This precise article is in response to Ali Sina's article "Did Jesus Escape Crucifixion?" at following location:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/crucifixion.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Sina:
Despite the fact that all Christians believe that Christ was crucified, which is also clearly stated in the Mark 15. 21-41; Matt.
27.32-44; Luke 23. 26-43 and John 19. 17-27, Quran states that it wasn't Jesus that the Jews crucified but someone
resembling him.
My Response:
The Bible is a book that has been adulterated several times. The contradictions and mistakes therein are apparent to the
most ignorant of readers. Sina has quoted books and chapters of the New Testament. It is clear that this part of the Bible was
actually first written over 300 years after the death (Christians) or rise-up (Islam) of Jesus PBUH. It is quite unimaginable that
changes and adulterations have not happened with the original text for theses 300 years. I question the logic of Sina who tries
to prove everything that comes before him, maybe even his own birth certificate, and yet he has whole heartedly accepted the
crucifixion of Jesus PBUH as explained in books that were written 300 years after Jesus by people who probably were never
there when the event occurred. This is at the outset, the most revealing truth about the Bible and yet Sina unconditionally
accepts the book as true. It was never “cruci-fiXion” Sina, it was "crucifiCtion”. Unlike you, we Muslims never lay
arguments without palatable evidence nor do we digress from the subject at hand especially if it is the one we select to write
on as an article. I do not know if it is mental delusion, but whatever it is, I will unmask the truth and bring it out. Even if it means
rubbing your nose on the ground. I read a long time back Sina wanted to disrobe me in public. I invite him to do, and may it be
witnessed here that I am the one to draw first blood in this match of disrobing.
"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14)
Keep the above verse in mind, Sina. This will be the final nail in your article’s coffin and probably the stake in the heart of your
sponsors. It will be clear Sina, that the “greatest story ever TOLD” is indeed the “greatest story ever SOLD”.
Digest this Ali Sina,
Who Carries Jesus’ Cross?:
In the Passion narratives, did Jesus carry his own cross or not?
Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene
John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way
Inscription on Jesus’ Cross:
When crucified, Jesus’ cross had an inscription — but what did it say?
Mark 15:26 - The inscription: “The King of the Jews.”
Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
Jesus and the Thieves:
Some gospels say Jesus was crucified with two thieves, though the Romans never crucified thieves.
Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation
Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus
Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in
Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection
John - The two men aren’t described as thieves
Does Jesus Drink Wine or Vinegar?:
Jesus is given something to drink while he is on the cross, but what?
Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks
Jesus and the Centurion:
Romans supposedly witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, but what did they think?
Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
John - No centurions say anything
Women Watch the Curcifixion:
The gospels describe several woman as having followed Jesus around, but what did they do when Jesus was crucified?
Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar
John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices
When Was Jesus Crucified?:
The crucifixion of Jesus is the central event of the Passion narrative, but the narratives don’t agree on when the crucifixion
occurred.
Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion
Jesus’ Last Words:
Jesus’ last words before dying are important, but no one seems to have written then down.
Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek
words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”
Earthquake after the Resurrection:
Was there an earthquake when Jesus died?
Matthew 27:51-53 - At the moment Jesus dies, a massive earth quake strikes and opens tombs where dead people rise again
Mark, Luke, John - No earthquake is mentioned. No earthquake and no massive influx of formerly dead people is mentioned in
any historical records, which is strange given how monumental such an event would be.
The only witness to resurrection:
Mary Magdalene was the only witness to the resurrection which was such a pivotal event and yet even the Gospels that Sina
talks of are not harmonious in that did Mary Magdalene witness the resurrection herself or was she informed of it by someone
else. A massive event such as this and yet Sina does not see the blatant contradiction in the bible while he and his invisible
translator/commentator friend can concoct non-existent errors in the Quran.
The prophesy of Jesus like Jonah
The Son of God makes one and only prophesy in the whole bible, like Jonah was in the belly of the fish, so will the son of man
be in the belly of earth for 3 days and 3 nights. Even this didn’t come true.
Fact: Jonah was alive in the belly of the belly of the fish.
Fact: Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights.
Fact: Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish.
Fact: Jonah emerged from the belly of the fish after 3 days and 3 nights
Fact: Jonah did not resurrect after 3 days and 3 nights. He never died in the first place.
Eat your heart out Ali Sina. Of course, I mean you and your evangelist sponsors who cannot prove the Quran wrong even if
they gathered with all the creatures in the world. They were diotic and picking an idiot to attack the Quran. They lose so do
you.
http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/Crucifixion.htm
This website is that of an atheist just like Ali Sina. Do you readers see the problem with disbelief?
In fact after the supposed “resurrection”, the New Testament quotes the famous noli me tengere (touch me not, for I have not
yet ascended to my Father in heaven) verse which Jesus PBUH is related to have told Mary Magdalene when she attempted to
touch him. This theme is the famous in art circles especially 16th century renaissance painters. Also, once he resurrected, he
met the disciples in the upper room. They reacted with fear? Why? They thought he was a spirit. So Jesus PBUH decided to
allay their fears and asked them to touch him and see that he was flesh and blood. A spirit of flesh and blood?? That’s news to
me I don’t know if Sina, a master (or slave) of his 5 senses and logic can see otherwise. They still feared. Then he asked them
to give him honey comb and fish so that he could eat and show them that he was not a spirit. A masticating spirit?? Folklore
stuff in the bible? Is this the superstition that Sina says we can remove from the bible so that it is more palatable to those who
worship logic and sensually satisfying logic, like himself?
If there is anyone more devoid of logic on this earth it is Ali Sina. Not only has he plainly shown where his loyalties lie and who
his sponsors are, he has also shown that with the logic he professes Sina can come up with such a topic that will open him up
as target the size of the Giant wheel in London. Then with abject stupidity he tries to prove the Quran wrong.
The Gospel Fairy Tale
It is not probable that one modern Christian out of one hundred thousand knows that centuries before the time of Christ the
nations annually celebrated the death and resurrection of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra, and other gods. Tell it to your
neighbour, and he will laugh. That is, he will say, the "science" of comparative religion. I am giving a full, serious, simple, and
easily verified examination of the Christian creed in every aspect; and this aspect with which I now deal is one of the most
important, and to me most fascinating, aspects. So I approach it on lines on which any believer may accompany me.
What will he say? Surely not, as the early Christians did, that the devil inspired the pre-Christian nations with these
resurrection myths. That is, frankly, childish. We shall in the end search for, and probably find, the real roots of the myth in the
early mind of the race. I take it that my religious reader will be puzzled. He ought to have known these things before. Why
cannot his writers and preachers candidly face them? All that I ask him to do for the moment is to make, with me, a more
careful examination than he has ever made before of the evidence for the resurrection in the New Testament.
There is a remarkable difference between the evidence for the virgin birth and that for the resurrection. Paul comes first: then
Mark (except the last part): and so on. Now the earlier parts know nothing whatever about a miraculous birth of Jesus, but they
are quite certain of the resurrection. Unless we deny the genuineness of the whole of the Epistles, which is a desperate
venture, Paul was absolutely convinced of the resurrection; and this proves that it was widely believed not many years after
the death of Jesus. His insistence in the Epistles shows, of course, that it was disputed. The statement was a piece of folly"
and a "stumbling block" to the converts from paganism; precisely because they saw resurrection-celebrations every year. But
the belief existed, and Paul was sure of it, within a few years of the crucifixion.
Well, let us examine the story as it is told by the writers of the Gospels. Mark, the oldest Gospel, has the simplest account: that
is to say, Mark as you read it in your American bible today. It is the easiest thing in the world to prove that these Gospels have
received additions and interpolations. Turn to Matthew xxviii 19: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Not only had Jesus given his disciples exactly the opposite
instructions (Matthew x 5-7), but he certainly never baptized, or ordered the baptism of, anybody; and he never taught any cut-
and-dried Trinitarian doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It took the Church three centuries to settle these matters. Even
orthodox theologians, in fact, admit that this ending has been flagrantly tacked on to the Gospel of Matthew in the fourth
century.
Now the oldest manuscripts of Mark end at v 8 of ch. xvi. The rest of the last chapter is in an entirely different style, and it flatly
contradicts what precedes. In v 7 an angel says to the women: "Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before
you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." According to the writer of the Gospel as it originally was, the
three women told nobody, for they were afraid. So the new writer (v 9) makes Jesus appear in person to one of the women,
and she goes to tell the "mourning and weeping" disciples. They refuse to believe; and a second apparition was heard of by
them with the same refusal to believe. These clever men had, presumably, seen daily proof for two or three years that Jesus
was God, and Mark says that he had foretold his resurrection to them; but they stubbornly refused to believe in his power to
come to life again and they timorously thought that the whole business was ended! The entire passage from v 9 onward is
preposterous.
But the earlier part is not much better. The three women went early on a Sunday morning to "anoint" the body of (God) with
"spices." How you anoint a body with spices I do not know; or why they waited until two days after the burial. In Judea in April
no one would dream of anointing a body two days dead; and Jewish laws permitted them to go after sunset on Saturday
(Sabbath-any sort of work related activity is totally banned under jewish law).
Moreover, they are supposed to know that the tomb is closed with a stone which they cannot move, but they take no man with
them, and they idly wonder (v 3) how they can get it done. Then they find "a young man" sitting inside (what one sits on in a
tomb is not clear); and, of course, they cannot tell an angel when they see one-and even the word of an angel only frightens
them; and we are asked to believe that three gossipy Jewish women-it would be a greater miracle than the resurrection-had
these tremendous experiences, and were expressly ordered to tell them, yet went home and told nobody, even that the body
of the Lord was missing!
