Does the Qur’an Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus? with Dr Louay Fatoohi (2022-02-02) #

0:00:02 well hello everyone and welcome to
0:00:04 blogging theology today i am delighted
0:00:07 to talk to lue fatoui an author and
0:00:10 researcher in islamic studies and
0:00:12 comparative religion you are most
0:00:14 welcome sir
0:00:16 thank you paul i really appreciate your
0:00:19 invitation to your excellent and and
0:00:21 unique channels that's very kind thank
0:00:23 you daughter fertility was born in
0:00:25 baghdad iraq and migrated to the uk in
0:00:29 the 90s
0:00:31 he has a phd in astronomy from durham
0:00:34 university he originally came from a
0:00:36 christian family but reverted to islam
0:00:39 in his early 20s
0:00:41 he has published over 25 books in
0:00:44 english and arabic in the islamic
0:00:46 studies and published over 20 research
0:00:49 papers in cosmology and applied
0:00:51 historical astronomy and on the islamic
0:00:54 calendar
0:00:55 today dr fatoui has kindly agreed to do
0:00:58 a presentation on the question
0:01:02 does the quran deny the crucifixion of
0:01:06 jesus and this is surprisingly
0:01:08 controversial question
0:01:10 to many people um so um
0:01:13 fertility would you kindly just
0:01:14 introduce us to this subject why it's
0:01:17 even a controversial question because
0:01:20 many people perhaps most muslims the
0:01:21 answer is very clear but in fact it's
0:01:24 not so clear to another group of people
0:01:25 who
0:01:26 have queried this um assumption whatever
0:01:29 that might be so would you like to
0:01:31 introduce us to the subject thank you
0:01:33 absolutely uh paul um
0:01:35 this particular subject the crucifixion
0:01:38 of jesus in the quran has been a topic
0:01:41 of discussion um between muslims and
0:01:43 non-muslims for centuries really and the
0:01:46 reason being as you know is that the
0:01:48 crucifixion is that as at the heart of
0:01:50 christian theology
0:01:52 redemption etcetera is all based on the
0:01:55 concept of the suffering messiah of
0:01:57 course
0:01:58 that is something that supposedly uh the
0:02:01 quran denies most muslims believe that
0:02:04 over the centuries as we will discuss
0:02:07 obviously by denying that
0:02:09 um the quran effectively is undermining
0:02:12 a cornerstone of christian theology
0:02:16 as a result this subject has always been
0:02:19 uh a lively debate between muslims and
0:02:23 non-muslims
0:02:25 and
0:02:26 what i would like to do
0:02:28 uh here is to discuss the history
0:02:32 of the
0:02:33 interpretation
0:02:34 of the quran on the subject
0:02:36 uh as well as uh talk in more detail and
0:02:40 kind of present my own view
0:02:43 uh on how to approach and understand
0:02:46 this particular subject in the in the
0:02:48 quran excellent
0:02:50 very good
0:02:51 and
0:02:52 okay now uh i'm going to share
0:02:55 my screen here
0:02:57 because i think it would help
0:03:00 to use
0:03:01 a presentation because we're going to go
0:03:03 through
0:03:04 some technical details really that i
0:03:06 think the audience would find it more
0:03:07 helpful to look at the screen while we
0:03:09 talk about
0:03:10 so i'm going to start by giving an
0:03:11 overview of what we are going to cover
0:03:14 today
0:03:17 uh
0:03:18 i would like first to clarify i'm not
0:03:21 going to speak about the historicity of
0:03:23 the crucifixion of jesus this is a
0:03:26 completely different subject i know it's
0:03:28 again at the heart of disagreement
0:03:32 between muslims and non-muslims and
0:03:34 indeed between muslims and historians in
0:03:36 general who believe that jesus was
0:03:38 crucified so but that isn't actually the
0:03:41 subject of um this particular
0:03:44 discussion it's not to say it's not
0:03:47 worth the discussion but of course we
0:03:48 need to focus here in more detail
0:03:51 about the what the quran says on that
0:03:54 particular issue whether
0:03:57 the crucifixion is historical or not is
0:03:59 is not the subject today
0:04:02 i will be talking about the history
0:04:05 and language
0:04:07 history of the interpretation of what
0:04:09 the quran says and the language of the
0:04:11 quran on this subject i will only touch
0:04:14 very little on theology
0:04:16 there will be instances where that needs
0:04:18 to be mentioned but i will try to avoid
0:04:20 it
0:04:23 i'll talk about the consensus
0:04:26 that has survived the centuries that the
0:04:28 quran denies the crucifixion
0:04:31 and i will also then move on to talk
0:04:34 about uh the
0:04:36 attempt to reject this consensus
0:04:40 and i i'll speak about the motives and
0:04:42 methods uh behind these attempts
0:04:45 so they consider the consensus is
0:04:47 amongst muslims obviously that the quran
0:04:49 denies the crucifixion and the rejecting
0:04:51 the consensus is some other people
0:04:53 non-muslims who mainly who have their
0:04:55 own reasons for rejecting that view i
0:04:58 guess a good question paul actually even
0:05:01 non-muslims
0:05:03 agree that the quran
0:05:05 denies the crucifixion
0:05:07 so historically
0:05:09 scholars muslims non-muslims more or
0:05:12 less agreed that this is what the quran
0:05:14 says however
0:05:16 more recent attempts have been made to
0:05:18 show that the quran actually does not
0:05:20 deny the crucifixion and that involves
0:05:23 uh mainly christian theologians but also
0:05:27 some muslim scholars and i'll i'll
0:05:29 mention some of them so to clarify then
0:05:32 we're focusing you're focusing today on
0:05:34 this question of what the quran itself
0:05:37 says about the crucifixion we're not
0:05:39 dealing with the issue was jesus
0:05:40 crucified or not but just to establish
0:05:43 what is the quran saying because there
0:05:44 have been some christian scholars who
0:05:46 are now claiming that the quran does not
0:05:49 deny the crucifixion of jesus and this
0:05:50 is kind of the issue you're dealing with
0:05:52 today is that right
0:05:54 absolutely paul's authority yes thank
0:05:56 you that's what we're dealing with
0:05:58 um
0:05:59 now in the course of uh discussing the
0:06:01 consensus and otherwise we will have to
0:06:04 touch on the
0:06:05 subject of whether the quran engages
0:06:08 with the talmud
0:06:10 because this is one of the arguments
0:06:12 made
0:06:13 in favor of rejecting the consensus
0:06:16 that survived for a long time uh also in
0:06:21 the course of doing that and because
0:06:23 we're dealing with the language of the
0:06:24 quran
0:06:26 i will also be dealing with exegetical
0:06:28 issues
0:06:30 that relate to various texts um that are
0:06:33 relevant to the subject of course of
0:06:36 crucifixion just because executive or
0:06:38 text simply means you know how we
0:06:39 understand interpret the text how do we
0:06:41 understand what the quran actually says
0:06:43 what its words actually say how how
0:06:45 those that's what exegetical means okay
0:06:47 thank you exegesis means to draw
0:06:49 something out of something else so
0:06:51 effectively to draw the meaning or to
0:06:53 extract the meaning of the text in this
0:06:55 particular instance
0:06:57 and
0:06:58 my presentation
0:07:00 is obviously building uh on works of
0:07:02 others but it will also have a new
0:07:05 insight
0:07:06 some of the
0:07:07 information i'll present there and
0:07:09 readings
0:07:10 um
0:07:11 are my own work
0:07:13 so that's an overview of what we're
0:07:14 going to cover today
0:07:18 i'll start by
0:07:20 first
0:07:22 just showing the verse that in a
0:07:24 question
0:07:26 and i call it the non-crucifixion verse
0:07:29 most would call it the crucifixion
0:07:31 probably you know where i'm going with
0:07:32 that
0:07:33 but
0:07:34 at least on the face of it it denies the
0:07:37 crucifixion nobody would deny that on
0:07:39 the face of it
0:07:40 um now
0:07:42 i have highlighted here um the the
0:07:46 the kind of text that i have quoted here
0:07:49 is a sayings that is attributed to the
0:07:52 jews so the jews the quran says the jews
0:07:55 have made the claim we have killed the
0:07:57 messiah jesus the son of mary the
0:08:00 messenger of allah
0:08:02 and then the quran
0:08:04 responds to that by saying they did not
0:08:07 kill him
0:08:10 nor did they crucify him
0:08:14 but it was made to appear so to them
0:08:18 those who did differ over it are in
0:08:20 doubt about it they have no knowledge of
0:08:23 it except the following
0:08:25 um conjecture they did not kill him was
0:08:28 with certainty so i want just to put it
0:08:30 first here so everybody can see it
0:08:32 before we're gonna deal with it in more
0:08:34 detail later on i want to mention a
0:08:36 couple of things about it though
0:08:38 this is the only
0:08:40 verse that directly deals with the
0:08:43 subject of the crucifixion of jesus
0:08:46 we will be talking about other
0:08:48 verses
0:08:49 that indirectly
0:08:52 linked are linked to the subject of
0:08:54 restriction but this is the only place
0:08:56 where this subject is directly tackled
0:08:58 in the quran
0:08:59 the other important point that i would
0:09:01 like to make
0:09:03 as
0:09:04 most of your audience probably no
0:09:07 there's a concept of
0:09:10 in the quran as in the skeleton text how
0:09:12 the text
0:09:13 is is drawn written
0:09:15 of the quran there are seven uh let's
0:09:18 call official accepted quran readings
0:09:22 there are another three that some accept
0:09:24 so ten in total and there are another
0:09:26 four anomalous readings so if you want
0:09:28 to go except the whole thing there are
0:09:30 14 of them
0:09:31 this verse appears identical in all of
0:09:35 these verses and the reason i mentioned
0:09:38 this to exclude any suggestion or
0:09:41 anybody thinking that
0:09:43 this there could be some changing in the
0:09:45 world ambiguity yeah yes there is no
0:09:49 ambiguity it's the same in all of these
0:09:52 readings
0:09:55 so i'm gonna start by talking about the
0:09:58 muslim consensus
0:10:01 one thing here
0:10:02 to highlight is that muslims over the
0:10:05 centuries
0:10:07 of all
0:10:09 schools of thought
0:10:11 agreed that the quran denies the
0:10:14 crucifixion
0:10:16 and they base their interpretation on
0:10:18 that particular verse
0:10:20 as well as other references in the quran
0:10:23 and i have to add other extra quranic
0:10:26 material
0:10:27 hadith and some other stuff
0:10:30 and i mention here the main four the
0:10:34 main two really um kind of
0:10:37 uh muslim groups sunnis and shiris
0:10:40 and i have
0:10:42 mentioned as well
0:10:44 some well-known names
0:10:46 in those
0:10:47 schools of thought these are well-known
0:10:49 exegetes
0:10:50 and i have tried to cover
0:10:52 uh the earliest to very recent ones
0:10:56 to show that over the centuries
0:10:58 all of these people went on executes
0:11:01 agreed that the quran denies the
0:11:03 crucifixion right so fabari
0:11:07 etc
0:11:08 today's day again tulsi brazil
0:11:12 all of
0:11:12 them the same applies with the smaller
0:11:16 uh schools mark tassily
0:11:18 who are rationalists
0:11:20 and sufis who are more kind of um
0:11:24 interested in spiritual side of things
0:11:26 again all of these um agreed that the
0:11:29 quran denies the crucifixion
0:11:32 the consensus of muslims on this issue
0:11:34 is really significant
0:11:36 significant in in various ways
0:11:39 muslims muslim exegetes are no different
0:11:42 from scholars of other scriptures
0:11:45 they argued a lot
0:11:46 debated a lot disagreed a lot
0:11:49 so the fact they have this kind of
0:11:52 strange consensus
0:11:54 must be taken into account i'm not
0:11:56 somebody who argues that consensus
0:11:59 is is itself an argument
0:12:01 because people agreed something is you
0:12:03 know a lot of them said this is so and
0:12:05 so so we have to accept it as as true
0:12:08 but here it's quite significant because
0:12:10 they disagree on just about anything if
0:12:13 you pick up for instance tabari tabari
0:12:15 is the oldest earliest
0:12:17 meta exegetical work so it involves
0:12:20 basically the opinions of so many
0:12:22 scholars on
0:12:24 on the quran
0:12:26 and what you find is that
0:12:28 for every ayah verse
0:12:31 the public
0:12:32 cites a variety of opinions at times
0:12:36 exegesis differ even on single words so
0:12:40 at one word in a verse and you have
0:12:42 multiple opinions on them
0:12:44 and that shows you how lively lively the
0:12:47 debate has been within uh islam
0:12:50 scholarship when it comes to the
0:12:52 interpretation of the quran yet all of
0:12:53 these
0:12:54 have agreed that the quran
0:12:56 denies the crucifixion what's
0:12:58 interesting is as well
0:13:00 uh the
0:13:02 uh the denial supposedly in the verse
0:13:05 157
0:13:06 uh
0:13:07 of chapter four
0:13:09 as soon as you move to 158 so the verse
0:13:12 following the non-classic crucifixion
0:13:15 verse
0:13:16 that consensus breaks down
0:13:19 so immediately the different scholars
0:13:22 start developing different opinions
0:13:24 about what happened exactly when jesus
0:13:27 was spared the crucifixion what happened
0:13:30 to him and then you have a variety of
0:13:33 interpretations
0:13:35 is that all right paul any yeah i was
0:13:37 just going to read i'm looking at my um
0:13:40 translation of that verse 158 uh which
0:13:44 says no god raised him up to himself god
