Copyright © 1996 by M. Anderson. All rights reserved.

Part 4: Strike The Truth In The Cross

Chapter 2: Did Jesus Die?

It is a fact that the vast majority of Muslims believe in the substitution theory. Though modern thinkers like Dr. Ayoub and Dr. Hussein tell us that the theory of substitution makes mockery of divine justice, and belongs to the uncultured [1], the Muslim masses have been led to believe it and zealously defend it.

Not only do the masses believe in the substitution theory but they also believe that Jesus did not die.

However, modern thinkers insist that Jesus did die. Dr. Ayoub said that 'the verb, tawaffa, in general usage, means in its passive form, tuwuffi, to die.' [2] He then added, 'It was early reported on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that the word mutawaffika means 'causing you to die', i.e. 'mumituka.' Then in a footnote he said, 'Most commentators mention this as an alternative. Modern thinkers generally insist on it.' [3] (For example see 'abd al-Karim 'abd Allah al-Aniazi in his book, Elaykum Ya 'Ulama' al-Gharb, 1985, p. 27.)

It is amazing to know also that even Wahb spoke of the death of Jesus amongst the many versions of the stories he told. Suyuti relates that,

Ibn Garir and Ibn Abi Hatem on the authority of Wahb said, 'God caused Jesus Son of Mary to die three hours then lifted him up.'' Ibn 'Asaker said on the authority of Wahb that 'God caused Jesus son of Mary to die for three days then God resurrected and lifted him up.' And al-Hakem said on the authority of Wahb 'God caused Jesus son of Mary to die for seven hours then restored his life.' [4] [emphasis added]

That was rejected by Tabari. It is fascinating to note that Wahb even said that Jesus died for three days and God resurrected him and lifted him up. Again Dr. Ayoub found no difficulty in stating that the Qur'an plainly asserts that Jesus did die:

The Qur'an ... does not deny the death of Christ. Rather it challenges human beings who in their folly have deluded themselves into believing that they would vanquish the divine Word, Jesus the messenger of God. The death of Christ is asserted several times and in various contexts, see for example, S.3:55; 5:117; 19:33. [5]

According to Dr. Ayoub the Qur'an asserts the death of Christ several times and in various contexts. He does not appeal to any clever exegetical exercise, but to the clear passages of the Qur'an.

SOME BELIEVE HE WAS CRUCIFIED

Without doubt murder and crucifixion were inflicted upon his body. The pronoun (hu) since it appeared at the end of the words 'murdered him' 'qataluhu', or crucified him is a pointing letter to the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. So in this exists the evidence that he who suffered death and crucifixion was not the spirit (huwiyya) of Jesus. [6] [empasis added]

The philosopher Sagastani sees that the Qur'an denies the crucifixion of the spirit of Jesus but undoubtedly affirms the physical crucifixion of the body of Jesus.

Mahmoud Mohammad Taha the leader of the Republican Brothers in Sudan, wrote in a booklet titled al-Masih:

The belief of the Muslims that Jesus did not die is based on Sura 4:157. [7] But it is clear that that verse does not give that understanding ... specially if we take into consideration the other verse in which God said, 'Isa [Jesus] I am about to cause you to die and lift you up to me', [8] and also the words, 'Peace be upon me, the day I was born, and the day I die, the day I am raised up alive'. [9] Naturally the Qur'an does not contradict itself, for the the expression 'mutawaffika' means that he will die ... and also the expression 'the day I die' points in the same direction. So the straight understanding becomes that the Christ was killed, then raised up. And that is what is pointed to by the words of God, 'and they slew him not of a certainty - no indeed', [10] which means that without any doubt they killed him, as they thought they did, but they slew him not of a certainty which is the same expression as 'they thought they did' [11] ... this meaning appears in the Qur'an in other places such as the words of God, 'you did not slay them, but God did, and when thou throwest, it was not thyself that threw, but God threw'. [12] And the meaning of that verse is that, when you killed them, it was not you who killed them, but it was God. [13]

Thus Mamoud Mohammad Taha, like the philosopher Sagastani understood from the same Qur'anic passages that Jesus was killed by the Jews without a doubt, then raised up by God. With Dr. Ayoub he found no difficulty in concluding that the Qur'an speaks plainly of the death of Jesus, otherwise the Qur'an would be contradicting itself. He then proceeded to prove that this mode of expressing the death of Christ is not unique but has a parallel in the Qur'an, indeed it is an affirmation in the form of negation.