The truth is that the whole final narrative of Mark is a tissue of interpolations and contradictions. Joseph of Arimathea had
already (xv 46) had the body properly prepared for burial. Even the officer in charge of the soldiers is made to say, at the
cross: "Truly this man was the Son of God." A likely expression for a Roman officer; but the chief point is that with all these
portents all the relatives and followers of Jesus are smitten with grief and confusion.
They are supposed to know that the most sublime thing in history has happened under their eyes:
God in human shape has died and released mankind from the curse. Yet they weep copiously, and are "amazed," "afraid,"
and slink off into quiet corners to whisper to each other. It is a most clumsy fabrication. Obviously, some early life of Jesus, in
which he was conceived merely as a good man, and was correspondingly mourned, has been crudely tampered with by these
later resurrectionists; and, as the first interpolations were not strong enough, more were added. The Church, which the
Catholic imagines as "guarding the deposit of revelation”, was improving it every half century.
Matthew has another, and still later version, completely contradicting Mark. The tomb is here supposed to be sealed by the
Jewish authorities, and a guard set over it. That is to say, the most learned of the Jews are supposed to think that Jesus had
foretold his resurrection-while the disciples are uniformly represented as refusing to believe it when it did occur-and thinking
that there might be a melodramatic attempt to steal the body and say that he was risen. Then there is a "great earthquake"
(not other wise recorded), and even this is not enough to shift the stone, so an "angel of the Lord" (a pure spirit) comes down
and puts his shoulder to it, and then sits on it (outside the tomb, not inside, as Mark says), presumably wiping his brow. And
the angel's countenance is "like lightning," etc. Yet the ladies in Mark merely thought him a strange "young man," and took no
notice of his orders; while Matthew makes them see a squad of hardy soldiers tremble before his glory.
In Matthew, moreover, the two women (who are three in Mark), instead of getting a fright and remaining miraculously dumb,
run at once, with "great joy" to tell the disciples. Another touch is added by making Jesus appear to them on the way to
Jerusalem; whereas Mark makes the first apparition to one woman only, and at a later date. Then these chocolate soldiers are
supposed to go and tell the high priests about the strange business, and the priests bribe them to say that they all fell asleep
on sentry duty. In Ch. xxvii (v 65) Pilate has refused a squad of Roman soldiers, and has told the priests to use their own
police, which they did. In Ch. xxviii (v 14) the police have turned into Roman soldiers, responsible to "the Governor" (who has
expressly refused to have anything to do with the matter); but they are quite willing, for a few dollars, to expose themselves to
sentence of death (for sleeping on sentry duty-no priest could save a Roman soldier from sentence for that). But, of course,
this is only "if it comes to the governor's ears" (v 14); and a trifle such as a resurrection from the dead, in a quiet city like
Jerusalem, was not likely to reach his ears.
Then the disciples are told to go to a secret rendezvous on a mountain in Galilee if they wish to see the risen Lord. They do
not believe a word of it, but they go, and they see him. A human body transfigured (now that it no longer lives an earthly life)
by an indwelling divine spirit ought to be a wonderful spectacle. No: "some of them doubted." It must have been a very
ordinary sight...I really cannot go on. It is too childish for words.
Let us try Luke. Luke (being a doctor, they say) provides the women- there are now "certain others with them"-with "ointments'
as well as spices; though he has already made Joseph of Arimathea have the body properly prepared and interred. They do
not see a shining angel sitting on the stone outside, smiling at a squad of terror-stricken soldiers (or policemen), as Matthew
says, or "a young man" sitting inside, as Mark says. But "two men in shining garments" (strange how persistently Jewish
women can't recognize angels) suddenly appear and tell them. They run home and remind the disciples that Jesus had really
foretold that he would rise on the third day; a detail which everybody had forgotten. The disciples call this an "idle tale." They
think, apparently, according to all the Gospels, that the Jesus they knew was not in the least likely to rise from the dead. It is a
nightmare of mysteries-or contradictory inventions.
Then a new version is drawn upon. Some Christian group which follows Peter in opposition to Paul makes him "run" to the
tomb; though in the preceding verse he has pooh-poohed the "idle tale." He finds the shroud; and, unfortunately, he does not
tell us what Jesus wore when he left this behind. Peter was alone; but the John group in the Church wouldn't have this, so in
John (xx 3) Peter runs a race up the hill with John, and is beaten. In John also the details about the linen multiply; naturally, as
it is an older Gospel, and the peculiar character of the Gospel narratives is that the farther a writer is removed from the
events, the more he knows.
Paul knows very little: Mark a little more than Paul: Matthew and Luke (about the end of the century) still more:
and John (well in the second century knows everything.
However, Luke, "the physician," makes Jesus, who now has no metabolism in his transfigured body, walk a few miles with two
of the disciples; and so naturally that they never for a moment suspected his identity, though he proved at great length to
them how Jesus was bound to die and rise again. He seems to have trodden the dust of the road with them for several hours.
However, they go home in great excitement, when they at last realize that their casual acquaintance on the road is God, and
they tell the others. And Jesus, who in the two earlier Gospels refuses to meet the disciples in Jerusalem, and appoints a
melodramatic meeting-place in Galilee, now appears to them in the city. Although they had been so well prepared (as well as
by three years of miracles) they were "terrified and affrighted." Even the marks of the nails on his hands and feet left them
skeptical. The only thing that could convince them was, curiously enough, to see that he could eat fish and honey. Finally, in
flat contradiction to the earlier Gospels, Jesus tells them not to leave Jerusalem, and they boldly invade the temple and sing
the whole story at the top of their voices.
After this we need not linger over John. Another decade or two have added materially to the legend. Now we learn that
Nicodemus and Joseph did anoint the body of Jesus; and very effectively, because they are said to have used about a
hundredweight of myrrh and aloes (xix 39-40). So Mary Magdalene does not take spices. She is alone, moreover, and she
sees no angel and no policemen. She runs home and tells Peter (and, of course, John), and they run a race; and they see no
angels; and we are still told, for some mysterious reason, that they had no recollection whatever of Jesus saying that he would
rise again. However, Mary goes back-still alone-and sees two angels; and even in face of this glorious vision she sobs and
complains that somebody has stolen the body of Jesus. One would think that there were body-snatchers in ancient Judea.
We will suppose that the bright eyes of the retired sinner were dimmed with tears, for the next verse is too strong, even for
Orientals: Jesus, the transfigured god man, appears to her, and she thinks that he is the gardener and that he stole the body!
"Woman," he says harshly to his friend; but the next moment he whispers tenderly "Mary," and her eyes are opened.
"Rabboni" ("My Rabbi"- just what Jesus had said nobody ought to be called), she cries, and apparently . . . anyhow, he has to
say, "touch me not." So she tells the disciples, and John agrees with Luke against Mark and Matthew, that Jesus did appear to
the disciples in Jerusalem, and that the melodramatic rendezvous on a mountain in Galilee is piffle.
In fact, Jesus appeared twice to them, John says; and, although he walked through a locked door, one of them, "doubting
Thomas," wouldn't believe that he was God until he saw that there was a wound in his side. John does, it is true, then send
them to Galilee. But it is funny. After Jesus has breathed the Holy Ghost on to them (xx 22), and given them such terrific
powers as that of absolving from sin, they return to their humble profession of fisher men on the Sea of Tiberias! And they
have to be convinced all over again-by the usual strange evidence of eating- and then, apparently, they go back to business
once more.
Ali Sina, do your apologists and your sponsors really expect me to take all this seriously? I am accustomed to a critical study of
historical documents, and this . . . It is the most appalling jumble of contradictions, and the tale grows under our eyes in the
course of the first century. It is as crude as anything in ancient mythology. There is not the slightest pretense of consistency in
the various versions and successive additions to the original story. Let us turn to Paul, and see if we can ascertain what the
original story was.
We get little help from Acts. The author repeats what he has said in Luke about apparitions, and he enlarges a little upon the
ascension; which is not known to any other writer. Jesus, we are asked to believe, took his disciples (as usual) up a
"mountain," and from there he rose physically in the air until he disappeared in a cloud. It is perfectly amazing to find people in
the twentieth century who regard such statements as historical. It is just the myth of Hercules ascending to heaven in a cloud.
Paul's Epistles are the earliest documents; and they give us to understand that the followers of Jesus believed in his
resurrection and his appearances to various friends at least a few years after his death. On any serious canon of evidence
that is the only witness to the resurrection that we can be asked to consider. The Gospel stories are late, contradictory, and
often absurd. Paul's Epistles were, of course, written long after the death of Jesus, but we must clearly put back his belief in
the Resurrection to the time of his conversion. He was convinced by the followers of Jesus at Jerusalem that the prophet had
risen from the dead and had been seen by Peter and by the whole eleven (somewhere he says twelve) apostles.
There are certain details in Paul which must be considered. The Epistles are very sparing in details-these had not yet been
invented-but Acts puts into the mouth of Paul a speech made in the synagogue at Antioch. In this speech Paul plainly says
that it was, as we should normally expect, the Jewish authorities who buried Jesus; and in that case his body would be put in
the common pit for the burial of crucified criminals.
Paul says (Acts xiii 27-29): For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of
the prophets which were read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And when they had fulfilled all
that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.
This flatly denies all the picturesque details in the Gospels. If a companion of Paul wrote this, as all suppose, the first story of
the resurrection was quite different from that in the Gospels. Paul was a Jew, and he knew Jewish law; which not a single
Gospel writer seems to have done. There was no need whatever to wait until Sunday morning. The Sabbath prohibition of
work ended at sunset. The whole Gospel story is a fiction that could only grow and find acceptance amongst foreigners.