0:13:47 has the power to die so you know was it
0:13:50 an ascension was it what was going on
0:13:52 there so that's where you're saying
0:13:53 there was a lot of exegetical uh
0:13:55 discussion whereas the preceding verse
0:13:58 with its denial of the crucifixion there
0:13:59 is no debate it's clear
0:14:02 and there's a consensus
0:14:04 absolutely and i might add also another
0:14:07 note here important note most muslims
0:14:10 over the centuries believe that jesus
0:14:11 did not die on earth he was raised alive
0:14:14 to heaven and there are you know stories
0:14:17 about what's going to happen afterwards
0:14:19 however um
0:14:21 a new kind of trend among some scholars
0:14:24 they started to develop early in the um
0:14:26 20th century
0:14:28 i think the first name that we kept
0:14:30 major name we can cite is muhammad abdu
0:14:33 the egyptian reformist the great
0:14:35 muhammad abdu his follower
0:14:38 rasheed
0:14:39 uh other uh as from the as her
0:14:42 school of thought um
0:14:49 others these people
0:14:51 uh went against the consensus and they
0:14:54 suggested that jesus actually died on
0:14:56 earth
0:14:58 what's interesting about that is that
0:15:00 even this group of scholars who believe
0:15:02 that jesus died on earth still believe
0:15:05 he was not crucified right
0:15:08 so and it just shows the strength of
0:15:11 opinion in terms of and let's say the
0:15:13 clarity of the quranic test in the eyes
0:15:16 of all of these scholars
0:15:18 okay okay
0:15:20 now what can we tell say about
0:15:23 non-muslim consensus well um i think we
0:15:26 can go back as far as uh safronius uh
0:15:29 the patriarch of jerusalem
0:15:32 who wrote
0:15:33 uh about
0:15:34 uh you know three four five years after
0:15:36 the death
0:15:38 of prophet muhammad
0:15:40 he was talking about the psarsees that
0:15:42 the muslims and he was arguing why is
0:15:45 the cross mocked now what does he
0:15:49 mean by that clearly
0:15:51 he meant that the muslims did not
0:15:53 believe in the cross it had no
0:15:55 significance for them and he considered
0:15:58 that some form
0:15:59 of mocking
0:16:01 now
0:16:02 by the way he was
0:16:03 he was actually in jerusalem with when
0:16:06 the caleb umar went there met with him
0:16:09 uh and um you know there's a bit of
0:16:11 story uh there
0:16:14 but then we have another reference an
0:16:16 early reference from uh john of damascus
0:16:20 so
0:16:21 he wrote let's say about a hundred years
0:16:24 after um the death of the prophet
0:16:26 muhammad
0:16:28 and i would like to
0:16:29 quote from him what he says here
0:16:34 and he says talking about now he started
0:16:36 the the what's leading to this
0:16:38 particular paragraph is that he accused
0:16:41 the prophet muhammad of plagiarizing
0:16:43 from the old testament and new testament
0:16:45 obviously this is kind of quite a
0:16:47 standard argument against the quran
0:16:50 after saying that and also he attributed
0:16:54 uh that plagiarism uh to the help of an
0:16:57 unnamed monk so there was somebody who
0:17:00 was apparently helping the prophet
0:17:01 muhammad uh to come up with the quran
0:17:03 using the old testament and new
0:17:04 testament so he goes on to say and he
0:17:07 says that's muhammad meaning the quran
0:17:10 that the jews wanted to crucify him now
0:17:12 notice wanted to crucify him
0:17:15 in violation of the law in violation of
0:17:17 the law that isn't actually
0:17:19 what the quran strictly says so it looks
0:17:22 like a bit of interpretation from him
0:17:25 and that they seized his shadow now
0:17:28 that's very interesting again the quran
0:17:30 does not actually say that say that
0:17:32 because this is a reference to the
0:17:34 citizen
0:17:36 the citizen is the
0:17:38 concept that jesus was
0:17:41 was more kind of of a spirit really than
0:17:44 a
0:17:45 um and uh so a what was um seized if you
0:17:49 like crucified
0:17:51 wasn't really the his him really so he
0:17:54 appeared appeared as um from the greek
0:17:57 word what you see the citizen came from
0:18:00 he appeared like
0:18:01 uh like he had that body but he didn't
0:18:04 in fact uh muslims actually
0:18:07 don't accept the uh concept of this the
0:18:10 citizen
0:18:12 and so he say and they seized his shadow
0:18:15 and crucified this
0:18:17 but the christ himself
0:18:19 was not crucified
0:18:22 nor did he die now what's interesting
0:18:24 here notice how this matches the double
0:18:27 denier denial in the quran
0:18:30 they did not kill him not they crucify
0:18:33 him as if he had
0:18:35 access to the text itself so he knew
0:18:37 exactly what he said
0:18:39 but further than that he goes on to say
0:18:42 um
0:18:43 for god out of his love for him took him
0:18:46 to himself into heaven again this is
0:18:48 actually what the quran says about jesus
0:18:52 so what we have here
0:18:54 is an early um christian theologian
0:18:58 who effectively agrees that this is what
0:19:00 the quran said about jesus
0:19:05 are we okay then boom happy commentary
0:19:08 very helpful thank you
0:19:13 now
0:19:14 i would like to talk about that you
0:19:16 explained earlier the concept of
0:19:17 exegesis obviously this is a more kind
0:19:19 of popular term but
0:19:21 there's an even more baked them let's
0:19:23 say which is i see jesus
0:19:26 um and i probably better
0:19:28 and i'll explain why i'm
0:19:31 presenting both ideas exegesis is the
0:19:34 interpretation of a text
0:19:37 and i'm going to use this graph just to
0:19:39 kind of show
0:19:41 more clearly what it means
0:19:43 we as
0:19:44 scholars human beings
0:19:46 if we want to access a piece of text and
0:19:49 in this case
0:19:50 scripture we access it and let's say
0:19:53 talk in the case of the quran with the
0:19:55 fundamental assumptions about it
0:19:58 that could be that the quran is divine
0:20:00 so the word of god or the quran is was
0:20:03 authored by muhammad or was authored by
0:20:05 someone else so this is what i call
0:20:07 fundamental assumption because it
0:20:09 actually shapes your possibilities it
0:20:12 restricts what you can think of
0:20:15 within that within that framework you
0:20:18 can have multiple views so people can
0:20:20 believe that the quran is divine but
0:20:23 have different views about different
0:20:24 pieces of text
0:20:27 then
0:20:28 they approach the text study it
0:20:30 and then they come out the other side
0:20:33 presumably the fundamental assumptions
0:20:36 uh intact so that's what they started
0:20:38 with it's very rare that you change your
0:20:39 fundamental assumption because you
0:20:41 actually read a piece of text
0:20:43 but what what should happen in the case
0:20:45 of proper exegesis is that your views
0:20:48 your previous views become more informed
0:20:52 they could be modified you enrich them
0:20:55 because you genuinely studied the text
0:20:58 looked at it and you were happy to
0:20:59 change your views if that's what it
0:21:02 merited
0:21:04 that's what happens when you act as an
0:21:07 exegesis
0:21:08 now
0:21:09 i there's something called isaac isaac
0:21:12 jesus which i called
0:21:14 interpretation despite the text
0:21:16 now that's a provocative way of putting
0:21:18 it
0:21:19 and
0:21:19 this is the same diagram
0:21:21 exactly the same there's one difference
0:21:23 in these two cases
0:21:25 the other few views only can get
0:21:28 confirmed
0:21:29 so you approach the text
0:21:31 not really trying to modify inform your
0:21:34 views check them no
0:21:36 it's confirmation bias you go there you
0:21:39 look at it and say okay i am going now
0:21:41 to work really hard and find a way of
0:21:43 confirming my views
0:21:45 now
0:21:46 i'm pretty sure if you do a search on
0:21:48 the internet you're not going to find
0:21:50 somebody calling themselves icg's nobody
0:21:53 does that everybody's an exegete i'm not
0:21:55 going to call myself and icg that's for
0:21:57 sure what i'm trying to say we're human
0:22:00 beings human beings um just
0:22:03 we we're not perfect so we may try our
0:22:07 best but the reality is at any point in
0:22:09 time there will be an element
0:22:12 of what you may call exit isa jesus as
0:22:16 in because different views we attach to
0:22:18 them not in the same as the same
0:22:20 strength we are more kind of strongly
0:22:22 attached strongly attached to certain
0:22:24 views less so with others
0:22:26 but generally speaking scholars or human
0:22:29 beings in general when we say we want to
0:22:31 be objective we mean we want to be more
0:22:34 on the side of exegesis not i see jesus
0:22:39 now why i am presenting um this kind of
0:22:42 provocative um picture here
0:22:45 because i am going to conclude that
0:22:48 actually denying that the quran denies
0:22:52 the crucifixion is an extreme case of
0:22:56 icy jesus
0:22:58 now you're gonna hold me to that and see
0:23:00 if that i can show that i don't know
0:23:02 there's a that's very good and i there's
0:23:04 an interest an amusing kind of footnote
0:23:06 perhaps um as some wag once said about
0:23:09 the old testament slightly different
0:23:10 subject that
0:23:12 a jewish person once said the way
0:23:13 christians
0:23:14 uh view the old testament is a case of
0:23:17 isages rather than exegesis because i
0:23:20 see jesus sounds
0:23:22 i see jesus sounds like i see jesus
0:23:27 jesus all over the old testament from
0:23:29 genesis all the way up to malachi
0:23:31 whatever and that is an example of
0:23:33 isages which of course the greek means
0:23:36 to read into whereas x as you said
0:23:38 earlier exo means to read out of so
0:23:41 you're pouring your interpretation into
0:23:43 the bible rather than letting it speak
0:23:45 so these people see jesus everywhere but
0:23:48 it's not there they're adding it they're
0:23:50 putting it into the text according to
0:23:52 that jewish wag i reflected
0:23:54 yeah and i should add a note here uh
0:23:57 paul we are discussing one particular
0:23:59 issue my conclusions uh are not intended
0:24:03 to generalize the work of any one
0:24:06 particular scholar we may mention or
0:24:08 come across i'm talking just about how a
0:24:11 particular issue is dealt with
0:24:14 all of the people we're gonna mention
0:24:15 here i respect and i value their works
0:24:18 there's an element of this agreement
0:24:20 though on this particular point just to
0:24:22 make that clear
0:24:25 okay so uh we spoke about the consensus
0:24:29 and we showed that muslims had
0:24:31 absolutely no question about that
0:24:33 we could also find early christian
0:24:36 sources that confirmed that this is what
0:24:39 the muslims understood to have happened
0:24:41 to jesus
0:24:43 but that consensus uh has been has come
0:24:47 under questioning in relatively recent
0:24:49 times
0:24:51 and i'm going to mention the main kind
0:24:54 of figures if you like in this movement
0:24:56 um and use them as milestones to define
0:24:59 what happened here
0:25:01 now
0:25:02 one major name here is
0:25:04 who from india
0:25:06 is a reformist scholar
0:25:09 said
0:25:10 right in the second half of the 19th
0:25:12 century
0:25:13 suggested that jesus was crucified he's
0:25:16 a muslim father was he crucified but he
0:25:19 did not die
0:25:20 according to him jesus was left three
0:25:23 four five hours on the cross was taken
0:25:25 down by his disciples taken away hidden
0:25:28 somewhere so the jews cannot find him
0:25:31 and he recovered
0:25:33 and then basically lived uh so his
0:25:34 interpretation is that he was crucified
0:25:37 but he did not die
0:25:41 was a rationalist
0:25:43 he differed
0:25:45 with just about you know every muslim
0:25:48 scholars in the sense that he did not
0:25:49 for instance believe in miracles the way
0:25:51 we believe in them muslims usually
0:25:53 believe them
0:25:54 he treated them explained them in a
0:25:56 rational way naturally but not not
0:25:59 supernatural
0:26:01 that's what he did and that includes
0:26:03 things like the virginal conception for
0:26:05 instance so all of those
0:26:08 and he was a reformist he was a
0:26:10 well-known scholar and and obviously
0:26:12 there were some scholars followed after
0:26:15 him so picked up from where he left and
0:26:17 adopted it
0:26:18 what say
0:26:20 spoke about the idea wasn't actually his
0:26:23 as in he was not the first person to
0:26:24 come up with this non-fatal crucifixion
0:26:27 theory
0:26:28 this appeared first at the end of the
0:26:30 18th century beginning of the 19th
0:26:32 century in germany it was suggested by
0:26:34 two german scholars and
0:26:37 it looks to me because he was well
0:26:39 acquainted with western works so he
0:26:42 might have picked up from there and
0:26:44 tried to introduce more rationalism if
0:26:46 you like in the muslim
0:26:49 statement and believe on this particular
0:26:51 issue
0:26:54 another name that's definitely worth
0:26:57 mentioning is jeffrey barringer he wrote
0:27:00 a book called jesus in the quran very
0:27:02 good book
0:27:03 um
0:27:04 you agree disagree with it it's really a
0:27:06 good book probably one of it's
0:27:09 the first of its kind
0:27:11 in western scholarship
0:27:13 uh very uh balanced
0:27:16 were researched
0:27:17 jeffrey parente was um
0:27:19 a professor of comparative religion
0:27:22 um king's college london
0:27:24 uh he
0:27:25 uh he died i think in 2005.