SECULAR HISTORIANS ACCEPT THE CRUCIFIXION

Historians, regardless of their interpretation of the crucifixion, (that is, whether or not they attach any spiritual significance to it), have accepted the crucifixion as a historical fact. The experts, in sifting what belongs to history, compared with what belongs to myth or dogma, have cast their verdict in favour of the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus. Not only historians, but other great minds like Tagore the brilliant Bengali poet and winner of the Nobel prize, accepted the crucifixion as a fact. Tagore wrote:

From His eternal seat Christ comes down to this earth,
where, ages ago, in the bitter cup of death He poured
His deathless life for those who came to the call and
those who remained away.
He looks about Him, and sees the weapons of evil
that wounded his own age.
The arrogant spikes and spears, the slim, sly knives,
the scimitar in diplomatic sheath, crooked and cruel,
are hissing and raining sparks as they are sharpened on
monster wheels.
But the most fearful of them all, at the hands of the
slaughterers, are those on which has been engraved His
own name, that are fashioned from the texts of His
own words fused in the fire of hatred and hammered by
hypocritical greed.
He presses His hand upon His heart; He feels that
the age-long moment of His death has not yet ended,
that new nails, turned out countless in numbers by
those who are learned in cunning craftsmanship, pierce
Him in every joint.
They had hurt Him once, standing at the shadow of
their temple; they are born anew in crowds.

From before their sacred altar they shout to the soldiers, 'Strike'
And the Son of Man in agony cries, 'My God, My God why hast Thou forsaken Me?' [15]

Tagore must have been aware of the view that the Christ was not crucified and someone else died on the cross, because he was living amongst millions of Muslim. But he chose to believe in the historicity of the crucifixion. He spoke of the crucifixion as an event that took place in time, 'where, ages ago, in the bitter cup of death He poured His deathless life'. Tagor, though a poet, was not talking about a myth. The tragedy of his own time, represented in the merciless murder of the innocent was of the same kind as that which killed the Christ. Listen to him say:

the age-long moment of His death has not yet ended,
that new nails, turned out in countless numbers by
those who are learned in cunning craftsmanship, pierce
Him in every joint.
They had hurt Him once...

Tagore, did not question the historicity of the crucifixion, but accepted it, although he was aware of the views of his fellow countrymen who believed otherwise.

AHMAD SHAWQI BELIEVED JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED

The great Egyptian poet Ahmad Shawqi who is called by his people the prince of the poets accepted the historicity of the crucifixion.

In one of his poems he wrote:

Jesus, your way was mercy, love, perfection and peace to the world.
You were not a shedder of blood, and the weak and the orphans to you were not insignificant.
You who are the bearer of the world's sufferings, yet sufferings were multiplied in your name.
You made the world into one brotherhood, but in your name relationships are severed.
....
Shouts in the name of the cross are heard by those who are enemies of God and his Spirit.
They mixed your cross with knives, guns, and every tool of destruction and death. [16]

Ahmad Shawqi, like Tagor, was aware of the beliefs of the majority of Muslims, yet he chose to believe in the suffering of Jesus on the cross.

THIRTEEN HUNDRED YEARS OF ERROR

The Muslim masses, then, for almost thirteen hundred years have been believing not only a false report claiming that a substitute died for Jesus on the cross, and a teaching that is contrary to the Qur'an; namely that Jesus did not die, before his being lifted up. For modern thinkers tell us that the Qur'an plainly asserts the death of Jesus. For thirteen hundred years, not only has the average man in the street been mistaken in his belief on this issue, but many devout Muslims have blindly accepted it, and vigorously defended it as God's truth.