Paul, on the other hand, is the only writer who makes Jesus appears to five hundred at a time. It is amusing to find Christian
writers emphasizing this "large number" of witnesses to the resurrection. We have not a single witness to the resurrection.
None of the women or men who are supposed to have gone to the tomb and seen Jesus has left us any testimony. A late
writer forged a Gospel in the name of John. A still later writer forged in the name of Peter a Gospel with such fantastic details
about the resurrection that even the early Christians, whose faith was great, rejected it. And evidently this story of an
apparition to five hundred, which circulated early, was in the course of time considered too strong, and was abandoned.
In the end, therefore, we come down to the single statement of Paul that the Jewish authorities cast the body of Jesus into the
pit, but some of his followers said that Jesus subsequently appeared to them, and so he must have risen from the dead. Some
believed this, and others disbelieved. Paul's insistence implies that, and in one place (I Cor. xv 12) he says that some
Christians do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. It was, however, generally believed, and it is useless now to ask how
the belief arose. Clearly, according to the earliest versions, the apostles scattered when Jesus was arrested, and they
returned to their work as fishermen. Later they said that they had seen the Lord"-such details as those about the women are
far later in appearance-and they resumed preaching in his name. Is it a novel thing in religious history for enthusiasts to see
visions? This is nonsense. In fact quite the contrary. Down to our own time, in Spiritualism, it is the most common of
experiences. Scores of Roman Catholic saints claim to have seen Jesus in the flesh; and the Protestant denies every word of
it.
The belief in the resurrection is thus a quite normal event; especially as Jesus was held to be the Messiah, and the
resurrection of the Messiah was held to have been predicted. But the elaborate story in the Gospels is not merely a myth. It is
a fairy tale; and we clearly see the growth of it from 50 A.D. to 120 A.D. Whether or not the world-wide belief in the
resurrection of gods disposed the followers of Jesus to believe in his resurrection, the growth of the story, as the decades
went on, is plainly influenced by the other myths, and we will consider them more closely.
So much for the crucifiXion (crucifiCtion) and Sina talks about being objective and logical. Sina is nonsensical so is his website.
Now remember the Corinthians nail from the start of my article and let it be one in the coffin of this myth of crucifixion-
resurrection.
Ali Sina:
And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that
man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture.
For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). But Allâh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body
and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allâh is Ever All¬Powerful, All¬Wise. )" (Q.4:157-158)
My Response:
Yusuf Ali & Pickthall
4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor
crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no
knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
4:158 But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
Sina finds this difficult to believe while he can gleefully understand and appreciate the contradictory riddled fantasy tale of
crucifixion and resurrection. It is more palatable to believe that Jesus, the apostle of God, was saved the by the Almighty the
Author of laws of nature from crucifixion and death. It is an accepted issue that it is rather possible that Jesus did escape
crucifixion. Why such a pivotal event would otherwise be riddled with so many controversies as explained above?
Also note that Sian completely does not argue the issue of crucifixion or death of Christ and directly touches on the issue of
resurrection and the rising of Jesus to the heavens. He quotes the absurdity of the same when it is palatable that Jesus may
have escaped the crucifixion in all certainty.
Ali Sina:
The story of Christ being lifted to heaven "in body and soul" is obviously contrary to all logic and science. One wonders what
kind of Heaven Muhammad was envisioning. The above verse implies that Muhammad believed heaven must be a geographic
place and that God has a physical body. Because if he had thought that Heaven is a spiritual realm, then where did the body
of Jesus go? You need a physical place to accommodate a physical body. In an age that science is unraveling the mysteries
of the extra terrestrial space, it would be interesting to question a Muslim, where is this physical heaven that Christ has
ascended and God has set up his thrown?
My Response:
As regards the issue of Jesus being raised unto heaven, what is so problematic about that? Quran 3:54 (khairul makerin –
Allah the best deceiver) where Ali Sina clearly shoots himself in the foot, bears witness to this very same incident. Quran 3:55
is also in reckoning of this event. Refer below.
"Khairul Makerin: The Best Deceiver"
The Holy Quran 3:55: And when Allah said: "O 'Isa! I am going to take you away completely and cause you to ascend unto Me
and purify you of those who disbelieve, and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the Day of
Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed (55)
QUR'AN: And when Allah said: "O 'Isa! I am going to take you away completely:
"at-Tawaffi" is to take something completely. It is for this reason that it is also used for death, because at the time of death
Allah takes man's soul away from his body. See, for example, the following verses:
...Our messengers take him completely (6:61), i.e., cause him to die.
And they say: "What! when we have become lost in the earth, shall we then indeed be in a new creation?". . . Say: "The angel
of death who is given charge of you shall take you completely (i.e., cause you to die), then to your Lord you shall be brought
back" (32:10-11).
Allah takes completely the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep: then He withholds those
on whom He has passed the decree of death and sends the others back till an appointed term... (39 :42).
Pondering on the last two verses you will see that the Qur'an has not used at-tawaffi in the meaning of death, rather the word
gives the idea of taking and preserving. In other words, when at-tawaffi is used for death, it is not because it means death;
rather it is used to emphasize the connotation of taking and preserving, to show and establish that man's soul does not perish,
is not destroyed by death - contrary to what ignorant people think; Allah keeps and preserves it until comes the time to return
it to its body for resurrection. At other places where this sense is not involved, Allah uses the word al-mawt (= death), and not
at-tawaffi'.
For example:-
And Muhammad is no more than a messenger, the messengers have already passed away before him: if then he dies or is
killed, will you turn back upon your heels? (3 :144)
...it shall not be finished with them entirely so that they should die... (35:36).
There are a lot of other verses of this type, not excepting some verses in 'Isa's story itself: For example, there are, 'Isa's words
about himself: And peace be on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life (19:33);
and Allah's words about him: And there is not one of the people of the Book but most certainly shall believe in him before his
death, and on the Day of Resurrection he ('Isa) shall be a wit¬ness against them (4:159).
It all shows that at-tawaffi does not necessarily mean death.
This interpretation is also supported by the words of Allah refuting the claim of the Jews: And their saying: "Surely we killed the
Messiah, 'Isa son of Mar yam, the messenger of Allah;" and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to
them so (like 'Isa); and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it,
but only follow a conjecture; and they killed him not for sure. Rather, Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
And there is not one of the people of the Book but most certainly shall believe in him before his death and on the Day of
Resurrection he ('Isa) shall be a witness against them (4:157-159).
The Jews claimed that they had killed the Messiah, 'Isa son of Maryam, and likewise the Christians think that the Jews had
killed 'Isa son of Maryam by crucifixion, and that after he was crucified Allah raised him up from his grave to the heaven, as the
Gospels say. But the Qur'anic verses, as you see, unequivocally refute the story of killing and crucifixion both.
It is apparent from the Divine Words, And there is not one of the people of the Book..., that 'Isa (a.s.) is alive near Allah and
that he will not die until all the people of the Book shall believe in him. Keeping all these factors in view, the word at-tawaffi,
used in the verse under discussion, would only mean that Allah was to take him away completely from among the Jews. Yet the
verse does not say so clearly; it is only its apparent connotation.
QUR'AN: "and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve:
"ar-Raf " (to raise, to cause to ascend) is opposite of al-wad' (to put down). at-taharah (cleanliness, purity) is opposite of al-
qadharah (dirtiness, impurity). We have already explained the meaning of cleanliness. The phrase, "cause you to ascend", is
qualified by the word, "unto Me"; and it implies that the ascension was spiritual, rather than physical; because Allah has no
place like the physical spaces in which a body or things related to body arrive, stay or settle down, and from which they depart
or to which they come nearer. Accordingly, this phrase will have the same connotation as the words at the end of this very
verse have: then to Me shall be your return. This interpretation will be strengthened if at-tawaffi is taken to mean "to cause to
die"; because in that case, "to cause to ascend to Me" would imply raising his rank and taking him nearer to Allah. Its meaning
will, then, be similar to the verse 3:169, wherein Allah says about those who are martyred in His way: they are alive near their
Lord; and the verse 19:57, where He says about Idris (a.s.): And We raised him to a high station.
Another interpretation: The ascension refers to his being raised alive with his body and soul together to the heaven; because
the apparent meaning of the Qur'anic verses suggest that the heaven - i.e. the physical one - is the place of nearness to
Allah, the venue from which the Divine favors and blessings are sent down, and where the honored angels live. Probably, we
shall discuss the meaning of as-sama" (sky, heaven) somewhere else, Allah willing.
Purification from the unbelievers, as it is preceded by ascension to Allah, implies spiritual, rather than physical purification.
Accordingly, it means that Allah would keep him away from the unbelievers, protect him from mingling with them, and remove
him from their society - the society that is polluted by their unbelief and rejection of truth.
QUR'AN: "and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the Day of Resurrection:
In this verse Allah gives a promise that He will surely make the followers of 'Isa (a.s.) prevail over his adversaries who
disbelieved in his prophethood, and that this predominance will continue up to the Day of Resurrection. This verse
distinguishes the superior group from the inferior one, saying that the superior ones are those who follow 'Isa (a.s.) and the
opposite group is that of the unbelievers - without mentioning that they were from the Children of Israel, or that they were the
Jews who professed to follow the shari'ah of Musa (a.s.) or pointing to them in any other way.
Of course, looking at the fact that his adversaries have been defined as unbelievers, it appears that "those who follow you"
refers to the following in the way of truth, a following that is approved by Allah and which He is pleased with. Accordingly, his
followers would be those Christians who did not deviate from his straight path before Islam came to abrogate 'Isa's religion:
and after the advent of Islam it is the Muslims who are his followers - because only these two groups are his followers in the
path of truth. If so, then the promised superiority would mean their superiority in their arguments and proofs, not their material
domination or their rule over his adversaries. The meaning thus will be as follows: The proof of your followers, i.e., the above
mentioned Christians and the Muslims, shall be victorious over the proof of those who disbelieve in you, i.e., the Jews, up to
the Day of Resurrection.
