOD) to give more empathesis on singular nature of god, is interesting because christians follow new testament written 40-150 years after jesus disapperance in a language that he didnt speak and written by people he didnt meet, aramaic hebrew and arabic are quite similar in lots of words and things
To me all these are mere speculations- whether it came from At Tabari ( Rabbi Tovia Singer said, one of the brilliant ahli tafsir) or ibnu Kathsir himself, no one knows what happen then & no one will know now or in the future, not until Isa as came back in his 2nd coming, all the mysteries will be made clear. One may call it a LAZY way of understanding 4:157 but these are facts. I would take 4:157 literally internalize it & sleep with it. That is all about it. To me I would appreciate this ayat in the light of a man living in the desert out of no where DECLARED JESUS OR ISA as was not murdered nor he was crucified where as 300 years prior to him many Roman Councils made decision on the status of Jesus and his mother. It is like any Tom dick & Harry telling Einstein - no sir your relativity theory is all wrong. No Christian literature then ever dare to say Jesus was not crucified, I do not know if there is any, then the question mark is where he got it? If Muhammad saw ever read codex Sinaiticus he would come to the same conclusion as Mark, Luke or may be Mathew. Would anyone in his right mind dare change the conclusion of a book 300 years earlier than him? More over this man is no scholar. If ever Muhammad saw would have use Waraqah Ibn Naufal bible, still the crucifixtion story will still be there. Further more the life story of Isa as has no bearing on the everyday life of Meccans or Medinans. This is mind boggling. Many things in the Quran one can not attribute to Muhammad saw. At least 2 things in the Quran that we knew today can not be attribute to no one in antiquities & no one too in modern times unless he has a super computer. Dr Attaie - how do you explain the shortest surah in the Quran has only 10 words separated by only 3 sentences & each sentence was constructed using only 10 consonants & each verse ended with exactly the 10th letter & the most weird thing is the 2nd verse ended with a word when translated means sacrifice & eidul adha where we do sacrices fall 0n the 10th Zulhijah.
is interesting in gospel of barnabas even though it contains many errors and is a late book the story is fascinating 222 chapters has more verses than all four gospels put together and last 3-4 chapters is the story of cruxifixion wich judas is the one who died on the cross who was similar in face and body to jesus and in the day in wich the soldiers wanted to capture jesus allah made judas to be exatly like him in speech and face and real jesus got raised in third heaven while judas got killed and no one believed he was judas but jesus its a great story suggest you to read it fill many things interesting alternative story
@@jurgeni7545 Thanks, I did in my younger days but a translated version but it did not fascinate me & has no bearing on me nor it has any value to me.
@@bjplusplus1 there is one google islamic bulletin its no commentary just plain in word very easy to read no colors nothing, very interesting finale also fits the quranic crucifixion and the mystery after in wich many apostles thought real jesus was getting killed when in reality it was not that may explain it quite well
jesus was put on the cross the coran is clear ua-cam.com/video/qWihPRRwo_I/v-deo.html
@@علي-ش7ث8ب GIVE ME THE VERSE
Quran 3:55, 4:157-158, 5:117, Jesus had died on the cross...Yes, but he died NOT because of crucxifixion but Allah Himself had Taken his life while he was still on the cross...Allah is The Greatest Planner, Quran 3:54
Quran 3:55, Allah said to Jesus - I will take you (mutawafika = I will pull your soul) & raise you Unro Me (wa rafi’uka Illaiya = and return your soul to Me - meaning to Barzakh Spiritual Waiting World)
Quran 32:11, when a person is about to die in a natural death, Angel Of Death will approach him/her...
Bukhari 6929, Muhammad confirmed Jesus was nailed to the cross with this quote, which is the same as Luke 23:34 - Oh Lord, forgive them for they do not know
So Jesus is now in Barzakh Spiritual Waiting World, waiting for Resurrection & Judgement Day, Q23:99-100
He mixed up Jeshua with Yeshua
Substitution theory---- there was a substitute ( ----a substitute for JESUS,whose was crucified)----- and Jesus was not crucified!?