One might ask why millions upon millions of sincere Muslims have believed that which is error, for so long, while the Qur'an plainly asserts that Jesus did die.

IF THERE WAS NO SUBSTITUTE - WHAT NOW?

It is important to note that in every Muslim story told about what happened to Jesus and his substitute, there is a crucifixion. This crucifixion of Jesus is denied, but nevertheless a crucifixion is mentioned in every single story. Dr. Ayoub said, "They [the commentators] accepted a crucifixion as an historical fact.... but denied it of Jesus." [17] A crucifixion is accepted by the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. The dispute is over who was on that cross.

Now if there was no substitute on the cross, (the cross is the only undisputed historical fact), who then was on it? Someone was there, bleeding and dying.

Modern Muslim thinkers have discarded the substitution theory and insist that Jesus died. Most, however, prefer to leave the manner of his death alone. But if we bring together the historical fact of the cross, the impossibility of a substitute and the insistence of modern thinkers that Jesus did die, the answer is simple: It was Jesus who was on the cross. It is how he died.

WHERE ARE THE HAWARIYUN (DISCIPLES)?

Whatever theory we discuss we must ask ourselves the question: Where were the Hawariyun? That is, where were the disciples of Jesus in the plan and purpose of God? Men's theories can take them away from the scene of the cross, so that they could not be eye witnesses, and yet they had a critical place in the plan of God. The Qur'an says of them,

And when Jesus perceived their unbelief, he said, 'Who will be my helpers unto God?' The apostles said, 'We will be helpers of God' ... inscribe us therefore with those who bear witness. [18]

The Qur'an called them 'helpers of God'; they were to make the Truth of God victorious and known. Where is their voice for God and His Truth concerning the crucifixion? If Jesus was not crucified, these 'helpers of God' would have spoken fiercely of what they believed to be the truth, and filled the whole world with it, and even died for it. Where then is the voice of God's helpers?

Mohammad Kamel Husein writes of them as 'the finest band of men that could be conceived, lacking neither in faith nor in resolve.' [19] Did they just sit down to let the lies of the Jews spread like fire to be believed by the whole world? Could the disciples, whose rank had been elevated to those 'who bear witness' hide themselves in the shadows of forgetfulness, and silence? If so, they do not deserve to be called 'helpers of God' or 'witnesses', but disappointers of God and the Truth.

But that is not what they did, for they did speak fearlessly of the crucifixion and the resurrection; so much so that even those who are not followers of Jesus know the disciples' report, that Jesus died and rose again on the third day.

DID 'THE CLEAREST EVIDENCE' END IN CONFUSION?

The theories we have studied are simply not consistent with the manner in which God was dealing with humanity in the life of Jesus. The Qur'an states that Jesus came with the clear evidence. This clarity was God's stamp throughout his life. Is it consistent with God's dealings, then, to cloud the last day of Jesus' time on earth with confusion? Or is it more consistent with God's ways, to say that this clarity was uninterrupted and that Jesus was crucified? The Jews did their worst and God did His best, raising Jesus up. In Q. 4:157 the Qur'an states:

And for their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Isa [Jesus] son of Mary, the messenger of God' - yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him; only a likeness of that was shown to them. And those who are at variance concerning him are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him, except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty - no indeed; God raised him up to Him; God is All-mighty and Wise.

This verse is an emphatic denial of the Jews' boasting; it is an emphatic denial of their claim that theirs is the victory. That is what the Qur'an denies, not the actual death and the actual crucifixion of Jesus. The mode of expression in this verse is found in the Qur'an in different forms. When the Qur'an speaks of those who have eyes but do not see [20] it does not mean that they are blind, but that they do not perceive the truth. Similarly when the Qur'an speaks of those who do not hear, it is the perception of what they actually heard that they have denied. It is the same with the Jews, they killed the Christ, but their perception that they had finally destroyed him is denied. They thought that by their crucifying him, he would be finished, but he rose from the dead. The crucifixion was not the last word. The resurrection was. So they thought they had killed him on the cross, but they had not, for he rose again.

