The Crucifixion and the Qur’an: A Study in the history of Muslim Thought
The first book to examine the controversial Qur’anic phrase which divides Christianity and Islam.
According to many, the Qur’an denies the crucifixion of Jesus. However, it is only mentioned in one verse and its interpretation has been the subject of fierce debate among Muslims. This work delves into Arabic sources, which suggest that this interpretation of the verse may originate from the Christian Church.
According to the majority of modern Muslims and Christians, the Qur’an denies the crucifixion of Jesus, and with it, one of the most sacred beliefs of Christianity. However, it is only mentioned in one verse – “They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, rather, it only appeared so to them” – and contrary to popular belief, its translation has been the subject of fierce debate among muslims for centuries.
This the first book devoted to the issue, delving deeply into largely ignored Arabic sources, which suggest the the origins of the conventional translation may lie within the Christian Church. Arranged along historical lines, and covering various Muslim schools of thought, from Sunni to Sufi, The Crucifixion and the Qur’an unravels the crucial dispute that separates the World’s two principal faiths.
About the author
Todd Lawson is Associate Professor at the Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations, University of Toronto. He is the author of Reason and Inspiration in Islam: Theology, Philosophy and Mysticism in Muslim Thought.
Categories: Christianity, Islam, Qur'an
I do hope that perhaps after reading this, fundamentalists like Rev Temple no longer will disturb us with the rather over used line:
“The Quran is wrong because it denies the crucifixion of Jesus (See Matt 27)”.
Or am I hoping for too much?
You are hoping too much. Fundamentalism forces people to be stupid.
If you guys also admit that Lawson’s book shows his view agrees with NT & Christian history ( & Josephus, the Jews, Roman historians like Tacitus and Seutonius, and Greek writers like Lucian and others) – that Jesus died on the cross; and the historical weight of evidence is great; and Lawson solves the problem by interpreting Surah 4:157 in light of:
2:154
3:169
3:55
19:33
5:117
Do you agree with Lawson that Jesus really did die; just don’t consider him dead, since His spirit / soul is with Allah? (same as martyrs – 3:169 and 2:154)
وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَن يُقْتَلُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَمْوَاتٌ ۚ بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ وَلَٰكِن لَّا تَشْعُرُونَ – 2:154
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not.
وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَمْوَاتًا ۚ بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ – 3:169
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,
(and the implications of Surah 3:55; 5:117; 19:33 – the Arabic word there, means “cause you to die”, but is watered down to “take you to myself”.
Have you read Lawson’s book?
David Waltz quoted so much of it there at his blog – see all the links, and we discussed Lawson’s book a lot in the comboxes, of several different blog posts; and also Joseph Cumming massive 40 page paper of the historical Islamic interpretations, that I felt like I did read it.
I listened to Todd Lawson’s videos here and interacted with them at David Waltz’ blog – Lawson gave synopsis of his book:
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/12/dr-todd-lawsons-stimulating-lecture.html
Joseph Cumming’s 40 page paper of Islamic interpretations of Surah 4:157.
I read that years ago and interacted with it and Lawson’s book at David Waltz’ website.
http://ricklove.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Did-Jesus-Die-on-the-Cross-Joseph-Cumming.pdf
Once you admit that history is on the side of the NT and Christianity, then the theology of the atonement can be something that Muslims should consider.
Mark 10:45
Romans 8:3-4
Galatians 3:13
1 Peter 2:24
Galatians 2:20
There is no certain proof/historical evidence that Jesus was actually crucified.
There is no more certain event of ancient history, than that Jesus Al Masih عیسی المسیح was crucified, died, and was buried – as Licona shows from many sources, not just the multiple witnesses of the 9 authors of the NT books, but from Jewish, Roman, and Greek non-Christians sources.
https://www.risenjesus.com/the-death-of-jesus-the-defeat-of-islam
Name one eye witness whose testimony we can read today
Even Bart Ehrman and John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg and Rudolph Bultmann knew and believed that Jesus of history was crucified and died on the cross – (they are all liberal scholars, – not believers )
“There are a few things we can say with virtual certainty about Jesus. For example: he was a Jewish preacher from rural Galilee who made a fateful trip to Jerusalem and was crucified by the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. There are, of course, lots of other things that we can say, without quite so much certainty (see my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium). But that much is certain. ”
Bart Ehrman
https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-crucifixion-as-king-of-the-jews/
Bart likes to overstate matters. But elsewhere he is more nuanced and makes clear that history deals in probabilities NOT certainties. There is no eyewitness testimony to this alleged event.