The above was the explanation given and chosen by the exegetes. But I think that the verse does not support this
interpretation either explicitly or implicitly. Evidently the whole sentence, "I am going to take you away completely and cause
you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve, and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to
the Day of Resurrection," is news of what was to happen in the future: His being taken away, his ascension to Allah, his
purification from disbelievers and the domination of his followers over unbelievers all was to happen sometimes after Allah had
given him this news.
Moreover, the words, "and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve," contain a promise and a good tiding, and
good tiding always refer to some future event. And it is known that the proof of the 'Isa's followers is nothing but the proof of
'Isa himself. These are the very proofs which were mentioned in the good news given to Maryam. And those proofs had
certainly gained ascendancy over those of the unbelievers, both when 'Isa (a.s.) was present before his ascension, as well as
after his ascension. It may rather be said that before his ascension those proofs were more decisive and more convincing in
face of his adversaries’ claims than they were after his ascension. This being the case, what is the meaning of a promise that
his followers’ proofs would overcome those of his adversaries - in future? Again, why should this dominance be limited "to the
Day of Resurrection" only? If a proof is victorious and convincing it should remain so for all times, without any limitation of time
or day.
Moreover, victory of a true proof over false ones will be even more manifest on the Day of Resurrection, as the Qur'an informs
us in connection of that Day's happenings.
A suggestion: Perhaps predominance of proof means that it would be more popular, more widely accepted - people would
heed more to it, would accept it more readily; in this way their number would increase, and their power be more formidable.
COMMENT: Does it mean that his true followers would prevail over the disbelievers, would rule over them and overwhelm them
with their power? But the fact is otherwise. It is no use saying that it may be a good news which would come true in distant
future in the last days of the world, because the wordings of the verse do not allow such delay Or does it mean predominance
in number that is, his followers - the followers of truth after 'Isa (a.s.) would be more numerous than the followers of falsehood?
But reality belies it. The followers of falsity have always been in majority, and the people of truth always in minority, right from
the time of 'Isa (a.s.) upto these days of ours - a long period of two millennia. Moreover, the wordings of the verse do not
support this interpretation either. Look at the context; the verse gives 'Isa (a.s.) the good news that Allah's displeasure was to
descend on the Jews that they were to be overwhelmed by Divine Anger.
In this background, the predominance of his followers conforms more with his followers' hold and dominance over his
adversaries - either through convincing proofs or through rule and domination. But in no way does it point to the majority in
number.
Let us have a fresh look at this verse: It distinguishes the two groups with two verbs: "those who follow you", and "those who
disbelieve". The verb shows that an action has taken or will take place within the framework of a time - past, present or future.
The implication would differ if these phrases were changed to adjectives: "followers" and "disbelievers"; because adjectives
show a more or less permanent attribute which transcends time limits, the said attribute is found in its related thing or person
at all times. Suppose there is a group of people who do something good or bad, and the rest of the nation is pleased with it,
even the coming generations agree with what their ancestors did, then this much ideological identity and psychological
identification are enough to ascribe that action or thing to the whole nation. For example, the Qur'an admonishes the Jews and
condemns them because of their ancestors' actions like hurting and slaying the prophets, their arrogance in face of the
commands of Allah and His messengers, their alterations and interpolations in the Book of Allah and many other things like
that.
In view of the above-mentioned two principles, "those who disbelieve" may be interpreted as the whole Jewish nation; and
"those who follow you" may mean all the Christians because their early fathers had believed in and followed 'isa (a.s.) - and it
was a correct belief and true following - although Allah was not pleased with those among them who believed in the trinity
before Islam, nor was He pleased with the whole nation when they continued to follow 'Isa (a.s.) even after the advent of Islam.
The sentence therefore means that Allah was to make the Christians - whose ancestors had truly followed 'Isa (a.s.) -
dominant over the Jews because they had disbelieved in 'Isa (a.s.) and had planned and conspired against him.
The aim is to show that Allah's wrath has descended on the Jews, and His severe chastisement has engulfed their nation.
(We have explained above that the early Christians had truly followed 'Isa [a.s.]; and therefore the whole Christian nation may
be included in the phrase, "those who follow you".)
Going further, we find the phraseology changed. Instead of saying "those who follow you", Allah says: "And as to those who
believe and do good deeds ..." This too supports our interpretations that "those who follow you" covers all the Christians,
irrespective of their present belief and behavior. It does not mean only the Muslims and those Christians who had correct
belief and had truly followed 'Isa (a.s.) - in short it is not confined to those who will be saved in the hereafter. Otherwise, Allah
would have continued the earlier mode of expression and said: And as to those who follow you, He will pay them fully their
rewards.
Another interpretation: "those who follow you" covers all the Christians and all the Muslims; and the verse foretells that up to
the Day of Resurrection the Jews would always remain under the domination of those who believe that it is obligatory to follow
'Isa (a.s.) - and the basis of the explanation is the same as above. And it is the best of the interpretations written for this verse.
QUR'AN: "then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed:
This talk is addressed jointly to 'Isa (a.s.) and those who followed him and those who disbelieved in him. It gives their ultimate
result on the Day of Resurrection. And with this verse the story of 'Isa (a.s.) comes to its end - from the time Maryam got the
good news to the end of his earthly life.
While we know that in actual sense Jesus did escape the crucifixion and the Lord Almighty did save his apostle, Sina finds this
absurd as it does not fit his limited logic. More and more this fellow seems to be a disturbed and deranged individual who is a
slave to his senses, while he considers a master of logic. How Jesus was raised to the heaven is not clear, God knows best. It
is a matter of belief; however we are sure the prophet of God was never crucified nor was he killed by the Jews.
Ali Sina:
One wonders why Muhammad would say such thing despite the emphasis in all four Gospels. The answer lies in the group of
Nestorian Christians who populated the Damascus and Northern Arabia during time of Muhammad. These Christians thought
that it would be impossible to kill the Son of God and believed that god tricked the Jews and sent someone else who looked
like Jesus to be crucified, thus he saved his favorite Son. This is the source of the above verses of Quran.
My Response:
This is repetitive. I have already shown that none of the gospels are in tandem with the other as regards crucifixion and
resurrection. In fact it is an accepted fact that none of the disciples were ever there at the crucifixion and the resurrection. So
there in no emphasis whatsoever from the 4 gospels as purported and distorted by Ali Sina. He is a joke and so are his
evangelist sponsors whose bible isn’t in unison with their beliefs.
Ali Sina:
By reading Quran one realizes that Muhammad knew the New Testament only through second hand stories and he never read
the book himself.
There is another mistake of Muhammad that should be really embarrassing to anyone who claims that Quran is a revealed
book. And that is about confusing Marry the Mother of Christ with Miriam the Sister of Aaron and Moses. These two were born
about 1400 years apart from each other. See what Quran says.
At length she brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou
brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!" Q. 19:27-28
My Response:
It is an accepted fact by both the bible and Quran that thee was a distinct relationship between wife of Zacharia and Virgin
Mary. Both were from the house of Aaron. It is a norm that when one is related to a respected personality in lineage, the
female members of the family, of whatever generation, maybe referred to as the sisters or daughters of that person.
This now beckons the question: which Aaron? This is the Haroon from the House of Lavi not from the House of David of Juda’s
line. He was the most respected person of his time and the first of the priestly lineage from which the Virgin Mary came. In fact
the error here lies with the gospel where in the book of Matthew, they try to show Mary’s lineage to Haroon of Lavi and that of
Joseph, the alleged husband of Mary, from the house of David of Juda. This is a blatant lie and should have been spotted by
the roving eye of Sina but his allegiances are sworn to evangelists hence his eye is blind when it comes to this. Both the
books, Quran and the gospel are against this line of events.
The mistake is not with Muhammad PBUH but with Sina’s thought process. He is the one who has taken leave of his senses
and intellect. What else would you expect from one who has sold himself to evangelists.
Ali Sina:
And Mary, the daughter of `Imran, ... -- Q. 66:12
My Response:
Mary is the daughter of Imran. This fact was not even known to the gospel writers. Imran was the father of Mary the mother of
Christ.
Ali Sina:
In Quran one finds a lot of mistakes of this sort that shows Muhammad had very little knowledge of the reality of this world as
well as of other religious books that he claimed are God's revelations.
My Response:
These are plain facts and I challenge this sorry excuse for a thinker to come and debate on them and try and debunk what I
have stipulated in this article. I maintain that Sina is an idiot and his evangelist sponsors are even bigger morons not to have
noticed that they are backing a losing horse in this attack on Islam. Pathetic!
They say give a fool enough rope and he will hang himself. Sina has already clarified where his allegiances lie and where his
daily bread comes from as remuneration for insulting Islam and Quran falsely. Soon we will know who Ali Sina is. It just a matter
of time.
Ends ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the Section of Zuher
Send Email to Zuher
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/crucifixion.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ali Sina:
Despite the fact that all Christians believe that Christ was crucified, which is also clearly stated in the Mark 15. 21-41; Matt.
27.32-44; Luke 23. 26-43 and John 19. 17-27, Quran states that it wasn't Jesus that the Jews crucified but someone
resembling him.