There is a parallel between the death of Jesus and that of Mohammad's grandson, al-Husein. One writer, commenting on the tragic murder of al-Husein, said,

On the tenth of the month of Moharam in the year 61H, al-Husein was killed and all those who were with him of men, youth and children, except Imam Ali son of al-Husein. And people said that al-Husein wasted his life and the lives of those with him ... But time proved the opposite. For the pure blood of al-Husein did not dry up on the soil of Karbala'a until the throne of the Amawites was quaked and the seat of Yazid was shaken. They were days when the power of the Amawite crumbled in shame. And the wonderful victory was on the side of the reformation [of al-Husein].... [21]

This is the same sentiment that answers the boasting of the Jews who said, 'We killed the Christ'. The people said that Al-Husein 'wasted his life... but time proved the opposite'; that is, he did not waste his life. But that is not to say he was not killed, for he was. And so it was with Jesus. al-Husein was killed by those who were supposed to accept him and honour him, Jesus likewise.

THE IMPACT OF TABARI AND WAHB

If the Christ died on the cross why did the early commentators, and the many Muslim generations after them, believe (contrary to the plain teaching of the Qur'an, and to the understanding of modern Muslim thinkers) that Jesus did not die? Remember Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub's words: 'The substitutionist theory will not do, regardless of its form or purpose. First, it makes a mockery of divine justice and the primordial covenant of God with humanity.' [22]

Why have the commentators propounded many theories to avoid the historical facts and the teaching of other Muslim leaders that the Christ had been crucified?

The answer to that question can be traced back to two people, who in turn influenced subsequent commentators and hence the Muslim masses. These two are Tabari and Wahb Ibn Munabbeh.

Dr. Ayoub tells us: 'The traditions relating the story of Jesus are told on the authority of either Jewish converts like Wahb Ibn Munabbeh, or of unnamed Christian converts as in the traditions of Ibn Isaq.' [23] In other words, the source of the stories about what is supposed to have happened could be traced back to some unknown Christian converts or a man called Wahb.

When Tabari was analysing the different traditions he preferred the two versions of Wahb's story. Tabari then influenced almost all the commentators after him.

On these two persons we shall now focus.

But first we must say a brief word about the phenomenon of recorded Islamic history.

THE BEGINNING OF RECORDING ISLAMIC HISTORY

This phenomenon concerns fabricated historical reports that were mixed with early Islamic historical material. One scholar said about the transmission of early Islamic historical material in general:

The historical accounts of early Islam used to be transmitted orally .... then came a generation that committed this oral material to writing. And by the beginning of the third century (H) paper-making was introduced and this material began to take the form of written reports, with every report dealing with only one topic...

These first written reports formed the first nucleus for subsequent historians...

In spite of what has been said, i.e. that these reports were not well arranged and not carefully organised, and that most of them lack verification and accuracy and even include possible fabrication, they nevertheless provided historians like Tabari and Ya'qouby with a flood of historical material, though this flood was so overflowing that subsequent historians could not sift, and could not get rid of the contradictions, the exaggerations, and the forgery in it. They could not detect the work of the fabricators in it, for the fabricators - sad to say - have found such a wide entrance to these reports. [24]

That is not to cast doubt on the historicity of basic Islamic events, but to warn readers of Islamic history that not everything is above board, that there are forgeries which have slipped in since the early period.

These forgeries are not single incidents here and there, but a great flood. The damage is irreversible for fabrication was mixed with fact to such an extent that later historians could not sift or eradicate the forgeries. Some scholars have collected up to 620 Hadith fabricators and liars [not 620 Hadiths, but Hadith transmitters] who were quoted by others as authorities in Hadith and history. [25]

Some examples will be cited later. It is worth noting again, however, that Tabari was one of the commentators who drew on this vast volume of fabricated material.