Bart Ehrman states that the crucifixion of Jesus on the orders of Pontius Pilate is the most certain element about him. A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, p. 136
John Dominic Crossan states that the crucifixion of Jesus is as certain as any historical fact can be. Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p. 145. Crossan sides Tacitus and Josephus as ancient witnesses.
Since your post is partly about what a great scholar Crossan is, then you should take his statement to heart and mind.
Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd state that it is now “firmly established” that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus. The Jesus Legend, p. 127.
Christopher M. Tuckett, another of your favorite scholars, states that, although the exact reasons for the death of Jesus are hard to determine, one of the indisputable facts about him is that he was crucified. The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, p. 136.
Geza Vermes, another scholar you have lauded and used here at your blog (s) also views the crucifixion as a historical event. A Century of Theological and Religious Studies in Britian, p. 125-126
but none would regard it as proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is no direct historical evidence.
Yes, we have discussed Todd Lawson’s book before at blogs & I with David Waltz of Articuli Fidei. Do you agree with Lawson that Jesus really did die; just don’t consider him dead, since His spirit / soul is with Allah? (same as martyrs – 3:169 and 2:154)
وَلَا تَقُولُوا لِمَن يُقْتَلُ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَمْوَاتٌ ۚ بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ وَلَٰكِن لَّا تَشْعُرُونَ – 2:154
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah, “They are dead.” Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not.
وَلَا تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ أَمْوَاتًا ۚ بَلْ أَحْيَاءٌ عِندَ رَبِّهِمْ يُرْزَقُونَ – 3:169
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision,
(and the implications of Surah 3:55; 5:117; 19:33 – the Arabic word there, means “cause you to die”, but is watered down to “take you to myself”.
Lawson actually agrees with the weight of historical evidence (both from Christian and Jewish and Roman sources) that Jesus did die on the cross; but that since when a believer dies, their souls / spirits go to heaven with Allah, that he is with Allah in paradise now – like the martyrs in Surah 3:169 and other verses.
David Waltz quoted this Islamic scholar over at his blog, Articuli Fidei years ago, and I discussed many aspects of Lawson’s book and Surah 4:157 over at his blog.
Islamic scholar, Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub wrote:
The Quran…does not deny the death of Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God. The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example S. 3:55; 5:117; 19:33. (“Towards an Islamic Christology II”, The Muslim World, Vol. LXX, April 1980, #2, p. 106.)
http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/does-quran-deny-crucifixion-and.html
David Waltz also wrote many other posts on Surah 4:157 and Lawson’s book there, and we discussed many of these issues in the comboxes there over the years.
Verses (2:154) & (3:169) are not like verse (4:157) at all. Just read the verses yourself.
If we want to discuss the matter from an irreligious angle, then matter for historians is a matter of possibilities. For them it’s more possible that Jesus got crucified than the he got saved although NONE of those who wrote about that incident are eyewitnesses. Not to mentioned that some of them had a very strong religious motive to emphasize that incident. After all, you wouldn’t find any historian who would say that a person who lived 2000 years ago is still alive as well as none of them would say that Mary got pregnant without a man.
However, is there any possibility that Jesus didn’t die on the cross? The answer is YES!, and I think dr. Shabir Ally provided really good points about that.
From a religious point of view, the matter is easy! Allah(sw) is all knowing, and He knew what happened exactly as He knew what happened exactly to Moses , Enoch, and Elijah.
For me, I go with the notion that the one who was on the cross was not Jesus. Jews had a good reason and motive to say it’s Jesus for their jewish audience.
The questions are now:
Can we conclude that Jesus got saved by looking to the matter critically & provide that possibility?
The answer is YES.
Can we conclude that Jesus didn’t teach the he come to the world as a atonement?
The answer is YES.
But they are the verses that Dr. Lawson uses to interpret 4:157 in the light of the historical evidence that Jesus was indeed crucified and died.
Paul W. put up Lawson’s book without pointing that out. Lawson affirms that Jesus really did die in history on the cross. He interprets 4:157 in the light of 2:154, 3:169; 3:55; 19:33 (Peace be upon me the day that I died); and 5:117
That is Lawson’s opinion. Most Muslim scholars have disagreed.