WHY would the world care about a Jew, Jesus, if He just died for His people???!!! Each nation has a hero! Or is it cause and effect? Isaiah 46:10-11 "I make known the end from the beginning,..... What I have said that I will bring about; what I have planned that I will do." God promised Abraham when He called him to be separated from his family that all people on earth will be blessed through him Gen 12:3; THROUGH his offspring in the lineage of Isaac and Jacob Gen 26:4, 28:14, NOT Ishmael Gen 21:12. Are we wiser and kinder than God? Isaiah 45:9 "..... Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?', that we say there's no need for the atonement of sin by animal sacrifice that GOD HIMSELF HAD INSTITUTED? Leviticus 4. Do we know better how we should be forgiven of our sins that we should reject God's plan and way of birthing a "MAN", the promised Jewish offspring, Jesus Christ, and serve Him by becoming the atonement sacrifice to save the humanity that He loves?, that we can be forgiven of our sins when we repent because the penalty for our sins had been implemented? Isaiah 53:4-6,10-12, Leviticus 5:5-6 Would it be fair for the Jews if, in the accomplishment of God's plan there should be uprising from the followers of Jesus?, NO. That's why in the wisdom and sovereignty of God, the crucifixion took place on a Passover feast that is a day before Sabbath, that with little means of transportation at that time MOST of the Jews would be at their own localities or at home for the feast and the Sabbath; only the closest disciples of Jesus and the people of Jerusalem were witnesses. And after Sabbath Jesus had resurrected that if the rumour of the crucifixion reached His followers it would already be quashed by the news that Jesus is in Galilee. And that's the reason for the doubt. For how could one believe that the healthy person he is seeing had been scourged and crucified three days ago? Why did God resurrected Him?, is it to prove that the "payment" is worth more than the debt? For He is Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:6? Our GOD truly is wise and merciful He had chosen for us a ruler who is willing to lay down his life for the sake of his subjects, who "conquer" nations with the message of peace and love, not of terror. Hallelujah!!! All praises and glory be to our awesome God!!!
Very interesting lecture.
Rashed Chowdhury Please revisit and read my comments.
At the time of isa and even after there were many men claiming to be a messiah. Even josephus a former Jewish rebel named vesapian the messiah. Even when the temple was on fire a strange man told people to run towards the temple and find salvation. They died. The romans set it on fire to extract the wealth of the temple and to reinvent a religion.
Pre-Quranic historicals, suggesting that JESUS was not crucified???
i read alot of bible records, babylonian talmud..... if u read it carefully it indicate that the 1 on the cross was king herod...... the 1 who slew prophet yahya.....
Meja Makan can I get this reference in the Talmud
Sam Gobind @ for my opinion that it was king herod that was base on the bible NT itself
Brilliant scholarship and great presentation by Dr. Ataie on the history of Muslim thought on the crucifixion.
It is baffling that the Qur'an and hadith fail to provide insight on arguably, the most significant and influential event in the history of mankind. Further, the Qur'an acknowledges Jesus' uniqueness among all 'prophets', including his miracles, Virgin birth and Messianic title - however fails to provide a theological explanation to substantiate this uniqueness. Also, the Qur'an claims Jesus' disciples were Muslim - yet, the disciples of Christ all believed He was God after the resurrection. There is no historical record of any 'muslim' followers of Christ.
The Qur'an also fails to provide a clear explanation as that it means when it refers to the Torah, the Gospel or the Zabur, because if it refers to the text of the Jews and the Christians - our Scripture stands in sharp contrast to the teachings of Islam.
It is actually not true that "the disciples of Christ all believed He was God after the resurrection." It is fairly certain that the earliest Christians, including Paul, were Unitarians. The Arian heresy was actually Ante-Nicene orthodoxy.
@@divinechemechanical The fact is, the earlier followers of Christ after the resurrection, including Paul were Trinitarians and declared Jesus as God. Would it have been otherwise, according to Bart Ehrman, his followers would have remained a sect within Judaism and would not have attracted a large number of gentiles.
Historical evidence is absolutely clear that the early followers of Christ, believed He was God. The Trinitarian belief, that is the belief that Jesus was God, was well established and professed in early Christian tradition - well before the Council of Nicea.
There is absolutely no proof in your claim that the Arian heresy was orthodoxy before the Council of Nicea.
@@lifemaverick6427 I suggest reading serious academic work on the subject, such Hanson's "Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381," or Wolfson's "The Philosophy of the Church Fathers: Faith, Trinity, Incarnation." You could also read Paul the Apostle himself, or the earliest Church Fathers, and discover directly for yourself that they never actually claim in any unambiguous way that Jesus is God or that there is a Trinity of "co-equal Persons." In 1 Corinthians 15, for example, the stress made by Paul was that Jesus was *raised*, not that Jesus was "God." What is more, the term for God in Greek is "theos," is ambiguous and in no way serves as a parallel to Allah. The only way to know who is being referred to by the word "theos" is by examining the context.
