good friday (part two)

Corpus Hypercubus by Salvador Dali

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not: (4:157)

 

For a while now, I've started to become aware that "the" Islamic understanding of the crucifixion is not *quite* as simple as I once believed. Most Muslims maintain, based on 4:157 that Jesus (as) in no sense, died on the cross, nor was he ever even put on it. In this camp, some maintain that somehow Judas was made to look like Jesus and that he was put on the cross instead.   But there have also been minority opinions which to varying degrees have allowed for more points of contact with the Christian narrative (including some which even affirm Christ's biological death on the cross).

One good resource in this area is the book by Todd Lawson, The Crucifixion and the Quran  which looks at a wide range of Muslim commentaries on 4:157. The author is a Bahai, and so perhaps one could argue that he wrote the book, in part, out an interest to gather evidence which supports Bahai interpretations of topic. (The Bahais affirm that the Quran is "absolutely authentic" including  4:157. But they also accept the validity of much of the Bible, in particular they, affirm the basics of the Biblical passion narrative. According to Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahai Faith, "The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The meaning of the Qur'ánic version is that the spirit of Christ was not Crucified. There is no conflict between the two.")

Whatever his agenda, Lawson's book is an interesting and valuable round-up of different tafsirs on the crucifixion verse and different Muslim narratives on the end of Christ's ministry on Earth. 

If you have the time (roughly 2 hours), Dr. Ali Ataie, a professor at Zaytuna College, has a lecture where he gives an overview of different Muslim perspectives of the crucifixion which takes heavily from Lawson's book. 

What is also interesting is that Dr. Ataie himself seems to affirm the bodily death of Jesus. I would recommend listening to his own words on the subject. But his basic point is that 4:157 says "they killed him not" which still allows the possibility that Jesus (as) gives up his life willingly. As the Bible says: "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father." (John 10:17-18).

I don't mean to be flippant, but I am almost tempted to compare this to the scene in Star Wars when from a distance it only seems as if Darth Vader kills Obi-Wan Kenobi. But in reality, Vader neither killed Kenobi, nor cut him with a light saber. It only appeared so. In reality Obi-Wan chooses to surrender to the Force at the end of his earthly life. He primarily engages in a duel with Vader to distract him and give the rebels enough time to escape the Death Star.

Another point which Dr. Ataie makes has to do with the question: What is accomplished by Jesus' death? And his interesting (and actually plausible) answer is Jesus death literally saved the people of Jerusalem from the wrath of the Romans for a generation.  As the Bible itself says after the raising of Lazarus:

John 11

[45] Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him;
[46] but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
[47] So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, "What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.
[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation."
[49] But one of them, Ca'iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish."
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,
[52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
[53] So from that day on they took counsel how to put him to death. 

or if you are a fan of Jesus Christ Superstar:

In other words, Jesus' growing popularity while associated with messianic claims  (i.e. claiming to be the king of the Jews when under Roman occupation)  was politically subversive in a way which would bring about massive retaliation from the Romans. (And in fact we know this was realistic concern because only one generation later a different popular Jewish rebellion would cause the Romans to strike against the Jews and destroy Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD.) Dr. Ataie seems to be arguing that if it weren't for Jesus' death on the cross, this destruction would have occurred much sooner.

Also note that according to John 11, Caiphas "did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation". This is an interesting, but seldom discussed point. The Jewish authorities who sought to kill Christ were not just acting out of jealousy or resentment over Christ's popularity or a selfish fear for their own political position. They were at least partially motivated by a legitimate concern for the fate of the Jews under Roman occupation.

Ismaili scholar Khalil Andani has also done some really interesting work elaborating on Muslims who have affirmed the material reality of crucifixion. (Apparently this is the mainstream Isma'ili position)

First here is Dr. Andani giving a talk on Shi'a Isma'ili Muslim Christology with an emphasis on the crucifixion:

And then here is a paper which covers much of the same ground but with more detail: “They Killed Him Not”: The Crucifixion in Shi‘a Isma‘ili Islam 

What is really interesting here (and this is elaborated on in both the paper and the video) is that the Ismailis don't just tentatively concede the physical reality of the crucifixion. Instead they give full-throated support to the crucifixion as a theologically significant event (although it still isn't some atoning sacrifice as Christians generally believe). And they even go so far as to say the symbol of the cross can be esoterically identified with the shahada of Islam)

Lots to unpack...

Planet Grenada:

Good Friday

"jah would never give the power to a baldhead/ run come crucify the dread."