0:27:29 and in his book
0:27:30 he again
0:27:32 uh suggested that in fact jesus was not
0:27:36 it was crucified and died and the quran
0:27:40 does not deny that
0:27:44 the other name
0:27:45 significant name that should be
0:27:46 mentioned here is muhammad ali
0:27:47 muhammadan was
0:27:49 a lebanese scholar
0:27:51 um
0:27:52 i think of
0:27:53 shia
0:27:54 he converted to christianity at some
0:27:56 point and apparently reverted back to
0:27:58 islam
0:27:59 and
0:28:00 in
0:28:01 1980 he published a paper called
0:28:04 toward an islamic christology in which
0:28:07 he was really quite emphatic
0:28:10 and we will come to him more in more
0:28:11 detail later that the quran does not
0:28:13 deny the crucifixion um he's significant
0:28:17 because he's a muslim scholar and
0:28:19 because he's actually quoted quite a bit
0:28:22 and
0:28:23 he's you know we should he actually died
0:28:26 last year
0:28:27 a very good scholar
0:28:30 and then we come to uh the most recent
0:28:34 of these names is todd lawson
0:28:37 um emerges professor i think at toronto
0:28:40 university and he published a book
0:28:42 called the crucifixion and the quran
0:28:44 he published it in 2010
0:28:47 um
0:28:49 yes well that's what the cover looks
0:28:51 like uh which i i've read this book um
0:28:54 it's often cited these days um in
0:28:56 discussions about this question so
0:28:59 absolutely
0:29:01 so um
0:29:02 this book is actually published in 2010
0:29:05 but it was based on two part paper or he
0:29:08 published a decade earlier which it was
0:29:11 itself developed from his m.a thesis
0:29:14 which he did in 1980
0:29:16 the significance of lawson's work is
0:29:19 that it's become
0:29:20 a kind of
0:29:21 a frequent frequent reference point for
0:29:24 those who argue
0:29:26 that the quran
0:29:28 does not deny the crucifixion yeah and
0:29:32 we must add that he actually introduced
0:29:34 a new angle to the discussion
0:29:37 that the
0:29:38 other scholars
0:29:40 did not and that's why probably he
0:29:44 became more kind of popular
0:29:46 these are obviously there are other
0:29:47 people who spoke and wrote about the
0:29:49 subject i'm citing what i consider to be
0:29:52 particularly significant figures uh in
0:29:54 this movement but of course there are
0:29:56 other people
0:29:58 now
0:30:01 the
0:30:02 what todd lawson did
0:30:04 is that he
0:30:06 um looked at early
0:30:10 muslim works
0:30:12 and he showed that at the beginning of
0:30:15 the 4th century
0:30:18 there were
0:30:19 some muslim scholars who actually
0:30:21 accepted
0:30:23 the crucifixion of jesus so accepted
0:30:25 that jesus was crucified
0:30:28 the earliest of these was the abu hatem
0:30:31 razi
0:30:33 and i need to clarify so there's no
0:30:35 confusion this is not abu bakr al-razi
0:30:37 the atheist who was contemporary to him
0:30:40 no
0:30:41 uh the
0:30:43 greek scholar fakhr dinarazi who
0:30:46 was a 7th century
0:30:48 scholar so
0:30:51 he collected a number of um
0:30:55 reviewed a number of works
0:30:57 the earliest of which like i say go
0:30:59 goes to the
0:31:00 4th century early 4th century
0:31:03 abu hatimarazi now the the one thing you
0:31:06 would have noticed here is that uh this
0:31:08 is quite a late
0:31:10 piece of work so that work appeared
0:31:13 quite late um in in three centuries or
0:31:17 so
0:31:18 the second point to make is that all
0:31:21 these works
0:31:22 belong to the ismaili
0:31:24 school of thought
0:31:26 see these are smaller it's a
0:31:28 it's a smaller branch of shiajin
0:31:31 who believe in seven imams rather than
0:31:35 twelve the twelve in
0:31:36 uh imam
0:31:38 the shias who believe in twelve imams
0:31:40 are what you find in iran iraq they're
0:31:43 the majority but this these are smiley
0:31:46 theologies can i just clarify for the
0:31:48 sake of my own thoughts here in the sec
0:31:50 perhaps secular viewers as well so
0:31:52 you're saying that todd lawson is saying
0:31:56 in his book
0:31:57 now the fourth century just a clever you
0:32:00 mean the fourth century after hijra this
0:32:02 is how the islamic calendar works yes
0:32:04 sorry yes yes we're not talking about
0:32:06 fourth century a.d obviously we're
0:32:08 talking about the fourth century after
0:32:10 uh after uh the compatibility and the
0:32:13 companions went up to medina in that
0:32:14 great sort of uh exodus from uh
0:32:18 so the fourth four centuries after that
0:32:21 you are saying
0:32:22 we see the first
0:32:24 time that um a muslim source the ismaili
0:32:28 source in a particular instance ever
0:32:30 mentions the idea that jesus himself
0:32:34 uh was in fact crucified in on the cross
0:32:36 according to the understanding of the
0:32:38 crime so we have a huge
0:32:40 3 4 centuries gap from from the time of
0:32:43 the prophet the hadith companions the
0:32:45 sahaba the successors and on and on all
0:32:49 the way up have to wait to the fourth
0:32:50 centuries up and then we get this claim
0:32:53 by this
0:32:54 small well today is a small group but
0:32:56 then perhaps it was a larger uh group
0:32:58 that in fact jesus was crucified
0:33:01 according to the quran is that a crude
0:33:03 but fair summary of what you've said
0:33:06 it's very accurate very fast summary
0:33:09 paul not only that and if we pick the
0:33:11 earliest of these
0:33:14 first of all let me just continue with
0:33:16 this point that those smiley
0:33:19 theologians were clearly influenced
0:33:22 by that particular theology
0:33:26 why this group but why this particular
0:33:28 niche group who they're not the twelvers
0:33:30 you know they don't believe that they're
0:33:31 not the the mainstream ship why this
0:33:33 particular niche theology what what
0:33:35 what's going on there you're but you're
0:33:36 about to explain why they particularly
0:33:38 might have claimed this as opposed to
0:33:41 the broader uh sunni community for
0:33:43 example
0:33:44 yeah they have their kind of their own
0:33:47 kind of theology that differs from the
0:33:49 rest um it's based on the on the on the
0:33:53 number seven so they have seven imams
0:33:55 there are seven phases uh they also
0:33:58 believe in the concept of uh the
0:34:01 or mehdi
0:34:03 the awaited
0:34:05 and they find as you know jesus also is
0:34:08 supposed to
0:34:10 return that's that's a
0:34:12 belief
0:34:14 that's
0:34:14 upheld by many muslim most muslims
0:34:17 so they kind of found a way
0:34:20 of integrating those their theology with
0:34:24 this concept
0:34:25 in the case of
0:34:27 to give one example um but but these are
0:34:29 not only always influenced by their kind
0:34:32 of
0:34:32 theological work if you think of ahata
0:34:35 marazzi mahatma razi in the work that
0:34:38 lawson
0:34:39 quotes
0:34:40 he was actually debating with abu bakr
0:34:44 rajyabhakaraji was a contemporary of his
0:34:46 but he was an atheist
0:34:48 this atheist
0:34:49 razi made the claim he said well
0:34:51 religions cannot be true because they
0:34:54 actually differ on just about everything
0:34:56 so whatever hatha marazzi tried to do is
0:34:59 to show them no they actually don't they
0:35:02 agree on a lot of things
0:35:03 and he presented the case of the
0:35:06 crucifixion of jesus which was one of
0:35:09 the points they were debating
0:35:11 as no you don't need to look at it um as
0:35:14 as as a point of difference yes the jews
0:35:17 say we killed them
0:35:19 christians say the same and actually the
0:35:20 quran also says that
0:35:22 what's interesting here is that that
0:35:24 happens in a non-exegetical exegetical
0:35:27 work so that's basically some kind of a
0:35:30 discussion
0:35:31 piece of work
0:35:33 the same person
0:35:35 has a different book that book is more
0:35:39 of interpretation of the quran in which
0:35:41 he accepts that the quran
0:35:44 denies the crucifixion right now that is
0:35:47 not mentioned in lawson's work which is
0:35:51 why the incomplete kind of presentation
0:35:54 can be a bit misleading to those who are
0:35:56 reading about the subject so
0:35:59 well but why would the israeli theology
0:36:02 have an issue with jesus's
0:36:05 or not have an issue with jesus
0:36:06 crucifixion what what what's what's the
0:36:08 theological motivation behind this novel
0:36:11 interpretation
0:36:13 it's it has is something to do with i
0:36:16 mean i can't
0:36:17 speak with a lot of detail about it but
0:36:20 it's something to do with their like i
0:36:22 said cosmology and
0:36:24 topology and the seven
0:36:27 kind of the number seven and their
0:36:30 return the concept of the return of of
0:36:33 their imam
0:36:34 um and it's it just linked it that way
0:36:36 if look if you look at one of the of
0:36:38 these books let's say uh suggestions
0:36:41 work which again it's another kind of
0:36:43 more or less contemporary to abu hatem
0:36:45 razi and you look at it it's quite
0:36:48 it's a difficult kind of complex um
0:36:51 pieces of work i'm pretty sure someone
0:36:53 else who's more kind of
0:36:54 um
0:36:55 accomplished when it comes to the
0:36:57 theology and presented and explaining
0:36:59 better
0:37:00 but what i can say about it is that it's
0:37:02 clearly linked to their theology second
0:37:05 they are inconsistent in that view so
0:37:08 the view is found in works that are not
0:37:10 exegetical they are actually not well so
0:37:14 if you want to read about uh what muslim
0:37:17 the temptation of the quran you don't
0:37:19 usually pick a book on let's say general
0:37:22 or joseph you know
0:37:24 jewish
0:37:25 prudence it you pick a book that deals
0:37:28 with
0:37:29 uh the interpretation of the quran it's
0:37:32 jesus tabari or someone else
0:37:34 and like i say as well that those
0:37:37 the same figure
0:37:38 seem seem to have
0:37:40 uh kind of adopted two different views
0:37:43 depending on the context in which the
0:37:45 discussion was taking place
0:37:47 and that's what i meant here by
0:37:49 contradictory so even though
0:37:52 todd lawson introduced new information
0:37:56 to the debate which is the basically
0:37:58 existence
0:38:00 of those
0:38:02 uh scholars
0:38:03 just it still has quite a few issues
0:38:06 with it and you look at it and you it
0:38:09 raises questions
0:38:11 that makes you wonder so why did they
0:38:13 wait until the fourth century oh yeah
0:38:15 why other shias did not join in that
0:38:18 because other shares the the general um
0:38:21 view of shia scholars is that uh he was
0:38:24 not crucified right so the twelve of
0:38:26 shias the the the great bulk of shias uh
0:38:29 agree with the the sunni perspective and
0:38:31 the quran obviously that he wasn't
0:38:32 crucified it's just this particular uh
0:38:35 sect if you like uh suddenly in the
0:38:37 fourth century they appear to have or
0:38:38 some of them appear to have
0:38:39 contradictory um views but uh at least
0:38:43 some of them uh questioned that reading
0:38:45 so this is a new thing
0:38:47 in a as a small sect uh okay yeah
0:38:51 and and
0:38:51 the other question also to kind of to
0:38:53 try and deal with it why do they do that
0:38:55 why are they trying
0:38:58 to question the consensus yeah now we're
0:39:01 going to get to that but there is what
0:39:03 do we do with then with this verse that
0:39:05 seems to suggest that the jews
0:39:07 did not kill him
0:39:09 so how do you deal with that well
0:39:11 the
0:39:12 kind of general uh view here is that
0:39:15 what the quran the alternative view they
0:39:16 present is that
0:39:18 the quran is not denying
0:39:20 that those
0:39:22 the jews
0:39:24 killed
0:39:25 jesus but they are denying their
0:39:28 culpability responsibility meaning by
0:39:31 that it was ultimately god who allowed
0:39:35 the jews to kill jesus so the verse as
0:39:40 it stands
0:39:41 it does mean that the jews killed jesus
0:39:44 but it's reminding them god is reminding
0:39:47 them well you killed him but it's
0:39:48 actually because i allowed you
0:39:50 to kill him
0:39:52 not because you think so that's the
0:39:54 alternative interpretation
0:39:56 that is presented for this verse
0:40:00 okay
0:40:00 okay
0:40:03 right now
0:40:05 we've been talking about the
0:40:06 interpretation of
0:40:08 different scholars here
0:40:10 what we
0:40:11 uh obviously
0:40:13 we have a huge um
0:40:15 literature corpus of writings on the
0:40:18 hadith of the prophet sallam as well as
0:40:21 historical accounts of what he did the
0:40:24 question is
0:40:25 what was his interpretation
0:40:28 of this particular verse and i'm i'm
0:40:31 actually uh
0:40:33 i would like to ask you a question here
0:40:35 paul what do you think
0:40:37 with the prophet
0:40:39 would he have spoken about the
0:40:41 crucifixion or not
0:40:43 do we know that he
0:40:44 debated with the christians with jews