@@divinechemechanical I would also suggest you diversify your readings beyond proponents of Arianism - you won't have a hard time finding them, although they won't align with your preferred narrative.There are also purported scholars who argue that Jesus as a historical character (mythicists) didn't exist. Again, I can read as many arguments from Arianists as you choose to fit your narrative - the fact is, the consensus of biblical scholars is that the early followers of Jesus after His resurrection were convinced that He was God. Citing works of diverging opinion doesn't change the facts.
So you are aware - Jews and Christians certainly do not want to or advance the idea that Yahweh equates in any way with 'allah' of the Qur'an - they are theologically (not just semantically) vastly different.
@@lifemaverick6427 What I suggested are mainstream scholarly sources. You might also read Rowan Williams' book on Arius, which also gives a nuanced view. I am aware of and have read Richard Bauckham and Larry Hurtado, and commend them for their efforts, but the idea of an actual scholarly consensus as your suggesting doesn't exist. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
Why do you mention Shi'i? The Rawaafidh gustaakhs have no relevance in this discussion
Because he derives his views from them.
Also,
1) Alexander was known to have been a pagan
2) Alexander's campaigns were known as a Hellenic intrusion which caused the dissolution and stagnation of the Achaemenid empire of which Cyrus the Great was considered the "father".
3) Cyrus' reign led to the end of the reign of Babylon and was praised by the Israelites of that time for freeing them from the Babylonian captivity.
4) Cyrus was known even by his enemies to have been a just King, and a God Worshiping and God Fearing King.....
So how is it that someone who was historically known to have been a pagan, and who caused the decline of the Achaemenid Empire (which is known to be the precursor empire to both twin Islamic empires of today, those of Persia or Iran and the Arabian and Ash Shams area) be Dhul Qarnayn?
Furthermore, the conquests of Cyrus stretched all the way to the East and all the way to the West and then to the North, which also match the trajectory delineated in the Quran.
The following is taken from Wikipedia.....
Dhul-Qarnayn must have been a great ruler whose conquests spread from the East to the West and to the North.
The conquests of Cyrus spread to Syria and Asia Minor in the West and to the Indus in the East, and his kingdom extended to the Caucasus in the North.
Dhul-Qarnayn expanded his empire in three directions (east, west and north), which is the same as Cyrus' expansions, where he did not make southern expansions (Achaemenid southern expansions began after Cyrus).
Dhul-Qarnayn must be a ruler who constructed a strong wall across a mountain pass to protect his kingdom from the incursions of tribes or nations Gog and Magog.
Gog and Magog were the wild tribes of Central Asia who were known by different names, Scythians, Parthians, Tartars, Mongols, and Huns, who had been making incursions on various kingdoms and empires from very ancient times. Strong bulwarks had been built in southern regions of Caucasia, though it has yet to be determined historically whether these were built by Cyrus.
Dhul-Qarnayn should be a monotheist and a just ruler, since the Quran has stressed these characteristics.
Even his enemies praised Cyrus for his justice, and Ezra asserts that he was a God-worshiper and a God-fearing king who set free the Israelites because of his God-worship, and ordered that the Temple of Solomon be rebuilt for the worship of God.
The description of Dhul Qarnayn in the Quran match more closely with Cyrus the Great, but we understand that since the point of who it actually is, is not made explicit, then it is a matter of educated guessing. However, we must take into account those who more closely match the description, and dismiss the contenders for the name of Dhul Qarnayn, if they do not match the description.
As to the veracity of whether the Scythians, Parthians, Tartars, Huns and Mongols were indeed Gog and Magog, there are other interesting theories which state that Gog and Magog were actually the Khazars, but that is a whole other topic, and we have not fully studied this topic to authenticate its veracity. Wa Allahu Alim, and God knows best for all of the above topics dicussed above.
cyrus was pagan did not fear he yu to say he was god mazda. Got uses people as tools, only time it is issue is when god says he will make them great nation but that nation was pagan.
And Alexander considered himself an Egyptian god, Ammon-Ra. He was also likely homosexual.
@ 1:19:41 - literal kufr... How are people praising this??? 🤦♂️
Be careful
Watch your tone.