Another kind of material that crept in, in many different forms was what scholars call 'al-Isra'iliyat': supposed stories some of which were in the form of historical material, others supposedly in the form of the revealed books of the Jews and the Christians. This material was transmitted through Christian and Jewish converts to Islam, like Wahb.

Dr. Qaradawi commented on the 'Isra'ilyiat' and Wahb Ibn Munabbeh in particular, as follows, (and I paraphrase):

What disfigured our literary heritage, especially the field of expounding the Qur'an (Tafsir), were the 'Isra'iliyat' that crept into it, and disturbed its order. This started, regretfully, very early, that is, since the time of the companions and the followers [of the prophet]. It started with people like K'ab al-Ahbar and Wahb Ibn Munabbeh, and others who were converted to Islam from the People of the Book [i.e. Jews and Christians] - also through what reached the Muslims from Jewish and Christian books.

The infiltration of the 'Isra'iliyat' was small at the beginning, then it began to increase, unintentionally. This gave way to plotting, scheming and intentional conspiracy.

Because the Jews were defeated militarily by the Muslims and wanting to resist by using another weapon - an intellectual one - they slipped in the 'Isra'iliyat' and, within a short period, the books of Muslims were full of it. [26]

Here again we notice the extent of the 'creeping in'. Dr. Qaradawi wrote that within a short time the books of the Muslims became full of it. The 'Isra'iliyat' particularly affected the science of Tafsir, that is, the expounding and explaining of the Qur'an.

The substitution theory belongs to the flood of forgery that later historians could not detect, and which Tabari used on the authority of Wahb, one of the instruments of transmitting the 'Isra'iliyat'. As we have seen, it is only recently that modern thinkers have discarded the theory.

MORE ON WAHB

Here are some extracts by Muhammad Abd El-Ghani Hasan, from his book Attarikh 'End al-Muslemeen, that give us a better picture of Wahb.

Wahb was from San'aa of Yemen; died 110 or 114 H. He was Ikhbary (a storyteller) and not a Hadith transmitter. But his main interest was what is called "Isra'iliyat" (that is, stories that were heard from the Jewish people) which were transmitted to him through men like K'aab al Ahbar (who died 32-34 H.) ... which Wahb inserted into Islamic stories. [27]

It is no wonder, then, that those storytellers (Ikhbariyeen) have no authority in any serious work, as one scholar commented: '...scrutineers of the truth place no weight on the reporting of those 'Ikhbariyeen' (storytellers). They do not rely on them and shame those who quote them in any serious scientific work.' [28]

Muhammad Abd El-Ghani Hasan wrote:

We will not leave Wahb Ibn Munabeh without summarising the critics' opinion of him. They said that he did not seek accuracy in his reporting and he was not above making false claims. The historian al-Sakhawi, the author of, 'al-daw'a Allam'e and al-'Elan Be-Tawbikh Li-man Zama-Tarikh', considers the reporting of Wahb to be unworthy of serious historians .. [29]

Other Muslims see 'Wahb Ibn Munabbeh as the First Zionist' [30] and thus place him at the very top of the enemies of Islam.

So Wahb, even as a storyteller, lacked integrity. For that reason no serious historian relies on him. One can understand why modern thinkers shy away from the theory of substitution and treat it with contempt, for they see it as a mockery of God's justice, not only because it does not stand against the scrutiny of reason, but also because Wahb who was its perpetrator was a cheap storyteller.

There are guidelines for accepting or rejecting Hadith. The following is one of them:

The scholars and the critics of Hadith transmitters have agreed that whoever was proven to be a liar or a fabricator of Hadith is to be 'punished by rejecting even his truthfulness, ignoring his virtues, and his Hadith is not to be accepted after that.' [31]

If only the commentators had applied this rule to Wahb, and rejected his report, a lot of confusion and error would have been avoided.