0:40:47 and the quran tells us that as well so
0:40:50 do you think this subject would have
0:40:51 would have come up at all or was avoided
0:40:54 for whatever reason well indeed it's uh
0:40:57 this question would have uh come up as
0:40:59 you say there are narrations where he
0:41:01 did meet with christians even in in the
0:41:03 mosque they were invited in to
0:41:04 have discussions over several days
0:41:07 so um if he had spoken clearly
0:41:10 um
0:41:12 well we would have trace of it in the
0:41:13 tradition if there was something
0:41:15 surprising shall we say or against the
0:41:18 muslim consensus we would have heard
0:41:19 about it uh but you're going to tell me
0:41:21 of that i'm sure you're going to clarify
0:41:23 absolutely absolutely think about that
0:41:25 this is a major issue because it's at
0:41:27 the
0:41:28 it's the foundation of christian
0:41:29 theology
0:41:31 so if it must have come up at some point
0:41:34 in in a discussion and the prophet
0:41:37 sallallahu alaihi must have said
0:41:39 something about it
0:41:41 yet
0:41:41 what's interesting
0:41:43 um
0:41:44 there is no
0:41:47 uh no trace of that
0:41:50 there's no
0:41:52 um
0:41:53 reference to the prophet talking about
0:41:56 this particular issue anywhere
0:42:00 now
0:42:00 let's think about it
0:42:02 if it was controversial
0:42:04 if it was unclear
0:42:06 if there was any doubt about it if
0:42:08 there's any ambiguity about it
0:42:11 surely it would have become the subject
0:42:13 of discussion of some form he would have
0:42:16 needed to come out to say oh by the way
0:42:19 this verse
0:42:20 even though it looks like it says he
0:42:23 wasn't crucified actually he was but it
0:42:26 means xyz
0:42:28 none of this whatsoever
0:42:31 is it possible
0:42:32 that this individual interpretation was
0:42:35 lost i don't think so why is that
0:42:38 because let's say
0:42:39 he spoke about it and for whatever
0:42:41 reason muslim
0:42:43 historians scholars
0:42:45 failed to record it
0:42:47 but don't you think the christian
0:42:50 theologians would have recorded it
0:42:52 because they would have wanted to use it
0:42:53 in the discussion and then it would have
0:42:55 come up at some point they would have
0:42:57 gone gone to the muslims and said you're
0:42:59 a prophet said one day so and so but
0:43:01 indeed you've already quoted from this
0:43:03 guy this monk john of damascus um he was
0:43:06 a a century or so uh later in the life
0:43:08 of the prophet and he's actually a
0:43:10 doctor of the church he's a really
0:43:11 senior theologian and scholar in in the
0:43:14 in the church
0:43:15 and he doesn't
0:43:17 contradict the muslim consensus at all i
0:43:19 mean he would have said so because he
0:43:21 worked for muslims he was part of the
0:43:22 the empire at the time he was right in
0:43:25 there and he would have known um and he
0:43:27 reports no view uh to the country the
0:43:31 one you're uh advocating it seems yeah
0:43:34 and
0:43:36 obviously the other question
0:43:37 is it possible that later scholars
0:43:40 changed it well
0:43:42 again forget about the fact that there
0:43:43 is no trace of it but why would muslim
0:43:46 scholars want to change that first of
0:43:48 all
0:43:49 the
0:43:50 crucifixion of jesus if he was crucified
0:43:53 would not have
0:43:55 made any difference to islamic theology
0:43:58 because
0:43:59 it has islamic theology has no concept
0:44:01 of redemption
0:44:02 in the way
0:44:04 it's accepted in the christianity
0:44:07 so it had no threat if you like to the
0:44:10 islamic faith
0:44:12 the other point which is really
0:44:13 significant to remember the quran does
0:44:16 talk about the killing of prophets
0:44:19 it does mention prophets were killed so
0:44:23 the concept is not a taboo to muslims
0:44:26 and it would not have a kind of
0:44:28 defamed those
0:44:30 prophets if you like if they were
0:44:33 killed if jesus was killed absolutely
0:44:35 not indeed all the three scriptures the
0:44:37 the jewish bible that we have now the
0:44:39 new testament and the quran all state
0:44:41 that the the prophets were killed
0:44:44 in large in large numbers actually so
0:44:46 this is something that all three
0:44:47 scriptures agree with that uh prophets
0:44:50 were killed and sometimes in the in the
0:44:52 in the bible there are
0:44:54 mass murders of prophets in some
0:44:55 sections there seems to be multiple
0:44:57 murders of prophets so uh this is
0:44:59 something that actually everyone agrees
0:45:00 with the prophets were absolutely
0:45:02 absolutely absolutely both
0:45:06 so
0:45:07 let's move now
0:45:09 to talk about
0:45:10 why scholars have started to
0:45:14 question
0:45:15 the denial of the quran of the
0:45:17 crucifixion
0:45:18 one motive
0:45:20 is that they try to bring together
0:45:22 muslims and christians
0:45:25 and i'm going to quote from two
0:45:27 theologians christian theologians
0:45:30 to show what is what underlines that so
0:45:33 here we go
0:45:34 so one of them says those two verses
0:45:37 um has become an important exegetical
0:45:39 site for repairing the broken
0:45:41 relationship between christianity and
0:45:42 islam
0:45:44 authors with this goal have hoped to
0:45:46 shift attention away from the quran's
0:45:48 supposed denial of the crucifixion and
0:45:51 instead attempt to find common ground in
0:45:53 its uh affirmation in q158 meaning the
0:45:57 uh taking of a
0:45:59 raising jesus that's what he's talking
0:46:02 about
0:46:03 christian scholars hoping to present the
0:46:06 quran in a more positive light to
0:46:08 christian readers have labored to prove
0:46:10 that these verses need to not to be
0:46:12 interpreted as a denial of the
0:46:14 crucifixion
0:46:16 as a fan right i like the word labored
0:46:18 there uh that these guys have labored to
0:46:21 prove it's not it's not just
0:46:24 they've had to really put a lot of
0:46:25 effort to make sure this interpretation
0:46:27 is not absolutely not the crucifixion
0:46:30 the word labeling is very interesting
0:46:32 absolutely and again this is again from
0:46:36 a professor from the university of
0:46:38 rochester as you can see these verses
0:46:40 affirm the death and resurrection of
0:46:43 christ wow
0:46:45 now
0:46:46 yeah
0:46:48 wow
0:46:50 so what starts off with the christians
0:46:52 wanting rapprochement you know which
0:46:55 might sound really quite good ends up
0:46:57 with this christian saying aha the quran
0:47:00 after all affirms our beliefs our faith
0:47:02 in the death and resurrection of christ
0:47:04 what a coincidence
0:47:06 yes exactly
0:47:08 and and also the let's just look at this
0:47:12 kind of a little more uh closely
0:47:15 so
0:47:16 you have the muslims who believe that
0:47:17 jesus was not crucified
0:47:19 but then they believe that he was such a
0:47:22 noble prophet a unique prophet
0:47:26 described in the most beautiful terms in
0:47:29 the quran
0:47:31 some of the miracles attributed to him
0:47:33 are not attributed to any other or
0:47:36 linked with any other prophet
0:47:38 no one else is described as uh was
0:47:41 having born after virgil conception for
0:47:44 instance or other terms and descriptions
0:47:46 in the quran so it's such a very special
0:47:49 prophet in the quran the only thing that
0:47:52 muslims
0:47:54 kind of
0:47:55 don't say about jesus is that he was
0:47:57 crucified so they spare him the
0:48:00 humiliation
0:48:01 of the crucifixion
0:48:03 on the other hand
0:48:04 so that supposedly is a problem
0:48:08 to the relationships between muslims and
0:48:11 christians on the other hand on the
0:48:12 other side
0:48:13 christians in general of course
0:48:16 believe that muhammad wasn't a genuine
0:48:18 prophet
0:48:19 charlatan
0:48:20 effectively for fraudster made up the
0:48:23 quran israel was completely confused if
0:48:25 not deliberate he was just not came up
0:48:27 with this thing that he called the new
0:48:29 religion which was wrong false evil etc
0:48:34 now
0:48:34 if we want and to try and bring these
0:48:37 two views closer to each other which one
0:48:40 really would we need to work on
0:48:43 would we want to convince
0:48:46 the muslims to accept that this noble
0:48:50 kind of much
0:48:51 revered prophet
0:48:53 has to be kind of considered to have
0:48:55 died on the cross
0:48:57 or do we need actually to convince our
0:48:59 christian brothers and sisters that how
0:49:01 about accepting that muhammad might be
0:49:04 actually genuine a prophet with genuine
0:49:07 message
0:49:08 and that's that's a problem here and and
0:49:11 you look at it and say well that's not
0:49:13 fair is it
0:49:14 um but that's one one way of looking at
0:49:16 it
0:49:17 the other way
0:49:19 going beyond that
0:49:20 i mean
0:49:21 professor neil robinson called it uh
0:49:24 called these attempts as in
0:49:26 um disingenuous in the extreme on the
0:49:29 part of christian theologians to try and
0:49:31 show that because the agenda is clear
0:49:33 here now if you go kind of a little bit
0:49:35 look at it from different angle i really
0:49:38 don't believe that
0:49:40 those relationships are broken because
0:49:43 muslims don't believe that jesus was
0:49:44 crucified the reality is that christians
0:49:49 fought among themselves muslims didn't
0:49:51 do
0:49:52 other religions did the same
0:49:55 theology is only one pretext that was
0:49:58 used in those conflicts those conflicts
0:50:01 are
0:50:02 mostly
0:50:03 political
0:50:05 economic it's about conflict of interest
0:50:09 if we
0:50:10 convinced all muslims
0:50:12 to accept that jesus was crucified do we
0:50:15 really believe that will suddenly turn
0:50:17 the relationship between christians and
0:50:19 muslims take it a completely different
0:50:21 level on the basis of what
0:50:24 there's no it's just it's kind of
0:50:26 really it's a it's a christian agenda
0:50:29 theological agenda
0:50:30 unfortunately there's no real substance
0:50:33 behind it other than that that's that's
0:50:35 i i i make a good point i just note by
0:50:38 the way that um in judaism um
0:50:41 and in the jewish scriptures there was
0:50:43 no expectation that the messiah would be
0:50:46 crucified
0:50:47 and died or
0:50:49 and raised to death this is not a view
0:50:51 that's found anywhere in the jewish
0:50:52 sources or in the jewish bible
0:50:54 prior to christianity itself which
0:50:56 obviously then did have that view
0:50:58 um so it's not just crime that's
0:51:00 problematic allegedly it's also the
0:51:02 christian claim that the messiah who was
0:51:04 to come who was to do this would be was
0:51:06 expected to be crucified that that that
0:51:09 view is absent from the jewish religions
0:51:11 and no dude expected that according to
0:51:14 our historical records there's no jew
0:51:16 prior to christianity who's ever
0:51:17 expecting that to happen so it's a new
0:51:19 thing an unexpected uh uh and unlocked
0:51:22 for and on the contrary the messiah was
0:51:24 supposed to be victorious he's not
0:51:25 supposed to be humiliated and degraded
0:51:28 by crucifixion and muslims agree it
0:51:30 seems that indeed he wasn't so
0:51:33 absolutely
0:51:34 absolutely absolutely and as you know in
0:51:37 corinthians um paul called it a
0:51:40 stumbling block to jews the concept of
0:51:43 suffering messiah it just he wouldn't
0:51:46 have it it was a problem for jews to
0:51:48 convert to christianity if that's what
0:51:50 it what it meant you're absolutely right
0:51:52 you weren't expecting it it's not
0:51:53 prophecy
0:51:55 no no absolutely not
0:52:05 now there's a completely different
0:52:07 motive
0:52:08 behind trying to
0:52:11 deny the denial of the crucifixion in
0:52:14 the quran this is an islamic agenda now
0:52:18 which is we spoke about christian agenda
0:52:20 this is an islamic agenda
0:52:22 and this is a quote from
0:52:24 uh mahmoud ayoub
0:52:27 why then it must be asked does the quran
0:52:30 deny the pacific crucifixion of christ
0:52:32 in the face of apparently overwhelming
0:52:35 evidence
0:52:36 meaning what he means is that it's
0:52:38 clearly historically speaking jesus was
0:52:41 crucified
0:52:42 why would the quran deny that
0:52:45 and then he goes on to say muslim
0:52:47 commentators have not been able to
0:52:49 convincingly to disprove the crucifixion
0:52:52 well i that's something we can get to
0:52:55 later i don't know how you can approve
0:52:56 or disprove the crucifixion but you
0:52:59 can't disprove a historical event as
0:53:01 such strictly speaking
0:53:03 rather they have compounded the problem
0:53:05 by adding the conclusion of their
0:53:06 substitutionist theories what he's
0:53:09 talking about is the
0:53:10 general uh kind of widely accepted
0:53:13 interpretation among muslims is that
0:53:15 jesus there was a crucifixion but it