My Response:
The Bible is a book that has been adulterated several times. The contradictions and mistakes therein are apparent to the
most ignorant of readers. Sina has quoted books and chapters of the New Testament. It is clear that this part of the Bible was
actually first written over 300 years after the death (Christians) or rise-up (Islam) of Jesus PBUH. It is quite unimaginable that
changes and adulterations have not happened with the original text for theses 300 years. I question the logic of Sina who tries
to prove everything that comes before him, maybe even his own birth certificate, and yet he has whole heartedly accepted the
crucifixion of Jesus PBUH as explained in books that were written 300 years after Jesus by people who probably were never
there when the event occurred. This is at the outset, the most revealing truth about the Bible and yet Sina unconditionally
accepts the book as true. It was never “cruci-fiXion” Sina, it was "crucifiCtion”. Unlike you, we Muslims never lay
arguments without palatable evidence nor do we digress from the subject at hand especially if it is the one we select to write
on as an article. I do not know if it is mental delusion, but whatever it is, I will unmask the truth and bring it out. Even if it means
rubbing your nose on the ground. I read a long time back Sina wanted to disrobe me in public. I invite him to do, and may it be
witnessed here that I am the one to draw first blood in this match of disrobing.
"If Christ be not risen from the dead, then our preaching is vain, and your faith is also vain." (1 Corinthians 15:14)
Keep the above verse in mind, Sina. This will be the final nail in your article’s coffin and probably the stake in the heart of your
sponsors. It will be clear Sina, that the “greatest story ever TOLD” is indeed the “greatest story ever SOLD”.
Digest this Ali Sina,
Who Carries Jesus’ Cross?:
In the Passion narratives, did Jesus carry his own cross or not?
Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene
John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way
Inscription on Jesus’ Cross:
When crucified, Jesus’ cross had an inscription — but what did it say?
Mark 15:26 - The inscription: “The King of the Jews.”
Matthew 27:37 - The inscription: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:38 - The inscription: “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19 - The inscription: “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”
Jesus and the Thieves:
Some gospels say Jesus was crucified with two thieves, though the Romans never crucified thieves.
Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation
Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus
Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in
Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection
John - The two men aren’t described as thieves
Does Jesus Drink Wine or Vinegar?:
Jesus is given something to drink while he is on the cross, but what?
Mark 15:23 - Jesus is given wine mixed with myrrh, but he doesn’t drink
Matthew 27:48, Luke 23:36 - Jesus is given vinegar, but he doesn’t drink
John 19:29-30 - Jesus is given vinegar and he drinks
Jesus and the Centurion:
Romans supposedly witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion, but what did they think?
Mark 15:39 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
John - No centurions say anything
Women Watch the Curcifixion:
The gospels describe several woman as having followed Jesus around, but what did they do when Jesus was crucified?
Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar
John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices
When Was Jesus Crucified?:
The crucifixion of Jesus is the central event of the Passion narrative, but the narratives don’t agree on when the crucifixion
occurred.
Mark 15:25 - Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion
Jesus’ Last Words:
Jesus’ last words before dying are important, but no one seems to have written then down.
Mark 15:34-37, Matthew 27:46-50 - Jesus says: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (but they use different Greek
words for “God” — Matthew uses “Eli” and Mark uses “Eloi”)
Luke 23:46 - Jesus says: “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.”
John 19:30 - Jesus says: “It is finished.”
Earthquake after the Resurrection:
Was there an earthquake when Jesus died?
Matthew 27:51-53 - At the moment Jesus dies, a massive earth quake strikes and opens tombs where dead people rise again
Mark, Luke, John - No earthquake is mentioned. No earthquake and no massive influx of formerly dead people is mentioned in
any historical records, which is strange given how monumental such an event would be.
The only witness to resurrection:
Mary Magdalene was the only witness to the resurrection which was such a pivotal event and yet even the Gospels that Sina
talks of are not harmonious in that did Mary Magdalene witness the resurrection herself or was she informed of it by someone
else. A massive event such as this and yet Sina does not see the blatant contradiction in the bible while he and his invisible
translator/commentator friend can concoct non-existent errors in the Quran.
The prophesy of Jesus like Jonah
The Son of God makes one and only prophesy in the whole bible, like Jonah was in the belly of the fish, so will the son of man
be in the belly of earth for 3 days and 3 nights. Even this didn’t come true.
Fact: Jonah was alive in the belly of the belly of the fish.
Fact: Jonah was in the belly of the fish for 3 days and 3 nights.
Fact: Jonah did not die in the belly of the fish.
Fact: Jonah emerged from the belly of the fish after 3 days and 3 nights
Fact: Jonah did not resurrect after 3 days and 3 nights. He never died in the first place.
Eat your heart out Ali Sina. Of course, I mean you and your evangelist sponsors who cannot prove the Quran wrong even if
they gathered with all the creatures in the world. They were diotic and picking an idiot to attack the Quran. They lose so do
you.
http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/Crucifixion.htm
This website is that of an atheist just like Ali Sina. Do you readers see the problem with disbelief?
In fact after the supposed “resurrection”, the New Testament quotes the famous noli me tengere (touch me not, for I have not
yet ascended to my Father in heaven) verse which Jesus PBUH is related to have told Mary Magdalene when she attempted to
touch him. This theme is the famous in art circles especially 16th century renaissance painters. Also, once he resurrected, he
met the disciples in the upper room. They reacted with fear? Why? They thought he was a spirit. So Jesus PBUH decided to
allay their fears and asked them to touch him and see that he was flesh and blood. A spirit of flesh and blood?? That’s news to
me I don’t know if Sina, a master (or slave) of his 5 senses and logic can see otherwise. They still feared. Then he asked them
to give him honey comb and fish so that he could eat and show them that he was not a spirit. A masticating spirit?? Folklore
stuff in the bible? Is this the superstition that Sina says we can remove from the bible so that it is more palatable to those who
worship logic and sensually satisfying logic, like himself?
If there is anyone more devoid of logic on this earth it is Ali Sina. Not only has he plainly shown where his loyalties lie and who
his sponsors are, he has also shown that with the logic he professes Sina can come up with such a topic that will open him up
as target the size of the Giant wheel in London. Then with abject stupidity he tries to prove the Quran wrong.
The Gospel Fairy Tale
It is not probable that one modern Christian out of one hundred thousand knows that centuries before the time of Christ the
nations annually celebrated the death and resurrection of Osiris, Tammuz, Attis, Mithra, and other gods. Tell it to your
neighbour, and he will laugh. That is, he will say, the "science" of comparative religion. I am giving a full, serious, simple, and
easily verified examination of the Christian creed in every aspect; and this aspect with which I now deal is one of the most
important, and to me most fascinating, aspects. So I approach it on lines on which any believer may accompany me.
What will he say? Surely not, as the early Christians did, that the devil inspired the pre-Christian nations with these
resurrection myths. That is, frankly, childish. We shall in the end search for, and probably find, the real roots of the myth in the
early mind of the race. I take it that my religious reader will be puzzled. He ought to have known these things before. Why
cannot his writers and preachers candidly face them? All that I ask him to do for the moment is to make, with me, a more
careful examination than he has ever made before of the evidence for the resurrection in the New Testament.
There is a remarkable difference between the evidence for the virgin birth and that for the resurrection. Paul comes first: then
Mark (except the last part): and so on. Now the earlier parts know nothing whatever about a miraculous birth of Jesus, but they
are quite certain of the resurrection. Unless we deny the genuineness of the whole of the Epistles, which is a desperate
venture, Paul was absolutely convinced of the resurrection; and this proves that it was widely believed not many years after
the death of Jesus. His insistence in the Epistles shows, of course, that it was disputed. The statement was a piece of folly"
and a "stumbling block" to the converts from paganism; precisely because they saw resurrection-celebrations every year. But
the belief existed, and Paul was sure of it, within a few years of the crucifixion.
Well, let us examine the story as it is told by the writers of the Gospels. Mark, the oldest Gospel, has the simplest account: that
is to say, Mark as you read it in your American bible today. It is the easiest thing in the world to prove that these Gospels have
received additions and interpolations. Turn to Matthew xxviii 19: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Not only had Jesus given his disciples exactly the opposite
instructions (Matthew x 5-7), but he certainly never baptized, or ordered the baptism of, anybody; and he never taught any cut-
and-dried Trinitarian doctrine of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It took the Church three centuries to settle these matters. Even
orthodox theologians, in fact, admit that this ending has been flagrantly tacked on to the Gospel of Matthew in the fourth
century.
Now the oldest manuscripts of Mark end at v 8 of ch. xvi. The rest of the last chapter is in an entirely different style, and it flatly
contradicts what precedes. In v 7 an angel says to the women: "Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before
you into Galilee; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." According to the writer of the Gospel as it originally was, the
three women told nobody, for they were afraid. So the new writer (v 9) makes Jesus appear in person to one of the women,
and she goes to tell the "mourning and weeping" disciples. They refuse to believe; and a second apparition was heard of by
them with the same refusal to believe. These clever men had, presumably, seen daily proof for two or three years that Jesus
was God, and Mark says that he had foretold his resurrection to them; but they stubbornly refused to believe in his power to
come to life again and they timorously thought that the whole business was ended! The entire passage from v 9 onward is
preposterous.
But the earlier part is not much better. The three women went early on a Sunday morning to "anoint" the body of (God) with
"spices." How you anoint a body with spices I do not know; or why they waited until two days after the burial. In Judea in April
no one would dream of anointing a body two days dead; and Jewish laws permitted them to go after sunset on Saturday
(Sabbath-any sort of work related activity is totally banned under jewish law).
Moreover, they are supposed to know that the tomb is closed with a stone which they cannot move, but they take no man with
them, and they idly wonder (v 3) how they can get it done. Then they find "a young man" sitting inside (what one sits on in a
tomb is not clear); and, of course, they cannot tell an angel when they see one-and even the word of an angel only frightens
them; and we are asked to believe that three gossipy Jewish women-it would be a greater miracle than the resurrection-had
these tremendous experiences, and were expressly ordered to tell them, yet went home and told nobody, even that the body
of the Lord was missing!
