Does the Historical Evidence for the Crucifixion disprove Islam?
All Praise is due to Allah, Exalted be He! There is none worthy of worship but God!
Peace be upon us all.
The Bible tells us a story of a slave of Allah, prostrating his head on the ground, and asking his Lord to save him from an hour he does not want to be part of. Prophet Eesa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him) is said to have 'fell to the ground and prayed' asking Allah (Exalted be He) "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.' The Entirely Merciful, The Especially Merciful saved him, and he did not reach the hour.
Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) says (interpretation of the meaning): "...they killed him not, nor crucified him..." from this some have tried to say that The Glorious Qur'an is non-historical, as if it goes against the historical conclusion that he (Eesa alahyi as-salam) was said to have been killed because of this event, and yet they forget to read on in the verse (Qur'an 4:157) which adds on and tells us "...it was made to appear to them..." what you must understand then is that The Glorious Qur'an does not go against any historical evidence - for all history can tell us is what appeared to have occurred, if the Prophet Jesus (upon him be peace) was said to have been killed then this directly goes with what The Glorious Qur'an says that people said, interpretation of the meaning: "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary...", in fact if there was no historical evidence for anybody stating that the Prophet (upon him be peace) was crucified this would be an argument against The Qur'an - not for it!
Another argument they then put forth, after understand this, is that this event created the christian religion. I believe that it is a poor claim to state that a man simply dying on a cross, a gruesome death but of which there were many, would somehow lead to committing shirk in religion. If we're taking the Islamic Narrative to be true (which you have to to ask this question in the first place) in this case then christians added shirk into their religion after Isa (alahyi as-salam)'s claimed death, but how can this be? How can death cause someone to rise to a level of Ever-Living? Wouldn't this do the opposite? Therefore I do not believe this to be a good argument.
Praise be to God!
Peace be upon us all.
The Bible tells us a story of a slave of Allah, prostrating his head on the ground, and asking his Lord to save him from an hour he does not want to be part of. Prophet Eesa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him) is said to have 'fell to the ground and prayed' asking Allah (Exalted be He) "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.' The Entirely Merciful, The Especially Merciful saved him, and he did not reach the hour.
Allah (subhanahu wa ta'ala) says (interpretation of the meaning): "...they killed him not, nor crucified him..." from this some have tried to say that The Glorious Qur'an is non-historical, as if it goes against the historical conclusion that he (Eesa alahyi as-salam) was said to have been killed because of this event, and yet they forget to read on in the verse (Qur'an 4:157) which adds on and tells us "...it was made to appear to them..." what you must understand then is that The Glorious Qur'an does not go against any historical evidence - for all history can tell us is what appeared to have occurred, if the Prophet Jesus (upon him be peace) was said to have been killed then this directly goes with what The Glorious Qur'an says that people said, interpretation of the meaning: "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary...", in fact if there was no historical evidence for anybody stating that the Prophet (upon him be peace) was crucified this would be an argument against The Qur'an - not for it!
Another argument they then put forth, after understand this, is that this event created the christian religion. I believe that it is a poor claim to state that a man simply dying on a cross, a gruesome death but of which there were many, would somehow lead to committing shirk in religion. If we're taking the Islamic Narrative to be true (which you have to to ask this question in the first place) in this case then christians added shirk into their religion after Isa (alahyi as-salam)'s claimed death, but how can this be? How can death cause someone to rise to a level of Ever-Living? Wouldn't this do the opposite? Therefore I do not believe this to be a good argument.
Praise be to God!