0:53:18 wasn't jesus it was someone else who was
0:53:20 crucified so it's referring to that
0:53:23 in that concept someone else yeah
0:53:26 and and then he goes on the problem has
0:53:28 been we believe one of understanding
0:53:31 so now he's gonna proceed to make a
0:53:34 really big statement commentators the
0:53:36 stoke and muslim commentators have
0:53:38 generally taken the verse to be a
0:53:39 historical statement
0:53:41 that's the statement on
0:53:43 jesus they did not they did not kill him
0:53:46 nor did they crucified this statement he
0:53:49 says like all other statements
0:53:51 concerning jesus in the quran belongs
0:53:54 not to history but to theology in the
0:53:56 broadest sense
0:53:59 uh well i guess
0:54:01 where do we start here
0:54:03 the the the what he's saying effectively
0:54:05 he's accepting the historicity of the
0:54:08 crucifixion
0:54:09 and because he's accepting that and he's
0:54:12 implying that quran is the word of god
0:54:14 and i why would it actually deny the
0:54:17 historicity
0:54:19 then
0:54:20 commentators exegetes must have
0:54:22 misunderstood the quran
0:54:25 for let's say 14 centuries
0:54:28 um and then but he goes on further and
0:54:30 he says this statement is actually
0:54:34 should be understood about jesus
0:54:36 and all other statements about jesus
0:54:39 should be understood in kind of
0:54:41 theological sense rather than historical
0:54:43 sense
0:54:44 now
0:54:47 before you go
0:54:49 i'm not going to comment on this passage
0:54:50 just to make this strikes me that last
0:54:52 sentence belongs not to history but to
0:54:54 theology in the broadest sense
0:54:56 this language almost i recognize it you
0:54:58 often find it in christian interpreters
0:55:00 commentaries on on this on the bible in
0:55:03 the hermeneutics this is a very kind of
0:55:05 christian theme oh well you know this
0:55:07 event in the bible well belongs not to
0:55:10 history but maybe more it's more to do
0:55:12 with theology so we can still believe it
0:55:14 but we don't believe it happened so to
0:55:16 speak so this is this has a whiff of
0:55:19 christian hermeneutics about it to me
0:55:22 that's what it sounds like it's
0:55:24 certainly not an islamic view but it may
0:55:26 be a more of a christian uh hermeneutics
0:55:28 so i just wanted to get it off my chest
0:55:30 absolutely paul absolutely you're spot
0:55:33 on i think um i as i mentioned mohammed
0:55:36 you
0:55:36 actually converted to christianity and
0:55:38 then he went back to islam so whether
0:55:41 that was you know
0:55:43 you know influenced by
0:55:45 that conversion experience i don't know
0:55:46 but that's um that will say what's
0:55:48 interesting here is
0:55:50 you've just spoken about the concept of
0:55:52 the suffering messiah it's not
0:55:54 historical so what he's saying
0:55:55 effectively well what the quran says
0:55:59 is not historical
0:56:00 what the gospels say is historical yet
0:56:04 yet what the gospels say is actually
0:56:06 according to history is not historical
0:56:09 because if jesus was the messiah the
0:56:11 messiah is not supposed to die
0:56:15 the way he he did anyway so he's
0:56:17 basically turned it upside down
0:56:20 then
0:56:21 if that wasn't
0:56:23 enough
0:56:24 he goes on to say everything that the
0:56:26 quran says about jesus is actually
0:56:28 theological should not be understood
0:56:30 as historical very strange i think the
0:56:32 problem here is
0:56:34 well if you
0:56:35 treat why jesus why not moses moses
0:56:39 is mentioned more than any other prophet
0:56:40 in the quran now if you follow this line
0:56:43 of thinking
0:56:44 the quran
0:56:46 becomes basically open to just about any
0:56:49 interpretation and it's very difficult
0:56:51 to see how two different people can get
0:56:53 the same meaning out of the text if
0:56:55 actually it goes that far these are
0:56:58 statements according to the quran
0:57:01 are supposed to be statements of fact so
0:57:04 there are statements about faith
0:57:06 theology
0:57:07 um you know things that we can't see the
0:57:10 spirit
0:57:11 spiritual world paradise etc and there
0:57:14 are statements about history about the
0:57:16 past
0:57:17 when the quran
0:57:19 talks about the past it claims to re
0:57:22 reporting history
0:57:24 not to be making some kind of general
0:57:27 theological statements that have the
0:57:30 appearance of history to it
0:57:32 yeah very strange another point
0:57:34 to raise here paul is that now the
0:57:37 concept of suffering messiah is of no
0:57:40 significance to muslims
0:57:42 so which one is likely to have fallen in
0:57:45 the theological trap here
0:57:47 the muslims or the christians
0:57:50 it's it looks like
0:57:53 uh christians to me
0:57:54 um so these are two motives you can kind
0:57:58 of major motives one um is christian and
0:58:01 the other is islamic
0:58:04 i would like to mention there are some
0:58:06 smaller kind of
0:58:07 attempts as well
0:58:09 to deny the denial of the conservation
0:58:11 of the quran for instance in a recent
0:58:13 paper by john cole
0:58:15 um an excellent scholar
0:58:18 he also said that
0:58:20 the quran is actually denying some kind
0:58:22 of propaganda statement
0:58:25 made by the sasanians about
0:58:28 um the jews killing
0:58:30 jesus because it was demoralizing uh to
0:58:34 the christians and the quran kind of
0:58:36 came out in in in defense of that
0:58:39 now obviously
0:58:41 these are kind of speculations um
0:58:45 and theories can be you know can be
0:58:48 developed but i think
0:58:49 what i hope to show as we progress
0:58:52 further is that it really very hard
0:58:55 to um you know to stick to this
0:58:57 interpretation that the quran does not
0:59:00 deny the crucifixion
0:59:04 now there's a problem here uh for if
0:59:08 somebody believes that uh the quran was
0:59:11 is divine and was inspired by god then
0:59:16 they would argue that the quran is
0:59:18 correct jesus was not crucified
0:59:21 um and then and and the crucifixion
0:59:23 story is just um false
0:59:26 but
0:59:27 for those who think that the quran
0:59:32 was
0:59:34 authored by muhammad
0:59:36 there's actually a problem there
0:59:38 so if muhammad
0:59:40 wrote
0:59:42 the
0:59:42 the quran
0:59:44 here's the question
0:59:47 there are actually serious
0:59:51 issues for him something that both
0:59:54 groups who are concerned with jesus
0:59:56 agree on
0:59:58 so the jews say
0:59:59 we killed him
1:00:01 and the christians say
1:00:03 we killed him
1:00:04 he's at the same time trying to attract
1:00:07 both grooves
1:00:08 the killing of the chris of jesus is of
1:00:12 no significance to him to the quran
1:00:15 he trying to unify all of those
1:00:18 yet he comes out with what looks like a
1:00:20 statement that stands in the face of
1:00:22 history everybody he knew every jew
1:00:25 every christian believed that jesus was
1:00:27 a crucified and he's trying to tell them
1:00:29 we believe in the same god i believe in
1:00:32 the torah and the injil jesus is so and
1:00:35 so moses is so-and-so however what you
1:00:38 say about this particular issue i'm
1:00:40 disagreeing with what sense does that
1:00:42 mean i think it's actually a very very
1:00:44 good point and there's even that verse
1:00:45 in the quran says to people
1:00:47 let us come to common terms he's
1:00:48 inviting them to come to an agreement so
1:00:51 the emphasis here is on consensus let us
1:00:54 understand what we share in common
1:00:56 and then you come across this verse
1:00:58 which is so counter-intuitive in some
1:01:00 ways if particularly if you're a
1:01:02 christian um in in denying the
1:01:04 crucifixion so why would muhammad
1:01:06 inverted commas being the supposed
1:01:08 author of the quran
1:01:10 what motive would you have for including
1:01:12 a verse which really puts the the spoke
1:01:15 in the wheels of this whole agenda of
1:01:17 let us agree let us come to common terms
1:01:19 does it make any sense as you say
1:01:21 absolutely it basically dents um the
1:01:25 credibility of the quran
1:01:26 because they think this is a simple
1:01:29 basic historical fact how do we know
1:01:32 well the quran since then has always
1:01:35 been criticized on this particular point
1:01:38 the
1:01:39 the claim the historic claim that has
1:01:41 received the most criticism from
1:01:43 scholars non-scholars is the crucifixion
1:01:46 of jesus
1:01:47 now he comes out and basically puts out
1:01:49 the statement that he'd make kind of if
1:01:52 you like threaten
1:01:53 his whole messaging and mission because
1:01:56 this is an indirect argument for the
1:01:58 authenticity of the prophet if he was a
1:02:00 charlatan if he was a fake a fraud then
1:02:02 he wouldn't use a verse of course which
1:02:04 threatened to jeopardize his successful
1:02:07 proselytizing of of christians for
1:02:09 example why would he do that he wouldn't
1:02:12 no no one would do that so that kind of
1:02:13 suggests indirectly that that he is uh
1:02:17 but putting the truth over
1:02:19 any interests
1:02:20 of a self-aggrandizement or any
1:02:23 fraudulent claim to prophethood
1:02:25 that that paul unless you actually go
1:02:28 out to try and prove that the quran does
1:02:31 not deny the crucifixion
1:02:33 so that's one way out of this dilemma so
1:02:36 we are in a corner
1:02:38 but there is a way out of it if we
1:02:40 actually say the quran does not deny the
1:02:42 crucifixion
1:02:44 um
1:02:45 any advantages of denying the
1:02:47 crucifixion well history tells us none
1:02:50 absolutely none 14th century of
1:02:52 criticism disagreement
1:02:54 um
1:02:56 you know accusing the creators of the
1:02:57 quran absolutely none that's that's
1:02:59 really what we
1:03:01 uh what we have here
1:03:05 okay
1:03:07 now jesus and mary in little mood
1:03:10 where where does this fit in what we're
1:03:12 talking about
1:03:13 um one argument that was used
1:03:17 to show that the quran does not deny the
1:03:21 crucifixion is to link it to some
1:03:24 statements in the talmud
1:03:26 and to say it was actually engaging with
1:03:28 the talmud and that is the um
1:03:31 that's what it was doing and it's not
1:03:33 denying actually
1:03:35 the
1:03:35 the killing of jesus itself so i'm gonna
1:03:38 go through um a couple of um statements
1:03:42 from the mode and then we see how these
1:03:45 kind of
1:03:46 link into the discussion we have okay i
1:03:48 just want to very briefly just to share
1:03:50 and just declare what the tao mood is uh
1:03:52 is obviously a jewish uh collection of
1:03:54 writings uh very simplistically in in
1:03:57 five seconds it includes what's called
1:03:59 the oral torso the written torah you
1:04:01 know the first five books of moses the
1:04:03 talmud includes the oral torah an oral
1:04:06 revelation given to moses plus a whole
1:04:08 bunch of rabbinic the rabbis having
1:04:10 conversations and arguments and
1:04:12 discussions um about what this is and
1:04:14 there are many many volumes there's a
1:04:16 babylonian talmud there's the jerusalem
1:04:18 talmud but the babylonian one is the big
1:04:20 one in babylon in modern iraq of course
1:04:23 and uh
1:04:24 and it's studied by jews today all
1:04:26 around the world you can study it online
1:04:28 or on on an app on your iphone um so
1:04:30 that this is what it was written perhaps
1:04:32 over several hundred years from from i
1:04:34 know i'll go into all the details but
1:04:36 that's kind of very crudely i think what
1:04:38 it's about
1:04:39 absolutely and and i i should add that
1:04:42 uh the quotes that we have uh are
1:04:45 specifically from the babylonian
1:04:47 talmud because this was not censored
1:04:50 unlike the talmud of jerusalem which was
1:04:53 effectively and
1:04:55 christian down and they had to be
1:04:57 careful about what they say so what
1:04:59 you're going to see now are all from b
1:05:01 stands for talmud and shabbat is a book
1:05:03 from um from the talmud so what i have
1:05:07 what you have here is it's a quite
1:05:09 unique kind of format you have in the
1:05:11 talmud as you know poll a discussion
1:05:13 among uh jewish scholars it's quite a
1:05:16 unique kind of uh format and this is
1:05:18 discussion about
1:05:20 somebody called ben stada
1:05:23 but at times is called
1:05:25 uh ben pandeira ben means son of
1:05:29 um and as you can see scholars think
1:05:32 that stada
1:05:34 and pandera uh are potentially names uh
1:05:38 for um jesus referred to jesus
1:05:41 ben pandey
1:05:42 so here you have
1:05:44 uh somebody's asking
1:05:46 did uh benstad not bring forth
1:05:48 witchcraft from egypt
1:05:51 by mean of scratches um meaning on the
1:05:53 skin some kind of
1:05:55 practice of sorcery
1:05:57 um and then another says he was full
