Muslim view of Christ's death/crucifixion.

There is a minority of Muslims who believe the same thing that Baha'i steach about this: namely that when Mohammed says Jesus Christ was never killed nor Crucified, but instead was taken up to be with God in heaven, Mohammed was referring to the everlasting spirit/soul of Christ. Or as Baha'is would believe, the Word of God, rather than the flesh. It is eternal, and so cannot be killed or crucified, regardless of what happens to the body. But Baha'is believe that the resurrection is entirely spiritual, not material, that the whole last part of the story in the Gospels needs to be interpreted allegorically. Up until recently, I thought Baha'is believed in a spiritual body that he was resurrected in...and this is a popular misconception among some Baha'is. but I looked it up - NO. Baha'is do not believe in a bodily resurrection of any sort. The resurrection was solely the spiritual confirmation that happened within the disciples 3 days after their leader was killed. Killed dead. Upon which his eternal soul ascended to heaven. At the point of death I would assume...

I guess an explanation might be that in Mohammed's culture, it would be seen as shameful for a prophet to be killed like that, totally against the justice of God - and that the power of God could only be confirmed if he wasn't killed like that. So perhaps Mohammed explained it this way to at once ease the confusions arising from people who didn't understand...while at the same time, with the same words, saying a truth much deeper that people reading between the lines might be able to understand? Just a guess.

Vision:

Thanks for all of that. :)


"From what I understand about Christianity, there is actually no way the Islamic concept of Isa pbuh fits with Christian concept of Jesus and I will explain why in another reply inshaallah."


That depends on the form of Christianity we are talking about.... and I don't mean that in a modern sense (although, that is also an issue). Christianity has always been a diverse thing. Over time certain things were lightly promoted over others to make it appear to have a more cohesive format... then at times, which we are more familiar with things weren't *lightly* enforced to make it a more cohesive format. The true nature of it was to go at things *lightly,* though and like Islam geography, time and human understanding and tradition get in the way. Just like in Islam--only people aren't applying the same ideas to Christianity as they are when they look at Islam--and back the other way. From the death of Jesus on you see a whole basket of different Christianities emerge and some of them match many of these concepts you are saying. If you look at Christianity as a *lightly* applied dogma... then they match them all. If you know the different movements, Arian Christianity (from Arius of Alexandria) then you see how it totally matches. If you look at Nestorianism... it matches somewhat... If you look at the Thomasian Church... it matches as well.... Syriac and so forth. Which is interesting because then we again get into a matching due to geography, time and human understanding and tradition. And that makes this all a very interesting studying in human history and ideas.

To read your wording, I'm guessing then the teaching on Al-Dajal comes from the Prophet's words, and not so much the Qur'an? Is that an accurate assumption? Or have I gone off the deep end on that?

"All prophets up to and including Isa pbuh were sent to a particular people in a particular time, they all also had their many miracles inscribed upon them from Allah. Prophet Mohamed pbuh however, was sent to all humanity for all time. Prophet Muhamed is the seal of all prophets and the bearer of the final message - complete and clear."

Yeppers, I understand the Islamic ideal as it relates to Muhammad being the seal of the prophets and the final prophet. I was mostly getting at the difference between the prophets. It is like there is some kind different purpose for each of the prophets. I was just wondering what the explanation was officially. Obviously, we can understand the Christian views for the Christ. And the Muslim views on Muhammad. But I guess we've gotten to a large core of the issue, so I thank you. However, this brings me to another question... which will take a few words to set up the final question... so I will attempt that right now... (WAAAAAAHAAAAAAA, worried here... ehehehe):

I've pulled this out of the Qur'an (Muhammad Asad translation & notes):

<<2: 252

THESE are God's messages: We convey them unto thee, [O Prophet,] setting forth the truth-for, verily, thou art among those who have been entrusted with a message. (2: 253) Some of these apostles have We endowed more highly than others: among them were such as were spoken to by God [Himself], and some He has raised yet higher.'* And We vouchsafed unto Jesus, the son of Mary, all evidence of the truth, and strengthened him with holy inspiration.**

And if God had so willed, they who succeeded those [apostles] would not have contended with one another after all evidence of the truth had come to them; but [as it was,] they did take to divergent views, and some of them attained to faith, while some of them came to deny the truth. Yet if God had so willed, they would not have contended with one another: but God does whatever He wills.***



* This appears to be an allusion to Muhammad inasmuch as he was the Last Prophet and the bearer of a universal message applicable to all people and to all times. By "such as were spoken to by God" Moses is meant (see the last sentence of 4 : 164).
** The mention, in this context, of Jesus by name is intended to stress the fact of his having been a prophet, and to refute the claims of those who deify him. For an explanation of the term huh al -qudus (rendered by me as "holy inspiration"), see note 71 on verse 87 of this surah.
*** Once again - as in verse 213 above - the Qur' an alludes to the inevitability of dissension among human beings: in other words, it is the will of God that their way to the truth should be marked by conflicts and trial by error.>>

And if you look at 17:55 you will see a similar mentioning of David and the Psalms. Do you think that these passages in the Qur'an are directing Muslims to be more active in the interpretation and living by the previous prophets words, as well... specifically when these prophets are mentioned above all others? And obviously, this skirts not arguing and fighting with other People of the Book, too, maybe? Just wondering.

I had a question a few years ago while reading the Qur'an I came across another prophet. I was wondering if maybe there would be culture connection to that prophet (I have to have time to look him up for I forgot his name). It seems you might have some knowledge of him because you are from the geographical context (I thought he was an African prophet). I guess what I'm saying is, early Muslims would have had a lot of understanding as to what the previous prophets said, and maybe say European converts wouldn't have had this. This all a bit relates to the question above regarding David and Jesus. The prophet I'm thinking of here, I hadn't heard of before. I'm not even sure he's mentioned in the OT Bible. But that might be a language issue in the name--ya know. I'll go back and check some time today when I can.

However, do you know what I mean about having to fill in a historical base? When you read the Qur'an, at least to me... it seems like... unlike the OT Bible, it doesn't fill in all the history... like the history in the Qur'an is pre-assumed to be known by the reader... and as early revelation in the Qur'an says.... this Word is for Arabs in their language... so the contexts are coming from a larger Semitic understanding, as it were. And your Malaysian convert... some hundreds of years ago... may not have known all the details... so this leads me to wonder... in absence of the details, and with the above quotes from the Qur'an here, do you think that Muslims (converts) or others that don't understand the historical detail and cultural history behind these prophetic messages... should consult the previous prophetic texts, of say.... the OT?