The truth is that the whole final narrative of Mark is a tissue of interpolations and contradictions. Joseph of Arimathea had
already (xv 46) had the body properly prepared for burial. Even the officer in charge of the soldiers is made to say, at the
cross: "Truly this man was the Son of God." A likely expression for a Roman officer; but the chief point is that with all these
portents all the relatives and followers of Jesus are smitten with grief and confusion.
They are supposed to know that the most sublime thing in history has happened under their eyes:
God in human shape has died and released mankind from the curse. Yet they weep copiously, and are "amazed," "afraid,"
and slink off into quiet corners to whisper to each other. It is a most clumsy fabrication. Obviously, some early life of Jesus, in
which he was conceived merely as a good man, and was correspondingly mourned, has been crudely tampered with by these
later resurrectionists; and, as the first interpolations were not strong enough, more were added. The Church, which the
Catholic imagines as "guarding the deposit of revelation”, was improving it every half century.
Matthew has another, and still later version, completely contradicting Mark. The tomb is here supposed to be sealed by the
Jewish authorities, and a guard set over it. That is to say, the most learned of the Jews are supposed to think that Jesus had
foretold his resurrection-while the disciples are uniformly represented as refusing to believe it when it did occur-and thinking
that there might be a melodramatic attempt to steal the body and say that he was risen. Then there is a "great earthquake"
(not other wise recorded), and even this is not enough to shift the stone, so an "angel of the Lord" (a pure spirit) comes down
and puts his shoulder to it, and then sits on it (outside the tomb, not inside, as Mark says), presumably wiping his brow. And
the angel's countenance is "like lightning," etc. Yet the ladies in Mark merely thought him a strange "young man," and took no
notice of his orders; while Matthew makes them see a squad of hardy soldiers tremble before his glory.
In Matthew, moreover, the two women (who are three in Mark), instead of getting a fright and remaining miraculously dumb,
run at once, with "great joy" to tell the disciples. Another touch is added by making Jesus appear to them on the way to
Jerusalem; whereas Mark makes the first apparition to one woman only, and at a later date. Then these chocolate soldiers are
supposed to go and tell the high priests about the strange business, and the priests bribe them to say that they all fell asleep
on sentry duty. In Ch. xxvii (v 65) Pilate has refused a squad of Roman soldiers, and has told the priests to use their own
police, which they did. In Ch. xxviii (v 14) the police have turned into Roman soldiers, responsible to "the Governor" (who has
expressly refused to have anything to do with the matter); but they are quite willing, for a few dollars, to expose themselves to
sentence of death (for sleeping on sentry duty-no priest could save a Roman soldier from sentence for that). But, of course,
this is only "if it comes to the governor's ears" (v 14); and a trifle such as a resurrection from the dead, in a quiet city like
Jerusalem, was not likely to reach his ears.
Then the disciples are told to go to a secret rendezvous on a mountain in Galilee if they wish to see the risen Lord. They do
not believe a word of it, but they go, and they see him. A human body transfigured (now that it no longer lives an earthly life)
by an indwelling divine spirit ought to be a wonderful spectacle. No: "some of them doubted." It must have been a very
ordinary sight...I really cannot go on. It is too childish for words.
Let us try Luke. Luke (being a doctor, they say) provides the women- there are now "certain others with them"-with "ointments'
as well as spices; though he has already made Joseph of Arimathea have the body properly prepared and interred. They do
not see a shining angel sitting on the stone outside, smiling at a squad of terror-stricken soldiers (or policemen), as Matthew
says, or "a young man" sitting inside, as Mark says. But "two men in shining garments" (strange how persistently Jewish
women can't recognize angels) suddenly appear and tell them. They run home and remind the disciples that Jesus had really
foretold that he would rise on the third day; a detail which everybody had forgotten. The disciples call this an "idle tale." They
think, apparently, according to all the Gospels, that the Jesus they knew was not in the least likely to rise from the dead. It is a
nightmare of mysteries-or contradictory inventions.
Then a new version is drawn upon. Some Christian group which follows Peter in opposition to Paul makes him "run" to the
tomb; though in the preceding verse he has pooh-poohed the "idle tale." He finds the shroud; and, unfortunately, he does not
tell us what Jesus wore when he left this behind. Peter was alone; but the John group in the Church wouldn't have this, so in
John (xx 3) Peter runs a race up the hill with John, and is beaten. In John also the details about the linen multiply; naturally, as
it is an older Gospel, and the peculiar character of the Gospel narratives is that the farther a writer is removed from the
events, the more he knows.
Paul knows very little: Mark a little more than Paul: Matthew and Luke (about the end of the century) still more:
and John (well in the second century knows everything.
However, Luke, "the physician," makes Jesus, who now has no metabolism in his transfigured body, walk a few miles with two
of the disciples; and so naturally that they never for a moment suspected his identity, though he proved at great length to
them how Jesus was bound to die and rise again. He seems to have trodden the dust of the road with them for several hours.
However, they go home in great excitement, when they at last realize that their casual acquaintance on the road is God, and
they tell the others. And Jesus, who in the two earlier Gospels refuses to meet the disciples in Jerusalem, and appoints a
melodramatic meeting-place in Galilee, now appears to them in the city. Although they had been so well prepared (as well as
by three years of miracles) they were "terrified and affrighted." Even the marks of the nails on his hands and feet left them
skeptical. The only thing that could convince them was, curiously enough, to see that he could eat fish and honey. Finally, in
flat contradiction to the earlier Gospels, Jesus tells them not to leave Jerusalem, and they boldly invade the temple and sing
the whole story at the top of their voices.
After this we need not linger over John. Another decade or two have added materially to the legend. Now we learn that
Nicodemus and Joseph did anoint the body of Jesus; and very effectively, because they are said to have used about a
hundredweight of myrrh and aloes (xix 39-40). So Mary Magdalene does not take spices. She is alone, moreover, and she
sees no angel and no policemen. She runs home and tells Peter (and, of course, John), and they run a race; and they see no
angels; and we are still told, for some mysterious reason, that they had no recollection whatever of Jesus saying that he would
rise again. However, Mary goes back-still alone-and sees two angels; and even in face of this glorious vision she sobs and
complains that somebody has stolen the body of Jesus. One would think that there were body-snatchers in ancient Judea.
We will suppose that the bright eyes of the retired sinner were dimmed with tears, for the next verse is too strong, even for
Orientals: Jesus, the transfigured god man, appears to her, and she thinks that he is the gardener and that he stole the body!
"Woman," he says harshly to his friend; but the next moment he whispers tenderly "Mary," and her eyes are opened.
"Rabboni" ("My Rabbi"- just what Jesus had said nobody ought to be called), she cries, and apparently . . . anyhow, he has to
say, "touch me not." So she tells the disciples, and John agrees with Luke against Mark and Matthew, that Jesus did appear to
the disciples in Jerusalem, and that the melodramatic rendezvous on a mountain in Galilee is piffle.
In fact, Jesus appeared twice to them, John says; and, although he walked through a locked door, one of them, "doubting
Thomas," wouldn't believe that he was God until he saw that there was a wound in his side. John does, it is true, then send
them to Galilee. But it is funny. After Jesus has breathed the Holy Ghost on to them (xx 22), and given them such terrific
powers as that of absolving from sin, they return to their humble profession of fisher men on the Sea of Tiberias! And they
have to be convinced all over again-by the usual strange evidence of eating- and then, apparently, they go back to business
once more.
Ali Sina, do your apologists and your sponsors really expect me to take all this seriously? I am accustomed to a critical study of
historical documents, and this . . . It is the most appalling jumble of contradictions, and the tale grows under our eyes in the
course of the first century. It is as crude as anything in ancient mythology. There is not the slightest pretense of consistency in
the various versions and successive additions to the original story. Let us turn to Paul, and see if we can ascertain what the
original story was.
We get little help from Acts. The author repeats what he has said in Luke about apparitions, and he enlarges a little upon the
ascension; which is not known to any other writer. Jesus, we are asked to believe, took his disciples (as usual) up a
"mountain," and from there he rose physically in the air until he disappeared in a cloud. It is perfectly amazing to find people in
the twentieth century who regard such statements as historical. It is just the myth of Hercules ascending to heaven in a cloud.
Paul's Epistles are the earliest documents; and they give us to understand that the followers of Jesus believed in his
resurrection and his appearances to various friends at least a few years after his death. On any serious canon of evidence
that is the only witness to the resurrection that we can be asked to consider. The Gospel stories are late, contradictory, and
often absurd. Paul's Epistles were, of course, written long after the death of Jesus, but we must clearly put back his belief in
the Resurrection to the time of his conversion. He was convinced by the followers of Jesus at Jerusalem that the prophet had
risen from the dead and had been seen by Peter and by the whole eleven (somewhere he says twelve) apostles.
There are certain details in Paul which must be considered. The Epistles are very sparing in details-these had not yet been
invented-but Acts puts into the mouth of Paul a speech made in the synagogue at Antioch. In this speech Paul plainly says
that it was, as we should normally expect, the Jewish authorities who buried Jesus; and in that case his body would be put in
the common pit for the burial of crucified criminals.
Paul says (Acts xiii 27-29): For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of
the prophets which were read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And when they had fulfilled all
that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulcher.