1:06:00 answered and proof cannot be abused from
1:06:03 fools was then the son uh was he then
1:06:06 the son of stada so that's one
1:06:09 suggestion he son of somebody called
1:06:10 stada
1:06:11 but then another replies uh or you know
1:06:14 i replied to that statement he was the
1:06:16 son of pandera maybe
1:06:19 one
1:06:20 sage goes on to say the husband was that
1:06:23 her so the husband of his mother was
1:06:25 called stada
1:06:27 and the lover was pandera
1:06:30 and then you have another statement the
1:06:32 husband was papo has been judah
1:06:35 the mother was stada you have another
1:06:37 confusion here it's just you can't see
1:06:39 the names are a bit confused um but then
1:06:42 the mother is called miriam
1:06:44 mary and mary the hairdresser and then
1:06:47 this mary is uh is told is said to have
1:06:51 been unfaithful to her husband
1:06:55 most scholars
1:06:57 uh accept that
1:06:58 ben panderer is a reference to jesus
1:07:02 uh some except ben stead as well
1:07:06 but the majority been pandered pandera
1:07:09 is a name that was used by the romans
1:07:11 it is particularly um
1:07:14 found um used for roman soldiers which
1:07:18 is why uh son of um you know ben pandey
1:07:21 pandey was supposedly a roman soldier
1:07:23 who had a relationship with mary
1:07:26 and jesus effectively was
1:07:28 uh the product of this illicit
1:07:31 uh relationship
1:07:34 and
1:07:35 this is a quote
1:07:37 from a christian theologian from the 3rd
1:07:40 century organ and he's quoting a greek
1:07:43 critic
1:07:45 of christianity called celsius
1:07:47 and according to celsius he's talking
1:07:49 about what the jews said about jesus
1:07:53 when she was pregnant his mother she was
1:07:55 turned out of those by the carpenter to
1:07:58 whom she had been betrothed
1:08:00 as having been guilty of adultery and
1:08:03 that she bought a child to a certain
1:08:05 soldier no name pantera pantera pandera
1:08:10 the same name
1:08:12 and in fact even
1:08:14 tertullian the christian author from the
1:08:17 2nd century also
1:08:19 referred to a jewish belief
1:08:22 that jesus was called the son of the
1:08:25 carpenter
1:08:27 or
1:08:27 uh the harlot
1:08:29 so it's a kind of quite uh
1:08:32 and it's clear that these accusations
1:08:34 are targeted at the virginal conception
1:08:37 so the concept the christian concept
1:08:40 which is accepted in the quran
1:08:42 that
1:08:43 jesus was born of virginal
1:08:46 conception
1:08:51 now
1:08:52 as for the crucifixion itself there's
1:08:55 actually only one passage in the talmud
1:08:58 that talks about it
1:09:00 and i have quoted it here and
1:09:02 highlighted certain parts of it so on
1:09:05 the eve of the passover
1:09:07 yeshua that jesus was hanged
1:09:10 for 40 days before the execution took
1:09:13 place a herald went forth and cried he's
1:09:16 going forth to be stoned because he had
1:09:18 he has a practice sorcery and enticed
1:09:20 israel to apostasy
1:09:22 anyone who can say anything in his favor
1:09:25 let him come forward and plead on his
1:09:27 behalf but since nothing was brought
1:09:30 forward in his favor he was hanged on
1:09:32 the eve on the eve of the passover
1:09:35 this is the
1:09:36 only
1:09:37 statement
1:09:39 uh about the
1:09:41 um
1:09:41 about joshua here there's another one
1:09:44 that kind of links
1:09:45 this particular passage with the passage
1:09:48 about um
1:09:49 benstada
1:09:51 and
1:09:52 bin pandey but this is really the main
1:09:54 passage we're talking about as you can
1:09:55 see this doesn't actually match the the
1:09:58 story in the gospels
1:10:00 um
1:10:01 the 40 days thing yes there's the
1:10:04 passover there's joshua there's no
1:10:06 stoning involved you've got stoning here
1:10:11 what
1:10:12 those who link the quran
1:10:14 to this account say
1:10:17 is that you have mention of stoning
1:10:21 and hanging
1:10:23 and this kind of dual punishment
1:10:26 matches
1:10:27 the double denial in the quran
1:10:30 um
1:10:31 he was not they did not kill him nor did
1:10:34 they
1:10:35 crucify him
1:10:37 and i think
1:10:39 the question is i'm terribly impressed
1:10:40 with that
1:10:41 it's not
1:10:42 there's no strong argument at all it's
1:10:44 also very uh uh
1:10:46 tenuous and uh unpersuasive i think
1:10:49 yeah and and if you look at it uh first
1:10:53 of all
1:10:54 uh the quran talks about stoning it
1:10:57 doesn't about other kind of instances of
1:11:00 stoning the term exist in the quran it's
1:11:02 never used in the case of jesus
1:11:06 but
1:11:07 i mean what we have here is really four
1:11:09 word statement in arabic by the quran
1:11:14 these are four words
1:11:15 and we have a huge passage of 360 70
1:11:19 words or so in one english translation
1:11:23 and we're trying to say those four words
1:11:26 somehow are linked to the story this
1:11:28 story is so detailed none of those
1:11:31 details are accepted by the quran for
1:11:33 instance take this piece which is not
1:11:35 quoted by the way um in the previous
1:11:37 passage but it's part of it
1:11:39 the same passage names five disciples of
1:11:44 joshua these are matthias
1:11:49 and toda now
1:11:51 only five and then goes on to say um
1:11:54 that they were executed
1:11:56 like um you know their teacher
1:11:58 obviously this is just i'm trying one
1:12:00 example to show
1:12:01 well linking those four words and the
1:12:04 quranic verse to this passage i mean if
1:12:08 you do that you frankly you can well
1:12:10 just link anything in the quran to just
1:12:12 about any text it doesn't even need to
1:12:15 be scripture
1:12:20 right
1:12:23 now let's just think about how much the
1:12:26 quran could have actually engaged with
1:12:28 the talmud
1:12:30 we know from the quran that
1:12:33 the it engaged with the beliefs of a
1:12:36 variety of people
1:12:37 engaged with the jews christians
1:12:41 um
1:12:42 those who worshiped idols and also talks
1:12:46 about actually ancient
1:12:48 nations as well so it talks about all of
1:12:51 those
1:12:52 in its
1:12:53 engagement with all of that the focus of
1:12:56 the quran
1:12:57 is actually the belief itself so what
1:13:00 these people are saying
1:13:02 it doesn't engage with the history of
1:13:05 that belief it doesn't kind of follow
1:13:07 where this come from etc
1:13:09 none of that that's not really of a kind
1:13:12 of subject of interest
1:13:14 in the quran
1:13:16 the quran only focused on this is true
1:13:19 this is not true
1:13:21 it doesn't say oh this came from here
1:13:23 this conflict the other thing is
1:13:26 the as you
1:13:28 uh mentioned about the talmud the talmud
1:13:30 was written over centuries
1:13:32 completed probably in the 5th 6th
1:13:34 century
1:13:36 now the concept or the belief that jesus
1:13:40 was not born of virginal conception
1:13:43 that jesus was crucified by the jews
1:13:47 clearly these are beliefs that the jews
1:13:49 at the time held about jesus
1:13:52 all the talmud did is to document those
1:13:56 beliefs so the the passages in the
1:13:59 talmud about jesus and mary the earliest
1:14:01 ones are believed to go back to the
1:14:03 third century
1:14:04 so you have first century there's no one
1:14:07 no one would say that those beliefs
1:14:09 started at the time of the talmud
1:14:12 so when the quran was engaging with
1:14:15 those beliefs
1:14:16 it was in it was engaging with what jews
1:14:19 believed over the centuries it the
1:14:22 talmud was effectively irrelevant to
1:14:24 this discussion
1:14:25 whether it was written not written how
1:14:27 many of these jews actually had access
1:14:30 to the talmud that's different story but
1:14:33 it was just engaging with the belief
1:14:35 itself
1:14:37 the quran mentions four scriptures as
1:14:40 well names them the torah of moses
1:14:44 indeed of jesus and zaboor of dao zebur
1:14:47 is another word for book
1:14:49 and sahab of
1:14:50 abraham
1:14:51 ibrahim sahib means
1:14:54 pages
1:14:55 so again
1:14:57 yes and
1:14:59 the singular is sahih
1:15:01 uh so what you have here is um
1:15:05 is his books been named mentioned
1:15:08 specifically now the quran does say
1:15:11 the jews
1:15:12 tampered with
1:15:14 certain scripture
1:15:16 wrote
1:15:17 something and they called the scripture
1:15:19 etc but it doesn't name any particular
1:15:22 book there but these books are
1:15:25 specifically mentioned in the quran
1:15:28 the point i'm trying to make here paul
1:15:31 is that
1:15:32 if somebody would like to
1:15:34 suggest that the quran engaged with the
1:15:36 talmud specifically
1:15:38 the burden of proof is on them
1:15:42 not the other way around they have to
1:15:44 show how this was the case when we knew
1:15:48 everybody believed
1:15:50 that jesus as in the jews did not
1:15:52 believe in the virgin of conception and
1:15:54 also believe they killed him
1:15:56 that's their beliefs at the time
1:15:57 everybody the quran did not need to go
1:15:59 and look for where this come from
1:16:01 actually and let me kind of engage with
1:16:03 that
1:16:04 source yeah
1:16:08 okay
1:16:09 when talking about
1:16:11 the quran
1:16:13 um its arguments its engagement with the
1:16:16 jews and christians
1:16:18 often
1:16:19 when you read some of uh
1:16:21 uh writings is
1:16:23 western scholarship
1:16:25 you get the impression that we
1:16:27 know so much about what went on there
1:16:30 what this switch was was like
1:16:33 so it's just very easy to develop this
1:16:35 idea and the idea is that well um the
1:16:38 jews had so so beliefs uh scriptures and
1:16:42 the quran engaged with them meaning was
1:16:44 influenced by them uh one way or another
1:16:48 the reality however is this
1:16:53 we don't know
1:16:55 who the arabian jews were
1:16:58 and we have
1:16:59 no idea
1:17:01 what type of judaism
1:17:03 they had
1:17:05 nobody there's no one that can come out
1:17:08 and say well this is what they believed
1:17:10 in we don't know that so this is a
1:17:13 unknown
1:17:14 and
1:17:15 further
1:17:18 the
1:17:20 the contact
1:17:22 between these
1:17:25 groups
1:17:26 and the early muslims
1:17:28 was not clear so we don't know how they
1:17:31 are interacted in the way we know they
1:17:33 were you know they visited each other
1:17:36 but what happened beyond that what
1:17:38 happened to for us to claim that this
1:17:41 specific book so did they come for
1:17:42 instance one day to the prophet and say
1:17:44 well here we go that's the talmud and
1:17:46 this is what it says what do you say and
1:17:49 then he would go and okay wait for me a
1:17:50 few days and i'll let you know
1:17:52 that that just there's there's no
1:17:54 information whatsoever and had that such
1:17:57 contact kind of more details um existed
1:18:01 as in substantive details will probably
1:18:03 would have been recorded anyway
1:18:06 um so so we don't know what what what
1:18:09 the relation was the other thing is that
1:18:12 the jews
1:18:14 there is no we don't
1:18:16 have any evidence that the jews in
1:18:18 arabia
1:18:20 were in possession of the emerging
1:18:24 rabbanic writings
1:18:27 so there is no evidence that the jews in
1:18:29 arabia
1:18:30 actually had copies of the talmud
1:18:33 there's no such
1:18:35 proof anywhere
1:18:37 furthermore
1:18:38 the talmud itself
1:18:41 makes no mention
1:18:42 of the and the mishna
1:18:45 make no mention of the jews in arabia
1:18:48 the jews in arabia as far as the talmud
1:18:50 and mission are concerned just don't
1:18:52 exist that's interesting so
1:18:55 that that vacuum of information makes it
1:18:58 really hard and completely speculative
1:19:00 to try and develop you know those kind
1:19:03 of detailed links between the quran and
1:19:05 the
1:19:06 and those
1:19:07 writings and beliefs
1:19:09 okay
1:19:10 i would mention one particular scholar i
1:19:12 think i would suggest uh people who
1:19:14 would like to read on this subject for
1:19:16 is aaron hughes
1:19:18 and the
1:19:19 of the university of
1:19:22 rochester i think is written on the
1:19:24 subject and it's
1:19:26 it's worth reading about it for those
1:19:28 who are
1:19:29 interested
1:19:36 there is a concept that i would like to
1:19:39 suggest here because it has implications
1:19:40 to how you approach the quran
1:19:43 um
1:19:44 if somebody doesn't believe that the
1:19:46 quran
1:19:47 is is
1:19:48 revealed by god then obviously it's
1:19:51 muhammad if not muhammad through some
1:19:53 means muhammad got his information
1:19:56 from another party from a book etc
1:19:58 but for muslims
1:20:00 the
1:20:01 the quran supposedly has direct access
1:20:05 to history now this is one verse that i
1:20:08 would like to quote here it's going to
1:20:10 say
1:20:12 that talking to the prophet say oh allah
1:20:14 creator of the heavens and the