Here is another rule for determining the truth of any report:

Logic, accuracy and Islam are essential conditions for any transmitter. If these conditions are missing, or one of them, the transmitter's story must be rejected and his Hadith discarded. [32]

As we have seen, Wahb's reporting lacked logic, and accuracy. There is even a question about his conversion to Islam. And some label him as the first Zionist. Wahb's reporting should have been rejected completely. But sadly this was not so.

THE INFLUENCE OF TABARI

Tabari's influence on subsequent commentators on this subject is unquestionable. Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub wrote:

The classical tradition is epitomized in the monumental commentary of Tabari (d. 310/923) which has influenced subsequent commentators down to the present. Other works of the classical period differ little from that of Tabari, which they take as their source and starting point. [33]

Dr. Sobhy al-Saleh said, 'Almost all subsequent commentators after Tabari were entirely dependent on him.' [34] Literally he said that they 'lived off him'.

Tabari is called "Sheikh al-Mufasereen", that is, the chief and head of the commentators.

Dr. Yousif Qaradawi, in one of his many books, makes the following remark on this famous commentator as a historian:

The idea that dominated Tabari when he wrote his 'history' was to collect and record without sifting and examining either the authority or the reported events of his historical material.

So whoever had something to report was quoted by Tabari, acknowledging the source of that report, even if the reporter was a weak one, or suspected one, or even a disregarded one ... some of those authorities, the researcher will find, were dropped completely, others differ in reliability, while others are reliable.

So out of Tabari's men:
Muhammad Ibn Ishaq, the author of 'The Life of the Prophet', was criticised bitterly by Imam Malek ...
Waqedi was accused of falsehood by some leading transmitters of Hadith ...
Hesham Ibn Muhammad al-Kalby and his father, were accused of being liars. And Saif Ibn 'Omar al-Tamimi was a fabricator of Hadith, and was accused of being an atheist ...
And there were many more, who are regarded as unworthy of mention by learned men of Hadith.

For that reason scrutineers of the truth place no weight on the reporting of those 'Ikhbareyeen' (storytellers) - they do not rely on them and shame those who quote them in any serious scientific work. [35]

No wonder then that Dr. Qaradawi acknowledges that 'Tabari treated historical issues in a careless and cheap manner.' [36] He added

May Allah forgive Imam Tabari, for his carelessness has disfigured the history of the dawn of Islam, and harmed the first bearers of the message. [37]

Modern thinkers like Dr. Ayoub would agree whole-heartedly with Dr. Qaradawi's last statement. Imam Tabari not only has disfigured the history of the dawn of Islam, but also made a mockery of the justice of God to this day, by propagating the reporting of the Ikhbareyeen, and Wahb in particular.

Even though, according to Dr. Qaradawi, "scrutineers of the truth place no weight on the reporting of the Ikhbareyeen, they do not rely on them and shame those who quote them in any serious scientific work"[38], one Ikhbary, Wahb, has influenced the Islamic 'Ummah more than the most reliable Hadith transmitters on the issue of the crucifixion of Jesus.

TABARI AS A COMMENTATOR

It is not only that Tabari as a historian 'treated historical issues in a careless and cheap manner' [39], he also, as a commentator, made some serious errors.

Dr. Qaradawi wrote that 'in spite of his [Tabari's] high rank and the place of his commentary, he sometimes chose weak explanations - nay very weak explanations - such as [the explanation given of husbands disciplining of women in] "banish them to their couches, and beat them". [40] Tabari said that this meant tie them by that which ties the camel, so the meaning becomes: 'Tie the women in order to force them to do that which they refused to do.' [41]

Such a sentiment is abhorred by the cultured and the uncultured alike nowadays but that was Tabari's choice of meaning.