Ok, but no one would have know unless I pointed that out; yet you put his book forward to avoid the reality that the Qur’an denies history – that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and killed on the cross. (without telling people Lawson’s view, it is a subtle way to try and avoid the clear implications of the Qur’anic text.)
Ken, cite me just 1 eyewitness testimony who saw Jesus on the cross from the 1st century please
Demanding that all the historical evidence be exact as you put it is not how history works. But we have the first century writings of those who testify of those who say they say the crucifixion of Jesus –
All the writers of the NT were first century witnesses. Peter, Mark, Matthew, Luke (through interviews of many eyewitnesses – Mary, the disciples, the disciples that did not write gospels, etc.) and John. Paul is eyewitness of Jesus’ resurrection appearance, and confirms his testimony with the disciples. (Galatians 1, I Corinthians 15) Jesus’ half brothers also – James and Jude.
So,
Peter (his testimony is in all four gospels and his 2 letters)
John – eyewitness
Matthew – eyewitness
Mark – wrote of those who were eyewitnesses (Peter and the others); but some believe he was indeed there also as an eyewitness
Mary – eyewitness
Luke – interviewed the eyewitnesses
James
Jude
Writer of Hebrews
Even Richard Bauckham in his book, “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” says that the Gospel of John is testimony of a disciple who was an eyewitness.
I asked you to name ONE eyewitness account, written by an eye-witness. None of those you cite pass the test of critical historical analysis.
Luke gives us accurate accounts of eyewitnesses. (Mary and the disciples)
Mary and other women were there at the cross
John was an eyewitness – he was there at the cross
Matthew was an eyewitness
Peter was an eyewitness and is testified about in all 4 gospels
James, half-brother of Jesus
Jude, half-brother of Jesus
Writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Apillonius, etc. – theses are historical documents that together with the NT testimony carry much more weight that the Qur’an’s claim of a miracle some 600 years later that Allah secretly took Jesus to heaven before the cross and made it appear that He was crucified and killed, etc.
Gnostics did not believe Jesus even had a body; so you cannot claim them as an Islamic belief, since you believe he was a real human person with a body and was born of the virgin Mary by a miracle of God.
And he was wrong about that (i.e. to link those verses to the verse talking about Jesus). They are different.
Larson’s view seems far fetched and strained to me also. But the way Williams and others avoids the implications of the reality of the denial of history of Surah 4:157, after I showed all the historical evidence, is to just put forth that book, and say “there are many other interpretations of that verse”. The Qur’an is suppossed to be clear and explained in detail. فصلت ، مفصلا
Surah 11:1
Surah 6:114
Surah 41:3
Lawson’s book and Williams’ answers shows Surah 4:157 to be one of the most unclear things in all of the Qur’an, and the basis of denial of established history; and the basis of the denial of the main doctrine of Christianity – the atonement of Christ and all that is connected with that. (sin, salvation, resurrection)
Ill ask Ken once more: have you read the book?
Has anyone noticed the contradiction between what Temple has been saying in the past and what he seems to be saying in this post? If no one has, then, can you do a quick mental exercise? Compare these two statements:
“The Quran is not God’s word because it denies one of the most certain events in history – the crucifixion of Jesus Christ” – Ken Temple
“The Quran does not does not deny the death of Jesus Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God” – Ken Temple (quoting Dr M. M. Ayoub)
Perhaps when Temple is sure about what he thinks the Islamic position is on the subject, when he admits that there are numerous interpretations some of which incorporate the death of Jesus into them, then we may have a conversation. Until then, I do not see much benefit in continuing the discussion, at least not when he is hell bent on finding faults with the Quran than engaging the scholarship done on it.
But then, may I muddy the waters a bit more. I will like to introduce my own position. May be Mr Temple might take that in too. I hope he just does not get confused.
In my opinion, Muslims do not have to explain the fact that the majority of historians claim that Jesus died. They do not have to explain it at all. Did the Quran not say that Allah performed a miracle by which he saved Jesus? Given that historians have no means of disproving this claim, it is rather absurd to conclude that the claim is false. It is even more absurd if this statement comes from a theist who believes that God can do anything, and far still more unreasonable if it is from a christian. Jesus was saved via a divine miracle and that is it. Case dismissed.