This flatly denies all the picturesque details in the Gospels. If a companion of Paul wrote this, as all suppose, the first story of
the resurrection was quite different from that in the Gospels. Paul was a Jew, and he knew Jewish law; which not a single
Gospel writer seems to have done. There was no need whatever to wait until Sunday morning. The Sabbath prohibition of
work ended at sunset. The whole Gospel story is a fiction that could only grow and find acceptance amongst foreigners.
Paul, on the other hand, is the only writer who makes Jesus appears to five hundred at a time. It is amusing to find Christian
writers emphasizing this "large number" of witnesses to the resurrection. We have not a single witness to the resurrection.
None of the women or men who are supposed to have gone to the tomb and seen Jesus has left us any testimony. A late
writer forged a Gospel in the name of John. A still later writer forged in the name of Peter a Gospel with such fantastic details
about the resurrection that even the early Christians, whose faith was great, rejected it. And evidently this story of an
apparition to five hundred, which circulated early, was in the course of time considered too strong, and was abandoned.
In the end, therefore, we come down to the single statement of Paul that the Jewish authorities cast the body of Jesus into the
pit, but some of his followers said that Jesus subsequently appeared to them, and so he must have risen from the dead. Some
believed this, and others disbelieved. Paul's insistence implies that, and in one place (I Cor. xv 12) he says that some
Christians do not believe in the resurrection of the dead. It was, however, generally believed, and it is useless now to ask how
the belief arose. Clearly, according to the earliest versions, the apostles scattered when Jesus was arrested, and they
returned to their work as fishermen. Later they said that they had seen the Lord"-such details as those about the women are
far later in appearance-and they resumed preaching in his name. Is it a novel thing in religious history for enthusiasts to see
visions? This is nonsense. In fact quite the contrary. Down to our own time, in Spiritualism, it is the most common of
experiences. Scores of Roman Catholic saints claim to have seen Jesus in the flesh; and the Protestant denies every word of
it.
The belief in the resurrection is thus a quite normal event; especially as Jesus was held to be the Messiah, and the
resurrection of the Messiah was held to have been predicted. But the elaborate story in the Gospels is not merely a myth. It is
a fairy tale; and we clearly see the growth of it from 50 A.D. to 120 A.D. Whether or not the world-wide belief in the
resurrection of gods disposed the followers of Jesus to believe in his resurrection, the growth of the story, as the decades
went on, is plainly influenced by the other myths, and we will consider them more closely.
So much for the crucifiXion (crucifiCtion) and Sina talks about being objective and logical. Sina is nonsensical so is his website.
Now remember the Corinthians nail from the start of my article and let it be one in the coffin of this myth of crucifixion-
resurrection.
Ali Sina:
And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but
they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that
man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture.
For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). But Allâh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body
and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allâh is Ever All¬Powerful, All¬Wise. )" (Q.4:157-158)
My Response:
Yusuf Ali & Pickthall
4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor
crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no
knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
4:158 But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.
Sina finds this difficult to believe while he can gleefully understand and appreciate the contradictory riddled fantasy tale of
crucifixion and resurrection. It is more palatable to believe that Jesus, the apostle of God, was saved the by the Almighty the
Author of laws of nature from crucifixion and death. It is an accepted issue that it is rather possible that Jesus did escape
crucifixion. Why such a pivotal event would otherwise be riddled with so many controversies as explained above?
Also note that Sian completely does not argue the issue of crucifixion or death of Christ and directly touches on the issue of
resurrection and the rising of Jesus to the heavens. He quotes the absurdity of the same when it is palatable that Jesus may
have escaped the crucifixion in all certainty.
Ali Sina:
The story of Christ being lifted to heaven "in body and soul" is obviously contrary to all logic and science. One wonders what
kind of Heaven Muhammad was envisioning. The above verse implies that Muhammad believed heaven must be a geographic
place and that God has a physical body. Because if he had thought that Heaven is a spiritual realm, then where did the body
of Jesus go? You need a physical place to accommodate a physical body. In an age that science is unraveling the mysteries
of the extra terrestrial space, it would be interesting to question a Muslim, where is this physical heaven that Christ has
ascended and God has set up his thrown?
My Response:
As regards the issue of Jesus being raised unto heaven, what is so problematic about that? Quran 3:54 (khairul makerin –
Allah the best deceiver) where Ali Sina clearly shoots himself in the foot, bears witness to this very same incident. Quran 3:55
is also in reckoning of this event. Refer below.
"Khairul Makerin: The Best Deceiver"
The Holy Quran 3:55: And when Allah said: "O 'Isa! I am going to take you away completely and cause you to ascend unto Me
and purify you of those who disbelieve, and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the Day of
Resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed (55)
QUR'AN: And when Allah said: "O 'Isa! I am going to take you away completely:
"at-Tawaffi" is to take something completely. It is for this reason that it is also used for death, because at the time of death
Allah takes man's soul away from his body. See, for example, the following verses:
...Our messengers take him completely (6:61), i.e., cause him to die.
And they say: "What! when we have become lost in the earth, shall we then indeed be in a new creation?". . . Say: "The angel
of death who is given charge of you shall take you completely (i.e., cause you to die), then to your Lord you shall be brought
back" (32:10-11).
Allah takes completely the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep: then He withholds those
on whom He has passed the decree of death and sends the others back till an appointed term... (39 :42).
Pondering on the last two verses you will see that the Qur'an has not used at-tawaffi in the meaning of death, rather the word
gives the idea of taking and preserving. In other words, when at-tawaffi is used for death, it is not because it means death;
rather it is used to emphasize the connotation of taking and preserving, to show and establish that man's soul does not perish,
is not destroyed by death - contrary to what ignorant people think; Allah keeps and preserves it until comes the time to return
it to its body for resurrection. At other places where this sense is not involved, Allah uses the word al-mawt (= death), and not
at-tawaffi'.
For example:-
And Muhammad is no more than a messenger, the messengers have already passed away before him: if then he dies or is
killed, will you turn back upon your heels? (3 :144)
...it shall not be finished with them entirely so that they should die... (35:36).
There are a lot of other verses of this type, not excepting some verses in 'Isa's story itself: For example, there are, 'Isa's words
about himself: And peace be on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life (19:33);
and Allah's words about him: And there is not one of the people of the Book but most certainly shall believe in him before his
death, and on the Day of Resurrection he ('Isa) shall be a wit¬ness against them (4:159).
It all shows that at-tawaffi does not necessarily mean death.
This interpretation is also supported by the words of Allah refuting the claim of the Jews: And their saying: "Surely we killed the
Messiah, 'Isa son of Mar yam, the messenger of Allah;" and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to
them so (like 'Isa); and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it,
but only follow a conjecture; and they killed him not for sure. Rather, Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.
And there is not one of the people of the Book but most certainly shall believe in him before his death and on the Day of
Resurrection he ('Isa) shall be a witness against them (4:157-159).
The Jews claimed that they had killed the Messiah, 'Isa son of Maryam, and likewise the Christians think that the Jews had
killed 'Isa son of Maryam by crucifixion, and that after he was crucified Allah raised him up from his grave to the heaven, as the
Gospels say. But the Qur'anic verses, as you see, unequivocally refute the story of killing and crucifixion both.
It is apparent from the Divine Words, And there is not one of the people of the Book..., that 'Isa (a.s.) is alive near Allah and
that he will not die until all the people of the Book shall believe in him. Keeping all these factors in view, the word at-tawaffi,
used in the verse under discussion, would only mean that Allah was to take him away completely from among the Jews. Yet the
verse does not say so clearly; it is only its apparent connotation.
QUR'AN: "and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve:
"ar-Raf " (to raise, to cause to ascend) is opposite of al-wad' (to put down). at-taharah (cleanliness, purity) is opposite of al-
qadharah (dirtiness, impurity). We have already explained the meaning of cleanliness. The phrase, "cause you to ascend", is
qualified by the word, "unto Me"; and it implies that the ascension was spiritual, rather than physical; because Allah has no
place like the physical spaces in which a body or things related to body arrive, stay or settle down, and from which they depart
or to which they come nearer. Accordingly, this phrase will have the same connotation as the words at the end of this very
verse have: then to Me shall be your return. This interpretation will be strengthened if at-tawaffi is taken to mean "to cause to
die"; because in that case, "to cause to ascend to Me" would imply raising his rank and taking him nearer to Allah. Its meaning
will, then, be similar to the verse 3:169, wherein Allah says about those who are martyred in His way: they are alive near their
Lord; and the verse 19:57, where He says about Idris (a.s.): And We raised him to a high station.
Another interpretation: The ascension refers to his being raised alive with his body and soul together to the heaven; because
the apparent meaning of the Qur'anic verses suggest that the heaven - i.e. the physical one - is the place of nearness to
Allah, the venue from which the Divine favors and blessings are sent down, and where the honored angels live. Probably, we
shall discuss the meaning of as-sama" (sky, heaven) somewhere else, Allah willing.
Purification from the unbelievers, as it is preceded by ascension to Allah, implies spiritual, rather than physical purification.
Accordingly, it means that Allah would keep him away from the unbelievers, protect him from mingling with them, and remove
him from their society - the society that is polluted by their unbelief and rejection of truth.
QUR'AN: "and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the Day of Resurrection:
In this verse Allah gives a promise that He will surely make the followers of 'Isa (a.s.) prevail over his adversaries who
disbelieved in his prophethood, and that this predominance will continue up to the Day of Resurrection. This verse
distinguishes the superior group from the inferior one, saying that the superior ones are those who follow 'Isa (a.s.) and the
opposite group is that of the unbelievers - without mentioning that they were from the Children of Israel, or that they were the
Jews who professed to follow the shari'ah of Musa (a.s.) or pointing to them in any other way.