Also Dr. Qaradawi criticised Tabari's choice for the explanation of the verses, 'Whoso judges not according to what God has sent down; they are the unbelievers.' [42] Tabari said 'those intended are the people of the Book (that is the Jews and the Christians)'. [43] Dr. Qaradawi, in disagreeing with Tabari's interpretation, said: 'What is under consideration here is the general wording, not the special causes.' He then added that the above verses were mentioned in front of Hazifah Ibn al-Yaman by a man who said that the people intended are the children of Israel. Hazifah then said: 'Yes, they are your brothers, the children of Israel, if to you belongs everything that is sweet and to them belongs everything that is bitter! Meaning, how can the children of Israel be described by blasphemy, injustice and iniquity if they do not judge according to what God has sent down upon them, and you are not so described if you do not judge according to what God has sent down upon you?' [44]

Then Dr. Qaradawi concluded the chapter by saying: 'The goal is to avoid the weak interpretations and opinions, no matter what the authority of their source. For as 'Ali said, "Truth is not known by those who call themselves men of Truth, but know the Truth, then you shall know its men"' [45]

THE PROBLEM OF FABRICATION

The advice of Dr. Qaradawi to avoid the weak interpretations (even if their authority is the chief of the commentators, Imam Tabari), is far too late. For unfortunately the rest of the commentators have been greatly influenced by Tabari. They almost lived off his original work.

Dr. Qaradawi was not the only one who admitted the existence of forgeries and criticised the lack of careful investigation by other writers in Islamic material. Appealing to Imam Tabari as a final authority, another author wrote:

The enemies of Islam who spread amongst its followers and pretended to be Muslims ... have managed to insert in the Hadith of the prophet and his biography, the biography of the companions, the history of Islam, and the Hadith that expounds the Qur'an, many [fabricated] things. For we will not find in the history of previous nations those who have invented for one of their prophets 150 imaginary companions. And, in spite of that, we find the great majority of Muslims have innocently accepted, as pure, what they inherited ... And when their research ends with an incident from the history of the companions by Tabari, or an incident of the biography of the prophet by Ibn Hisham, they then become confident, full of assurance and relaxed, and do not take the trouble to sift the errors from what has been written, but copy and follow the authors of those books like the blind who follows his guide. As we have seen in the book of 'Abd Allah Ibn Sab'a the extent of the fabrication in the historical work of Tabari, which is considered the most trusted historical source concerning the companions, disfigured and turned the historical facts upside down. [46]

To invent and forge certain material is one thing, but to invent people who do not exist is completely another. These works of forgery did not turn only Islamic historical facts upside down, but also turned the historicity of the crucifixion upside down for generations of Muslims.

Fabrication and forgery did not only involve distant past histories of other nations, but also included a sacred branch of Islamic material known as 'asbab an-Nuzul i.e.; the occasions of revelation which provide the historical context of the Qur'an. One scholar commented:

The writings of the older generations who wrote on the reasons of the inspiration ['asbab al-nuzul, i.e. the occasions in which a particular verse was revealed], were subjected to strong criticism, in spite of the fact that their authors were very pious, careful, scientific and faithful. Yet our criticism today will be stronger and more severe, and what we have against them will be more bitter and appalling ... The commentator Suyuti boldly criticised the shortcomings and weaknesses of these works. We had hoped the shortcomings were the only weaknesses in the old works, but they are also full of historical mistakes, illogical reasoning, incredible exaggerations and strange rarities!

'Al Wahidi, for example, when he read The Cow: 114, did not conclude that it was a general threat to those who trifled with places of worship and try to stop God's ordinances... but he fell into an ugly historical error. If that error was his personally, that would have been of no consequence. But to force error on the text of the Qur'an is a thing that is not permissible for him or for any other person.

It is amazing to see that al-Wahidi unashamedly mentions Qatadah who said that this verse is about Bakhtnassar the Babylonian and his friends who captured the Jews, and destroyed Bait al-Maqdes and were helped by the Nasara [the Christians]. He mentions that the Nasara were united with Bakhtnassar in the destruction of Bait al-Maqdes, despite the fact that this event took place 633 years before the birth of Christ.