Yes. I know. You are wondering why the ‘earliest sources’ said that he died, right? Well, Nabeel Qureshi after admitting that what I have written above is reasonable wondered the same too. So you are not alone. But take a step back and wonder about what these ‘earliest sources’ are. Who are the sources that we are talking about? The christian sources and early second century historians who based their claims on the christian sources., isn’t it? Well, the problem with those sources is that they are very one sided. By that I mean they present us with only one version of the story. It is increasingly admitted to by scholars that there are other early versions; that the second century claims of the gnostic sects is in fact based on earlier first century christian creeds. In a series which he dedicated to refuting Bart Ehrman, amateur historian Earl Doherty made a strong case that this is actually what happened. Even Ehrman was forced to admit that Doherty had a point. According to Doherty, when Paul had written to the Galatians, his main concern was that they had accepted the claims of a rival sect who preached that the crucifixion was a myth. Paul could not have been more blunt in his rebuke when he wrote “in your eyes Jesus was portrayed as crucified…” shortly after accusing them of turning to a different gospel (Galatians 1). To suggest that he did this not out of concern that the belief in the resurrection was waning is Galatia is to be disingenuous.
In a similar vein, during a debate with David Wood (I think the debate happened in 2016 or 2017), Shabir Ally pointed out that there was a pre the gospels belief that Jesus was lifted into the sky from his tomb. “Was he lifted alive or dead, we do not know” Shabir seems to be implying, “And neither do the people who were alive at the time. If God had made Jesus appear as dead, there is no way anyone could have distinguished between that and him being truly dead. The most important thing is that the case can be made that to the early followers of Jesus, his alleged death and resurrection meant very little, perhaps meant nothing as regards to salvation”.
So there we have it! Jesus might not have died at all. He might never even have been crucified at all! And even if he had been, the possibility that he died is negated by the inability of anyone to prove that God did not intervene and rescue his messiah. Thus, the ‘scholarship’ regularly drummed into our ears by Ken Temple goes up in flames.
I chose in fact to reject christianity for this very reason. If the evidence (the major one) for it is that the resurrection happened (and in my opinion, the details of what transpired are so shady that one could never be sure of what actually is true), then one is bound to have a rethink.
I conclude with this quote from the Quran “They have no certain knowledge regarding it save conjecture” 4v157
“Luke gives us accurate accounts of eyewitnesses. (Mary and the disciples)”
Demolished :
https://celsus.blog/2016/08/29/eyewitness-recollections-in-greco-roman-biography-versus-the-anonymity-of-the-gospels/
So Reza Aslan and historical scholars are not wrong.
Dr Shabir Ally made very strong points at (1:25:35′) and on. His articulation was really an excellent one.
https://youtu.be/oBlt7VBGjVA?t=5138
Chocoboy wrote:
Has anyone noticed the contradiction between what Temple has been saying in the past and what he seems to be saying in this post? If no one has, then, can you do a quick mental exercise? Compare these two statements:
“The Quran is not God’s word because it denies one of the most certain events in history – the crucifixion of Jesus Christ” – Ken Temple
“The Quran does not does not deny the death of Jesus Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God” – Ken Temple (quoting Dr M. M. Ayoub)
You misunderstand my purpose in providing that quote by Dr. M. M. Ayoub (and also Todd Lawson’s book and view). The reason I put all that up was that Paul Williams FIRST put up Lawson’s book as a rebuttal to my evidence from historical scholarship that Jesus did in fact die on the cross – He was crucified by the Jewish leadership and Pontius Pilate and the Romans, and killed by them. (The Jewish leadership manipulated mobs and Pilate and “forced” Pilate to do it).
I pointed out all the historical evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion and death – in scholar Mike Licona’s article:
https://www.risenjesus.com/the-death-of-jesus-the-defeat-of-islam
and Williams answer was, well, see Lawson’s book for lots of different views of Surah 4:157, but without telling us that Lawson also agrees that Jesus died on the cross; and that Surah 4:157 is only saying, “the Jews did not kill him” (But the Romans really did crucify and kill him) – a goofy and strained view, if you ask me. Then Lawson applies 2:154 and 3:169 – “do not consider the martyrs as dead, they are alive” (with Allah in heaven), etc.
I agree that Dr. Ayoub and Lawson’s views are strained and do not seem to deal with the reality of what Surah 4:157 is saying.
But I also see 3:55, 19:33, and 5:117 as making 4:157 a contradiction, so the Qur’an is a contradiction to itself and to history; therefore is not revelation from God.
//But I also see 3:55, 19:33, and 5:117 as making 4:157 a contradiction, so the Qur’an is a contradiction to itself and to history; therefore is not revelation from God//
Each verse has its meaning and its own context. There’s no contradiction by any mean. Rather, you are the one who doesn’t understand.