1:20:16 noah of the unseen reign
1:20:19 in in arabic a word that stands to
1:20:21 anything that we don't know we don't see
1:20:23 we can't access so the past is right the
1:20:26 future is rape what we can't see with
1:20:29 our eyes even in our own time is rape
1:20:33 so he's the uh noah he knows the ray
1:20:37 and
1:20:38 the whatever what what can be witnessed
1:20:41 anything that is visible
1:20:43 the idea here is that the quran claims
1:20:47 to have direct access to history that's
1:20:50 effectively what it means
1:20:51 which means if you have this fundamental
1:20:55 belief
1:20:56 that the quran is the word of god then
1:20:59 surely that must be reflected in the way
1:21:03 you think about the quran this is a
1:21:05 challenge for muslim scholars this is
1:21:07 not for western scholars this is mainly
1:21:09 for muslims who believe in that
1:21:11 so if you look at the following verse
1:21:13 again talking to muhammad this is at the
1:21:15 beginning of the
1:21:17 chapter of uh surah of yusuf yusuf is is
1:21:20 very unique chapter because it's the
1:21:22 chapter that consists mainly of one
1:21:24 story so it's in this regard it's unlike
1:21:27 anything else and it's very detailed
1:21:29 story so we narrate to you o muhammad
1:21:32 the best of narratives
1:21:34 and he's talking about the details of
1:21:36 the story of
1:21:37 joseph by revealing this quran to you
1:21:40 before it you were one of the unaware
1:21:44 you did not know before we reveal to you
1:21:47 what was there
1:21:49 so this is again confirmation that the
1:21:51 quran claims to have direct access to
1:21:54 history and it claims that the prophet's
1:21:58 access to history happened through the
1:22:01 quran
1:22:02 not through any other meaning
1:22:04 now if you're a muslim scholar and doing
1:22:06 historical research
1:22:08 you're going find face a bit of a
1:22:10 dilemma
1:22:11 because if you say the
1:22:14 quran was influenced somehow
1:22:17 by uh that what's going on around it
1:22:21 you have to be careful and not to go
1:22:24 further than a claim that the koran has
1:22:26 copied from other sources because the
1:22:29 claim here is that it has direct access
1:22:33 to um to the to history
1:22:36 now we know from the quran that uh the
1:22:39 the prophet
1:22:40 the revelations were at times made as a
1:22:44 result of certain encounters so there
1:22:46 are number of places where it says
1:22:48 um
1:22:50 um yes alunac they ask you so start the
1:22:54 verse starts yes they ask you so and so
1:22:57 and then
1:22:58 a reply uh comes forward so somebody has
1:23:02 asked the prophet about something and
1:23:03 then he replied so clearly there's
1:23:05 engagement here
1:23:06 but the quran is clear that the reply is
1:23:09 coming from god so the question is
1:23:11 coming from people the information the
1:23:13 reply is coming for god this model
1:23:16 applies to everything that the quran
1:23:18 says even when it comes to things about
1:23:20 faith
1:23:21 beliefs and history
1:23:25 okay good point anything there paul no
1:23:28 no that's a very good point
1:23:33 now i'm gonna proceed to show how verses
1:23:36 of the quran have been misused to try
1:23:39 and prove that the quran does not deny
1:23:42 the crucifixion this is quite the common
1:23:45 kind of
1:23:46 method
1:23:47 this is one
1:23:49 verse that's often quoted
1:23:52 this verse talks about something
1:23:53 happened at the battle of bed
1:23:56 um
1:23:56 the earliest battle in medina
1:24:00 you or you who have believed did not
1:24:02 kill them as and did not kill the
1:24:04 polytheists but it was allah who killed
1:24:07 them
1:24:08 and then it goes on to talk to address
1:24:10 the prophet you
1:24:12 did not throw
1:24:13 when you threw
1:24:15 it was allahu through meaning whatever
1:24:17 they were throwing at the enemy
1:24:19 that he might test the believers etc
1:24:22 what they say
1:24:24 here we have a statement that an action
1:24:27 was taken by the prophet
1:24:29 and was taken by the believers that
1:24:31 allah is attributing to himself
1:24:34 similarly
1:24:36 when it denies that the jews killed or
1:24:39 crucified jesus
1:24:42 what it means is that it was god
1:24:45 who crucified him it was god who killed
1:24:47 him
1:24:49 now obviously
1:24:50 one obvious problem here is that
1:24:53 this verse is
1:24:56 explicitly
1:24:58 mentions that allah killed
1:25:01 those it's obviously a metaphor
1:25:04 so it's saying that it you took the
1:25:06 action but actually i was behind it i
1:25:08 supported you it's like i took the
1:25:10 action it's a metaphor that metaphor
1:25:13 does not exist in the non-crucifixion
1:25:15 verse so the conservation world does not
1:25:17 say
1:25:18 the jews did not kill jesus or because
1:25:21 it was god would it that so there's no
1:25:23 actually likening these two it's just
1:25:26 it's not valid
1:25:29 another point to make here is um allah
1:25:32 here attributes to himself an act that's
1:25:35 intrinsically good because this is an
1:25:39 act by the believers to defend
1:25:40 themselves
1:25:41 yet the act that the jews were
1:25:44 tried to take was intrinsically evil
1:25:48 according to the quran
1:25:49 so it cannot be attributed to god
1:25:52 so theologically this is not terrible
1:25:54 either
1:25:55 so
1:25:56 this argument it doesn't really hold
1:25:58 much water
1:26:01 another verse that was used is this this
1:26:04 is a statement attributed to jesus in
1:26:06 the quran peace is on me
1:26:09 on the day i was born the day i will die
1:26:12 and the day i'm brought back
1:26:14 alive
1:26:15 and they say because jesus said i will
1:26:18 die he must have died and when did he
1:26:21 die surely that must have happened
1:26:23 uh when he was crucified sorry paul you
1:26:26 have something to say no i'm just
1:26:27 looking it up in the please i was just
1:26:28 looking it up in the translation here
1:26:30 yeah sure
1:26:31 now
1:26:32 what's interesting about this um
1:26:34 the use of this particular verse is that
1:26:37 it uses the the word
1:26:40 uh it's it's it's a word for death
1:26:43 die i die
1:26:45 the quran
1:26:47 distinguishes between
1:26:49 death and murder or being killed
1:26:53 these are two different verbs if
1:26:56 anything this ver this verse actually
1:26:59 denies the crucifixion because it talks
1:27:02 about death he doesn't say the day i was
1:27:05 born the day i will be killed
1:27:08 further
1:27:09 uh on it says it it takes about one
1:27:12 uh raised one raising from death
1:27:16 it wasn't like he died then he was
1:27:18 raised
1:27:19 to heaven and then he will die again and
1:27:22 then he will be brought back there isn't
1:27:24 there's just
1:27:26 one death
1:27:27 and one time that he will be resurrected
1:27:29 so it must refer to the natural death
1:27:32 and it must also mean the time when
1:27:34 everybody is brought back to life
1:27:38 and the finally um i wanted to mention
1:27:41 this
1:27:42 it's an even weaker link i have to say
1:27:45 um
1:27:47 it talks about the martyrs the martyrs
1:27:49 who are considered to be alive in heaven
1:27:52 and what they people who argue using
1:27:55 this uh
1:27:56 verse suggest that
1:27:58 in the same way that martyrs uh were
1:28:02 killed
1:28:03 but they are treated as or considered
1:28:05 alive jesus was also killed
1:28:08 but basically
1:28:09 he is alive there
1:28:11 the reality is that just there is no
1:28:13 link between this and what the what
1:28:16 verse
1:28:17 157 says
1:28:22 now there are two other verses and i
1:28:25 said that there's only one direct verse
1:28:27 that talks about the crucifixion but
1:28:28 there are two verses that talk about it
1:28:30 indirectly
1:28:33 this is one of them
1:28:35 this is
1:28:37 a lot talking about the children of
1:28:39 israel and it says
1:28:40 um they planned
1:28:43 talking about the risk to jesus here the
1:28:45 context and allah planned allah is the
1:28:48 best of planners
1:28:50 now clearly um
1:28:52 what the plan there is talking about
1:28:54 here is a plan against jesus so this is
1:28:57 a reference indirect admittedly but it's
1:28:59 a reference to the fact that allah
1:29:02 foiled if you like the plan of the jews
1:29:05 that's what what it says here
1:29:08 and it goes on to say uh i'm taking you
1:29:11 raising you to me and the cleansing of
1:29:14 those who disbelieve now think about it
1:29:18 what sense would it make if
1:29:21 god would was going to allow jesus
1:29:24 to be
1:29:25 tortured
1:29:27 uh put on through that ordeal but then
1:29:30 to console him but telling him i will
1:29:33 raise your dead body to me
1:29:35 well
1:29:36 whether even if you were jesus i don't
1:29:39 think that would be much consolation
1:29:40 with it
1:29:42 so
1:29:42 it's a problem here it doesn't make much
1:29:45 sense and cleansing you of those who
1:29:47 disbelieve in what sense the body would
1:29:49 have been already tortured damaged what
1:29:52 is left they would basically according
1:29:54 to the jewish tradition they would bury
1:29:56 him anyway
1:29:57 so what does it mean actually to take
1:29:59 that body and cleanse them of those who
1:30:01 disbelieve it can only mean that he was
1:30:04 being taken away from them and if you
1:30:07 link this to the earlier statement that
1:30:09 allah is the best of planners as a reply
1:30:11 to their plan then it can only mean he
1:30:13 saved them somehow
1:30:16 this is even clearer in the second verse
1:30:20 this verse is a dialogue taken from
1:30:22 dialogue between god and jesus most
1:30:25 scholars think that this happened or
1:30:27 will happen on the day of resurrection a
1:30:30 minority including tabari
1:30:32 i think it happened after he was raised
1:30:35 to heaven after he was saved i happen to
1:30:38 be uh in the minority group but that's
1:30:40 different it's irrelevant whether you
1:30:42 believe it will happen on the day of
1:30:44 resurrection or it happened after he was
1:30:46 raised the meaning is the same
1:30:49 god here says i restrained the children
1:30:51 of israel from you
1:30:54 now
1:30:55 how can he argue
1:30:57 and remind jesus of his favor that he
1:31:00 protected him from the genders around
1:31:02 when he's going to shortly allow him to
1:31:05 be tortured on the cross what what sense
1:31:07 would that make
1:31:09 i think
1:31:10 no i think this this second verse
1:31:12 particularly uh sir mayor 5110 is a very
1:31:16 is very relevant to your presentation uh
1:31:19 because you know
1:31:20 god is stating how he protected jesus
1:31:23 from the uh the jews um
1:31:26 but
1:31:27 what sense would that make if ultimately
1:31:29 the jews got their way and crucified him
1:31:31 so uh it would be a very hollow claim to
1:31:34 make um particularly then with the other
1:31:37 verse 354 as well so
1:31:39 these are good verses that can can be
1:31:41 added adduced to this debate you know
1:31:43 and uh
1:31:44 well done for highlighting them
1:31:47 and and paul think about it also now uh
1:31:50 in particular the second verse
1:31:52 this verse was
1:31:54 revealed obviously uh 600 years after
1:31:56 jesus now
1:31:58 if the muslims believed or the quran
1:32:01 told them that jesus was crucified
1:32:04 i mean
1:32:06 what would this what was this sound to
1:32:08 them
1:32:09 so
1:32:09 i restrained the children of israel from
1:32:12 you
1:32:12 well they've been supposedly told
1:32:15 that he was crucified by the same book
1:32:18 there's no way it wouldn't make any
1:32:19 sense so if you put yourself in there
1:32:21 just saying he was crucified there was
1:32:23 the bible says that jesus was arrested
1:32:25 and tortured and uh scourged and spat
1:32:28 upon and and then crucified to true uh
1:32:32 but the quran says no i restrained the
1:32:34 children of israel from you when you
1:32:36 came to them uh with clear proof so it's
1:32:39 it's uh it clearly refutes that idea
1:32:42 yeah
1:32:43 absolutely absolutely
1:32:46 okay now we're going to move to the
1:32:48 verse where after but i'm going to first
1:32:51 look at the kind of context in which it
1:32:53 occurs the non-construction verse
1:32:56 and
1:32:57 we
1:32:58 the verses leading to that
1:33:01 are criticized the jews for a variety of
1:33:04 things so it says that the demanding
1:33:07 demanded that the prophet would kind of
1:33:10 make a book descend on them from heaven
1:33:12 as in to believe that the quran was from
1:33:15 there
1:33:16 also it says that and they asked moses
1:33:19 something even worse
1:33:21 because they wanted him to show them god
1:33:24 this is actually there's a mention
1:33:26 something similar in the old testament
1:33:27 about moses when he went to
1:33:29 mount sinai and he was told and the jews
1:33:32 were
1:33:33 kind of um instructed not to go past the