He then added:

Al-Wahidi might be forgiven for this because he was not a historian ... " And even the ugly error made by al-Wahidi's ignorance of the historical events might be excused if we ascribe he was referring to Adrinal the Roman, whom the Jews called Bakhtnassar the Second, who came 130 years after Christ. He had built a city on the ruins of Jerusalem, made Roman baths in it, built a temple for Zeus on the ruins of Solomon's temple, and prevented the Jews from entering the city.

If we have an excuse for al-Wahidi, what excuse can we find for Ibn Garir al-Tabari, the commentator and historian who not only mentioned Bakhtnassar's incident as al-Wahidi did, but he chooses it from a group of options declaring: 'The best explanation of them all concerning the Cow:114, "And who does greater evil than he who bars God's places of worship, so that His Name be not praised in them" is the Christians (Nasara). For they are the ones who sought to destroy Bait al-Maqdes, and helped Bakhtnassar in doing that, and prevented the believers of the children of Israel from praying in it after the return of Bakhtnassar to his own land.'

Then he added:

Why did Ibn Garir al-Tabari, the great historian and a trusted faithful one, prefer this opinion? Would it be scientifically honest to explain away his error by claiming that he meant Bakhtnassar the Second, thus defending him and being biased towards him? Or rather to acknowledge the historical error into which even the greatest scientists and the truest faithful fell? If we examine such historical errors that were forced on the reasons of inspiration (Asbab An-nuzul), and made the Qur'an say that which it did not say, it would take us a long time, and our wandering would be extensive. [47]

Here is another example of one of Tabari's errors. This time it concerns a simple historical fact which can be seen by all. Piety and religious faithfulness are not a guarantee of freedom from error. Imam Tabari made mistakes that all can see. Would it be scientifically honest to explain away his errors, or to admit them? It is far better to side with the truth than to side with the greatest commentators. Just as Tabari chose from different options in the story concerning Bakhtnassar and was wrong, so he also chose from different options concerning the crucifixion of Jesus and was proven to be wrong again.

It is not only concerning the crucifixion (an event which occurred 900 years before the time of Tabari) that historical data was wrongly selected by Imam Tabari and others. His historical data concerning the reasons of inspiration was also incorrect, even though this was 300 (not 900) years before Tabari's time and transmitted by people who had its interest in heart. The listing of such historical errors would take us a long time, and our wandering too would be extensive.

Dr. Qaradawi quoted another Muslim scholar concerning the use of the 'Isra'iliyat' :

Permission to talk about them [the 'Isra'iliyat'] is one thing, although we cannot prove or deny them, but to use them to explain the Qur'an, and to make it a quotation or a story in the meaning of the Qur'anic text, or to specify that which was not specified, or to detail that which is general is another thing. For accepting the 'Isra'iliyat' beside the word of Allah, gives the impression that that which we cannot prove or deny, stands to explain the word of Allah, ... God forbid. There is no stronger confirmation of their stories and sayings than to link them with the Book of Allah, and give them the place of clarifying and explaining the word of Allah. O Allah, forgive us. [48]

The acceptance of the substitution theory is based on the speciality of Wahb, the 'Isra'iliyat'. It is the same 'Isra'iliyat that Imam Tabari used to explain the Qur'anic verses about the crucifixion of Jesus. After Tabari, most commentators have continued to do the same, to the present day.

Dr. Qaradawi requested forgiveness for Imam Tabari when he said: 'May Allah forgive Imam Tabari, for his carelessness has disfigured the history of the dawn of Islam, and harmed the first bearers of the message.' [49] He requested forgiveness from Allah on behalf of all who used the 'Isra'iliyat to expound the Qur'an, when he said 'O Allah forgive us.' But this plea for forgiveness should also include its use in relation to the crucifixion of Jesus. It is the only appropriate response if the record is to be set straight.

If you would like to ask further questions, obtain a hard copy of this series of booklets or for any other reason you are welcome to contact M. Anderson via email to fragrance@integrity.org.