Speaking of contradictions,
1) https://i.imgur.com/rUZXsyY.png
2 https://i.imgur.com/RGXMVGN.png
3) https://i.imgur.com/0kUc8U4.png
4) https://i.imgur.com/pThsk5I.png
5) https://i.imgur.com/SWRhoVm.png
6) https://i.imgur.com/bdYGScL.png
So why do you consider these contradictory accounts as a revelation form God, especially the authors themselves didn’t claim that to their writings?
There are no contradictions there. All of those have been answered many times by Christian apologetic ministries for years. They are available if you take the time to read them.
Sura Yunus 10:64 says, “No change can there be in the words of Allah.” This is repeated in Sura Al An’am 6:34: “There is none that can alter the words of Allah,” found also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29
this means that God’s promises cannot be broken. The actual Gospel give to Jesus by God has been corrupted/forgotten/distorted as the Quran says.
But the Qur’an never says the previous Scriptures in the text was corrupted/distorted/forgotten.
the Qu’ran even uses the phrase “the book between their hands” at that time, so you are wrong.
The Qur’an only says that some groups of Jews distorted the meaning of the Scriptures with their tongues. (Surah 3:78)
and that a group of illiterate people who just heard with their ears, wrote stuff down and claimed it is from God. 2:25-79 never says that that is about the text that Jews and Christians were reading at the time. It refers to a group that separates itself and goes and writes new stuff.
What is the context of Surah 2:75-79 ?
Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?
And when they meet those who believe, they say, “We have believed”; but when they are alone with one another, they say, “Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?” Then will you not reason?
But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare?
And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming.
So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.
Qur’an, Surah 2:75-79
Wrong. There is a mass of Quranic evidence for the textual corruption of your scriptures: https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
wrong; you have no evidence for that. (aside from the textual variants, which we all admit)
The same basic text is the same, even given the textual variants.
This is about Allah’s decrees.
Read Surah 48:15.
For example, when God says I’m not a man, that’s will not change. You cannot change that regardless whether you have corrupted the book or not.
There’re contradictions in these accounts, and you cannot just deny it.
https://i.imgur.com/pThsk5I.png
Remember, those authors didn’t claim about their writings what you claim fir them.
//But the Qur’an never says the previous Scriptures in the text was corrupted/distorted/forgotten.//
In contrary, Qur’an has stated that very clearly
“So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do. O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.”
//What is the context of Surah 2:75-79 ?//
The context is the unstable conditions for these scriptures. Some & some. That’s it. It’s like when Jeremiah said “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie”.
“But you must not mention ‘a message from the LORD’ again, because each one’s word becomes their own message. So you distort the words of the living God, the LORD Almighty, our God.”
Jesus, also, said “Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”
It’s only through God’s prophets you can make them clear and get them purified, and that’s why Qur’an commanded you “O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book.”
// “the book between their hands//
First of all, we don’t know exactly what kind of manuscripts they had in time of the prophet ﷺ.
“Those to whom We gave the Scripture before it – they are believers in it.And when it is recited to them, they say, “We have believed in it; indeed, it is the truth from our Lord. Indeed we were, [even] before it, Muslims [submitting to Allah ].” QT.
Also, that’s true according to the definition of Qur’an to torah and Injeel are. Qur’an was not speaking about any specific ( Biblical canon)! Qur’an was speaking about the true message of torah and Injeel. Muslims still believe that the biblical canon you have has some truth in it. Furthermore, Qur’an didn’t make any case based on the ignorant insincere laymen and their improper knowledge about the Torah and Injeel because Qur’an knows exactly what the the Torah and Injeel are. Rather, Qur’an urge you to see those who know.
“And has it not been a sign to them that it is recognized by the scholars of the Children of Israel?” QT.
“And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, “Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses.”QT.
//Some groups of Jews distorted the meaning of the Scriptures//
Paul is a good example
https://i.imgur.com/sS3fixK.jpg
Mainstream Christian theology was able to deal with the results of historical critical research and its challenges to implausible dogmata. Mainstream Muslim theology still is lacking this ability it seems. Denying the historical Jesus was cucified is a desolate endeavor. When will Muslims be ready for a fruitful examination of the historical Quran?
I had posted a new comment. Not sure why it’s not displayed .
Shabir Ally, again, made an amazing argument from a historical point of view about this subject. Please listen at (1:00:46)