1:33:36 particular point and then uh god send
1:33:39 them back and well they transgressed etc
1:33:42 so it looks like these are um the same
1:33:44 event uh potentially and also the quran
1:33:47 criticizing them for taking
1:33:49 taking a call
1:33:51 for god
1:33:52 and try and transgressing on the seventh
1:33:54 the last three are actually mentioned in
1:33:57 the new testament in different places
1:34:00 and not that necessarily relevant here
1:34:02 but
1:34:03 just to confirm that so these two
1:34:06 verses are then followed by the
1:34:08 immediate context
1:34:10 of the verse we're interested in so
1:34:14 here we go uh we curse them that's what
1:34:17 the quran took remember they the quran
1:34:19 was criticizing did you use and then it
1:34:22 goes on to say we curse them for
1:34:24 breaking their covenant
1:34:27 rejecting the signs of allah and killing
1:34:31 prophets and justly
1:34:33 and then saying our hearts are covered
1:34:37 rather allah has sealed them our hearts
1:34:39 are covered as a reference to miss
1:34:42 scholars think it's it means that they
1:34:44 claim they did not need any knowledge so
1:34:47 when prophets came to them
1:34:48 they didn't need any of that
1:34:50 their hearts were covered they have
1:34:52 already knowledge so they did not need
1:34:54 any profit
1:34:56 now
1:34:57 what's interesting about that is like
1:34:59 look at the first three
1:35:01 uh
1:35:02 kind of
1:35:04 words that i've highlighted these are
1:35:06 actions that the jews took so they broke
1:35:10 their covenant
1:35:11 they rejected the signs of god and they
1:35:14 killed prophets
1:35:16 so three actions things they did
1:35:19 the fourth is the saying they claimed so
1:35:23 they say so-so so the fourth is denied
1:35:26 by the quran because they clearly their
1:35:29 hearts were not full of knowledge they
1:35:31 did need so look at the clever and the
1:35:35 subtle and accurate precise distinction
1:35:38 in the wording between the first three
1:35:40 which are verbs effectively obviously in
1:35:42 the you know in the form of gerund here
1:35:44 but they're verbs
1:35:46 and actions and the fourth which is
1:35:49 saying
1:35:50 now
1:35:51 this then
1:35:52 leads
1:35:55 to this verse
1:35:57 and for their disbelief and they are
1:35:59 saying against mary a grave slander
1:36:03 look at the word saying again being used
1:36:06 here
1:36:07 it's again confirming any time every
1:36:10 time
1:36:10 uh
1:36:11 the quran distinguishes between an
1:36:13 action as saying the saying means it's a
1:36:15 false statement
1:36:17 so they said so-and-so but it was saying
1:36:19 they said but it is not true
1:36:23 look at the verse in the question
1:36:27 and saying
1:36:28 we have killed the messiah
1:36:31 now when you look at this picture
1:36:34 is there really any doubt
1:36:36 as to what the quran is talking about
1:36:38 here
1:36:39 breaking rejecting killing all of them
1:36:41 actions that took place
1:36:43 saying saying saying all of them are
1:36:45 being denied
1:36:47 saying means just claiming
1:36:50 furthermore
1:36:52 there's a mention of killing prophets
1:36:55 and justly
1:36:56 killing prophets and jesus now does it
1:36:59 really make any sense for the quran
1:37:02 to
1:37:03 accept that the jews killed jesus and
1:37:06 then to criticize them for bragging
1:37:09 about that
1:37:11 so it's not it's criticized them for
1:37:13 killing the prophets earlier
1:37:16 but here
1:37:17 apparently it's to criticize bragging
1:37:20 about killing jesus
1:37:22 it doesn't concern itself with the fact
1:37:24 that they killed him no that's all right
1:37:26 however to say that we've killed them
1:37:28 that's not acceptable
1:37:31 is this really reasonable
1:37:36 any comment here paul no no you're doing
1:37:39 an excellent job actually very helpful
1:37:41 just checking in my abdomen translation
1:37:43 yeah yeah sure
1:37:45 um now i'm gonna show quranic arabic
1:37:47 construct um i believe this has not been
1:37:50 published before but
1:37:53 this is
1:37:54 used in the verse
1:37:56 we are concerned with so the verse goes
1:37:59 in arabic
1:38:03 meaning
1:38:06 this is the construct we're talking
1:38:07 about
1:38:08 means we did not
1:38:10 walk in but
1:38:12 we did not but and the verse in the
1:38:14 question says
1:38:17 so
1:38:17 um did not kill him
1:38:21 nor did they crucify him while acting
1:38:24 but
1:38:25 it was made to appear so to them
1:38:27 and this is the interesting point here
1:38:30 this
1:38:31 construct appears in the quran
1:38:34 tens of times
1:38:37 not indeed tens of times
1:38:40 in every single instance of it
1:38:43 what follows
1:38:45 is is false
1:38:47 what follows walakin is true
1:38:52 interesting what follows
1:38:55 is false
1:38:56 what follows walakin is true because
1:38:58 walakin is a is a corrective
1:39:01 to the preceding statement
1:39:03 so but is a corrective here that's how
1:39:05 it's used in the quran tensor verses
1:39:08 now this is one example
1:39:11 and they did not wanna wrongers talking
1:39:15 about the wrongdoers but we were like
1:39:19 they were wrong in themselves so
1:39:21 whatever evil they did they have you
1:39:23 know hummed themselves they cannot harm
1:39:25 us god is talking about himself
1:39:28 now for an arab
1:39:30 who is used to this expression
1:39:33 and which occurs in the quran tens of
1:39:35 times
1:39:36 what sense would it make to be used in
1:39:39 the opposite
1:39:41 way in that particular how would they
1:39:44 know it was meant to be the opposite to
1:39:46 what that what it used to be yeah
1:39:49 no idea
1:39:52 okay
1:39:52 i'm gonna go through a quick breakdown
1:39:54 of the verse now
1:39:56 um the verse basically the jewish claim
1:39:59 is stated we have killed the messiah
1:40:01 jesus the son of mary the messenger of
1:40:03 allah
1:40:04 claim is unambiguously denied
1:40:07 they did not kill him nor did they
1:40:10 crucify him confusion is explained
1:40:14 but it was made to appear so to them
1:40:17 claimants are uncertain
1:40:19 those who differ over it are in doubt
1:40:22 about it
1:40:23 claims is not based on facts but
1:40:25 guessing and speculation they have no
1:40:28 knowledge of it except the following of
1:40:30 conjecture
1:40:32 and then the conclusion is another
1:40:34 confirmation
1:40:35 that the claim is false and is not based
1:40:37 on
1:40:38 uncertainty they did not kill him with
1:40:41 certainty what i'm really doing just
1:40:44 catching the vessel from just about
1:40:46 every angle i can think of
1:40:48 to try and show for an arab
1:40:51 how can this be read to mean anything
1:40:54 other than denying the crucifixion
1:40:57 how
1:40:59 now i'm gonna do one last
1:41:02 analysis of the language here's what i'm
1:41:04 going to look at
1:41:05 they claim they did x we have killed the
1:41:08 messiah
1:41:09 they did neither x nor y they did not
1:41:13 kill him nor did they crucify him
1:41:17 but it appeared to them they did but it
1:41:20 was made to appear to them so
1:41:24 again
1:41:25 just looking at the structure in a more
1:41:26 generic way to show that it can only
1:41:29 mean that what what they claimed was
1:41:31 being negated
1:41:35 finally
1:41:36 the
1:41:38 after denying the crucifixion god
1:41:42 says this about it rather
1:41:45 allah raised him to himself so
1:41:48 this is effectively the alternative to
1:41:52 the story that was being claimed by the
1:41:55 jews
1:41:56 what he's saying is that you could not
1:41:59 kill him you did not kill him you did
1:42:00 not crucify him rather
1:42:03 instead
1:42:04 allah raised him to himself
1:42:07 and as you can see the use of the
1:42:09 reference to his invisibility here
1:42:12 is to say that you cannot
1:42:15 win
1:42:16 if you compete with me effectively
1:42:17 because i wanted to save
1:42:20 jesus
1:42:22 um
1:42:24 finally just to
1:42:26 conclude
1:42:28 i've got a few questions that i hope to
1:42:30 have raised here and to leave
1:42:34 everybody
1:42:35 to think for themselves and try and to
1:42:37 answer them so where does the balance of
1:42:40 arguments lie i have
1:42:42 um presented
1:42:44 every argument i'm aware of
1:42:47 that denies the quran's denial over
1:42:50 of the crucifixion i don't believe there
1:42:52 is anything left outside this
1:42:53 presentation and i haven't represented
1:42:56 some known arguments any new arguments
1:42:59 i've added the question for anybody is
1:43:02 where do they think the balance of
1:43:04 arguments lie
1:43:06 the other question i have and these are
1:43:07 all relevant
1:43:09 is the quran clear or ambiguous about
1:43:12 the crucifixion
1:43:14 what should we expect it to be what i
1:43:16 mean by that
1:43:18 it was such a huge issue for christians
1:43:21 do we think that the quran went out of
1:43:23 each way to be particularly ambiguous
1:43:25 about that why would he do that so if
1:43:28 you come out and say he wasn't crucified
1:43:30 he wasn't which one
1:43:32 so you have to give the view you can't
1:43:35 just sit on the fence and say what the
1:43:36 quran is then because some scholars have
1:43:38 made this argument it's ambiguous yeah
1:43:40 but there's no point in being ambiguous
1:43:42 why would the quran do that it's a
1:43:44 loss-loss situation basically if it's
1:43:46 immigrant ambiguous
1:43:48 another question i would like to ask
1:43:51 which view
1:43:53 is more of an integration interpretation
1:43:55 of the text and which of you is more of
1:43:57 an interpretation despite the text
1:44:00 again i'll leave that
1:44:02 with the audience
1:44:05 is finally
1:44:05 quran supposed to be intelligible or not
1:44:09 and if this verse
1:44:11 can mean
1:44:13 that the quran does not deny the
1:44:15 crucifixion i would find it really hard
1:44:17 to understand the quran
1:44:19 yeah i'd find it really
1:44:21 difficult to read and comprehend because
1:44:24 the i'm talking about the basics of
1:44:26 arabic here and that what underlines
1:44:29 that consensus not because muslim
1:44:31 scholars hated the concept of
1:44:33 crucifixion
1:44:34 they knew that prophets were killed not
1:44:37 for any other reason other than they saw
1:44:39 it just clear statement alternative to
1:44:42 which never existed
1:44:43 so nobody actually propagated the
1:44:46 alternative view and that's why we have
1:44:48 this consensus
1:44:50 and uh thank you very much paul sorry i
1:44:52 might have taken a bit longer than no no
1:44:54 it's uh it's it's thorough academic
1:44:56 scholarly and um covering all the bases
1:44:59 as we say which is um which is really
1:45:02 helpful so thank you so much uh for that
1:45:04 um thorough academic scholarly
1:45:07 presentation i personally find it
1:45:09 compelling um i was aware of the
1:45:12 alternative views having read uh todd
1:45:14 lawson's book uh but this i think um
1:45:16 adds new uh to me new evidence new
1:45:19 perspectives additional chronic verses
1:45:21 as well which i think helped to shape
1:45:23 the interpretive context of um our
1:45:26 engagement with that particular verse
1:45:28 about the crucifixion so i i find that
1:45:30 as i say compelling what you've done
1:45:33 um
1:45:33 just a further question for you um
1:45:36 is is have you written about this online
1:45:38 or in any other works that people might
1:45:40 follow up or access and
1:45:43 i recently about less than a year ago
1:45:45 published a book on the crucifixion
1:45:47 called the crucifixion of jesus right
1:45:51 uh in which i deal with this subject
1:45:54 obviously and now that is different
1:45:56 because i the first part deals with um
1:45:58 the historicity question
1:46:00 uh and then
1:46:02 i deal also with theology and i deal
1:46:04 also with the quranic perspective and i
1:46:07 have recently
1:46:08 written a paper uh on this particular
1:46:12 basically similar to the subject of this
1:46:14 um uh discussion uh which is under
1:46:17 consideration uh with an academic
1:46:20 journal
1:46:21 i see so that's not published yet so
1:46:22 hopefully that will be uh maybe not no
1:46:25 the paper exactly but obviously the book
1:46:26 is which which you mentioned so that is
1:46:28 available to you to consult excellent
1:46:31 um well once again thank you so much uh
1:46:34 for your uh valuable presentation i i
1:46:36 think um going forward this particular
1:46:38 presentation uh on this video will be a
1:46:40 resource for students
1:46:42 uh and scholars to um to access and to
1:46:46 um you know
1:46:48 as a help towards forming their own
1:46:49 conclusions about what the verse
1:46:51 actually says so it's a valuable
1:46:53 resource for the future thank you for
1:46:55 that
1:46:56 thank you paul
1:46:58 um well we'll leave it there and um
1:47:00 thank you until next time
1:47:02 thank you paul thank you very much thank
1:47:04 you