Of course, looking at the fact that his adversaries have been defined as unbelievers, it appears that "those who follow you"
refers to the following in the way of truth, a following that is approved by Allah and which He is pleased with. Accordingly, his
followers would be those Christians who did not deviate from his straight path before Islam came to abrogate 'Isa's religion:
and after the advent of Islam it is the Muslims who are his followers - because only these two groups are his followers in the
path of truth. If so, then the promised superiority would mean their superiority in their arguments and proofs, not their material
domination or their rule over his adversaries. The meaning thus will be as follows: The proof of your followers, i.e., the above
mentioned Christians and the Muslims, shall be victorious over the proof of those who disbelieve in you, i.e., the Jews, up to
the Day of Resurrection.
The above was the explanation given and chosen by the exegetes. But I think that the verse does not support this
interpretation either explicitly or implicitly. Evidently the whole sentence, "I am going to take you away completely and cause
you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve, and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to
the Day of Resurrection," is news of what was to happen in the future: His being taken away, his ascension to Allah, his
purification from disbelievers and the domination of his followers over unbelievers all was to happen sometimes after Allah had
given him this news.
Moreover, the words, "and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve," contain a promise and a good tiding, and
good tiding always refer to some future event. And it is known that the proof of the 'Isa's followers is nothing but the proof of
'Isa himself. These are the very proofs which were mentioned in the good news given to Maryam. And those proofs had
certainly gained ascendancy over those of the unbelievers, both when 'Isa (a.s.) was present before his ascension, as well as
after his ascension. It may rather be said that before his ascension those proofs were more decisive and more convincing in
face of his adversaries’ claims than they were after his ascension. This being the case, what is the meaning of a promise that
his followers’ proofs would overcome those of his adversaries - in future? Again, why should this dominance be limited "to the
Day of Resurrection" only? If a proof is victorious and convincing it should remain so for all times, without any limitation of time
or day.
Moreover, victory of a true proof over false ones will be even more manifest on the Day of Resurrection, as the Qur'an informs
us in connection of that Day's happenings.
A suggestion: Perhaps predominance of proof means that it would be more popular, more widely accepted - people would
heed more to it, would accept it more readily; in this way their number would increase, and their power be more formidable.
COMMENT: Does it mean that his true followers would prevail over the disbelievers, would rule over them and overwhelm them
with their power? But the fact is otherwise. It is no use saying that it may be a good news which would come true in distant
future in the last days of the world, because the wordings of the verse do not allow such delay Or does it mean predominance
in number that is, his followers - the followers of truth after 'Isa (a.s.) would be more numerous than the followers of falsehood?
But reality belies it. The followers of falsity have always been in majority, and the people of truth always in minority, right from
the time of 'Isa (a.s.) upto these days of ours - a long period of two millennia. Moreover, the wordings of the verse do not
support this interpretation either. Look at the context; the verse gives 'Isa (a.s.) the good news that Allah's displeasure was to
descend on the Jews that they were to be overwhelmed by Divine Anger.
In this background, the predominance of his followers conforms more with his followers' hold and dominance over his
adversaries - either through convincing proofs or through rule and domination. But in no way does it point to the majority in
number.
Let us have a fresh look at this verse: It distinguishes the two groups with two verbs: "those who follow you", and "those who
disbelieve". The verb shows that an action has taken or will take place within the framework of a time - past, present or future.
The implication would differ if these phrases were changed to adjectives: "followers" and "disbelievers"; because adjectives
show a more or less permanent attribute which transcends time limits, the said attribute is found in its related thing or person
at all times. Suppose there is a group of people who do something good or bad, and the rest of the nation is pleased with it,
even the coming generations agree with what their ancestors did, then this much ideological identity and psychological
identification are enough to ascribe that action or thing to the whole nation. For example, the Qur'an admonishes the Jews and
condemns them because of their ancestors' actions like hurting and slaying the prophets, their arrogance in face of the
commands of Allah and His messengers, their alterations and interpolations in the Book of Allah and many other things like
that.
In view of the above-mentioned two principles, "those who disbelieve" may be interpreted as the whole Jewish nation; and
"those who follow you" may mean all the Christians because their early fathers had believed in and followed 'isa (a.s.) - and it
was a correct belief and true following - although Allah was not pleased with those among them who believed in the trinity
before Islam, nor was He pleased with the whole nation when they continued to follow 'Isa (a.s.) even after the advent of Islam.
The sentence therefore means that Allah was to make the Christians - whose ancestors had truly followed 'Isa (a.s.) -
dominant over the Jews because they had disbelieved in 'Isa (a.s.) and had planned and conspired against him.
The aim is to show that Allah's wrath has descended on the Jews, and His severe chastisement has engulfed their nation.
(We have explained above that the early Christians had truly followed 'Isa [a.s.]; and therefore the whole Christian nation may
be included in the phrase, "those who follow you".)
Going further, we find the phraseology changed. Instead of saying "those who follow you", Allah says: "And as to those who
believe and do good deeds ..." This too supports our interpretations that "those who follow you" covers all the Christians,
irrespective of their present belief and behavior. It does not mean only the Muslims and those Christians who had correct
belief and had truly followed 'Isa (a.s.) - in short it is not confined to those who will be saved in the hereafter. Otherwise, Allah
would have continued the earlier mode of expression and said: And as to those who follow you, He will pay them fully their
rewards.
Another interpretation: "those who follow you" covers all the Christians and all the Muslims; and the verse foretells that up to
the Day of Resurrection the Jews would always remain under the domination of those who believe that it is obligatory to follow
'Isa (a.s.) - and the basis of the explanation is the same as above. And it is the best of the interpretations written for this verse.
QUR'AN: "then to Me shall be your return, so I will decide between you concerning that in which you differed:
This talk is addressed jointly to 'Isa (a.s.) and those who followed him and those who disbelieved in him. It gives their ultimate
result on the Day of Resurrection. And with this verse the story of 'Isa (a.s.) comes to its end - from the time Maryam got the
good news to the end of his earthly life.
While we know that in actual sense Jesus did escape the crucifixion and the Lord Almighty did save his apostle, Sina finds this
absurd as it does not fit his limited logic. More and more this fellow seems to be a disturbed and deranged individual who is a
slave to his senses, while he considers a master of logic. How Jesus was raised to the heaven is not clear, God knows best. It
is a matter of belief; however we are sure the prophet of God was never crucified nor was he killed by the Jews.
Ali Sina:
One wonders why Muhammad would say such thing despite the emphasis in all four Gospels. The answer lies in the group of
Nestorian Christians who populated the Damascus and Northern Arabia during time of Muhammad. These Christians thought
that it would be impossible to kill the Son of God and believed that god tricked the Jews and sent someone else who looked
like Jesus to be crucified, thus he saved his favorite Son. This is the source of the above verses of Quran.
My Response:
This is repetitive. I have already shown that none of the gospels are in tandem with the other as regards crucifixion and
resurrection. In fact it is an accepted fact that none of the disciples were ever there at the crucifixion and the resurrection. So
there in no emphasis whatsoever from the 4 gospels as purported and distorted by Ali Sina. He is a joke and so are his
evangelist sponsors whose bible isn’t in unison with their beliefs.
Ali Sina:
By reading Quran one realizes that Muhammad knew the New Testament only through second hand stories and he never read
the book himself.
There is another mistake of Muhammad that should be really embarrassing to anyone who claims that Quran is a revealed
book. And that is about confusing Marry the Mother of Christ with Miriam the Sister of Aaron and Moses. These two were born
about 1400 years apart from each other. See what Quran says.
At length she brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou
brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!" Q. 19:27-28
My Response:
It is an accepted fact by both the bible and Quran that thee was a distinct relationship between wife of Zacharia and Virgin
Mary. Both were from the house of Aaron. It is a norm that when one is related to a respected personality in lineage, the
female members of the family, of whatever generation, maybe referred to as the sisters or daughters of that person.
This now beckons the question: which Aaron? This is the Haroon from the House of Lavi not from the House of David of Juda’s
line. He was the most respected person of his time and the first of the priestly lineage from which the Virgin Mary came. In fact
the error here lies with the gospel where in the book of Matthew, they try to show Mary’s lineage to Haroon of Lavi and that of
Joseph, the alleged husband of Mary, from the house of David of Juda. This is a blatant lie and should have been spotted by
the roving eye of Sina but his allegiances are sworn to evangelists hence his eye is blind when it comes to this. Both the
books, Quran and the gospel are against this line of events.
The mistake is not with Muhammad PBUH but with Sina’s thought process. He is the one who has taken leave of his senses
and intellect. What else would you expect from one who has sold himself to evangelists.
Ali Sina:
And Mary, the daughter of `Imran, ... -- Q. 66:12
My Response:
Mary is the daughter of Imran. This fact was not even known to the gospel writers. Imran was the father of Mary the mother of
Christ.
Ali Sina:
In Quran one finds a lot of mistakes of this sort that shows Muhammad had very little knowledge of the reality of this world as
well as of other religious books that he claimed are God's revelations.
My Response:
These are plain facts and I challenge this sorry excuse for a thinker to come and debate on them and try and debunk what I
have stipulated in this article. I maintain that Sina is an idiot and his evangelist sponsors are even bigger morons not to have
noticed that they are backing a losing horse in this attack on Islam. Pathetic!
They say give a fool enough rope and he will hang himself. Sina has already clarified where his allegiances lie and where his
daily bread comes from as remuneration for insulting Islam and Quran falsely. Soon we will know who Ali Sina is. It just a matter
of time.
Ends ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the Section of Zuher
Send Email to Zuher
| Answering FaithFreedom.org |
| Rebuttal to Ali Sina's article "Did Jesus Escape Crucifixion?" |
| By Zuher |