Crucifixion or Crucifiction - A Response (PART 5)

We have been examining the Islamic position against the crucifixion
of Jesus Christ and have found that it cannot survive when taking the
testimony of the gospels in their context, without adulterating the
word by introducing foreign thoughts into the text.

In part 4, we saw that contrary to Deedat's claim that Jesus was
unwilling to go to the cross, and was even prepared to set up a Jihad
(Holy War) to prevent it, the bible testifies of the absoluteness of
Jesus' heart to do the will of the Father and indeed lay His life
freely.

Now we press on with part 5. Please note, this particular post will
be quite long because I am going to speak at length concerning
Abraham and His sacrificing of Isaac. We shall see why shortly. As I
continued through Deedat's work "Crucifixion or Crucifiction", I
noticed an abrupt detour once again from Deedat, where he says:

"This harrowing sob-story, the blood-curdling cries and lamentations
would evoke sympathy in the hardest of hearts. And the hot-gospeller
and the Bible-thumper is not averse to its effective exploitation. We
are told that Jesus was destined to die for the sins of mankind. That
he was "being prepared for this vicarious sacrifice before the
foundation of the world". That even before the material universe came
into being, there was a contract between "Father and son," and that in
the year 4000 A.A. (After Adam) 1, God himself in the form of Jesus,
as the second person from the enigmatic Trinity2, was to get himself
hanged to redeem mankind from the Original Sin and their actual sins.

1. According to Christian calculations the world and everything in it
is 6000 years old.
2. "Trinity": The closest approximation to the Christian dogma of the
trinity as found in the Bible ? "For there are three that bear record
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three
are one" - (1st Epistle of John 5:7) ? has now been unceremoniously
thrown out as fabrication in the R.S.V., the most up-to-date
translation of the Bible. See ? "Is the Bible God's Word?" for
further Biblical interpolations."

Instead of keeping to the topic at hand, Deedat has switched gears
completely. What he is doing here is throwing more non sequiters. We
are supposed to be dealing with the matter of crucifixion and now
Deedat starts talking about the Trinity (Mark 12:29,Matthew
28:19,John 17:3,John 5:23,Acts 5:3-4,Acts 20:28, Hebrews 1:8,
Revelations 1:8, Revelations 21:6-7, Revelations 22:13-16...). He
mentions that 1 John 5:7 was not in the
earliest manuscripts. I agree, as do all biblical scholars. The only
people who may have difficulty with this are the King James onlyists
who revere the Byzantine manuscripts above the Alexandrian
manuscripts, but even so, 1 John 5:7 does not in anyway alter the
clear doctrine of the Trinity that is consistently presented in the
bible. Furthermore, 1 John 5:7, believed to have been derived from
explanatory marginal notes for 1 John 5:8 which does appear in the
earliest manuscripts, is a plausible interpretation of 1 John 5:7.

It was unfortunate that some mistakingly copied the notes into the
subsequent translations without making the distinction between the
text of scripture and the notes of man, but we have sound textual
critical methods that allow us to identify such things and be assured
of the original renderings and appearances of text in the Old and New
Testaments. This is something that is very lacking in Qur'anic
textual criticism, due to the burnings of Caliph Uthman of the
variant Qur'ans.

Deedat also talks about the age of the universe. Both of these
subjects are completely outside of the scope of our discussion and we
will therefore give no occasion to address them at this stage. Suffice
to say, his statements bear no weight against the Christian
position of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Deedat writes: "JESUS UNAWARE OF HEAVENLY CONTRACT

From the "call to arms" in the upper-room, and the masterful
deployment of forces at Gethsemane, and the blood-sweating prayer to
the God of Mercy for help, it appears that Jesus knew nothing about
the contract for his crucifixion. It reminds one of the Biblical
Abraham, leading his son to the slaughter with the bluff that the
Lord will provide a 'scape-goat.'"

As has been clearly demostrated, there was no "masterful deploment of
forces". Furthermore, Jesus as a man, experienced the anguish of the
event soon to follow. In spite of this anguish, rather than simply
refuse to go ahead with the crucifixion, He prayed earnestly to be
aligned with the Father's will. This is indeed an exemplery model of
conduct for those who follow Christ. Interestingly, Deedat refers
tothe experience of Abraham and His son Isaac in the sacrifice. Let
us now turn our attention to this particular matter because Deedat
mentions the scapegoat.

From the outset, I would like to say this. Deedat might not have
realised it, but by mentioning the "scapegoat", Deedat is actually
refuting his own position of the swoon theory. If anything, he would
have to accept the substitutionist position rather than the swoon
theory, because at least in the substitution theory, someone else
takes the position of Jesus upon the cross, as the ram is slaughtered
and offered to God in place of Isaac. I am not sure whether Deedat
realised that he weakened his position by mentioning this in passing,
but let us turn anyway to the account of Abraham and Isaac as
mentioned in the bible:

GENESIS 22:1-2 says

1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.

2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love,
and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt
offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Muslims will say that this accout is wrong and Ishmael is more likely
to have been offered because Isaac was born after Ishmael and God says
"Take your son, your ONLY son. Ishmael was the firstborn son, so it
must have taken place before Isaac was born.

I would like to point out three initial problems to this position:

1. Nowhere in the Qur'an is the name of the son to be sacrificed
actually mentioned.

2. Muslims are saying that it must be Ishamael because the word ONLY
appears, yet the name ISAAC also appears. It is illogical to claim
that the verse is corrupted because of the name Isaac and yet use the
verse as an authority for the Muslim position because the word only
appears. If the verse has been corrupted as Muslims would have us
believe, then they have no idea whether the verse contains the word
only or not. Nor would they know which name appeared, based upon
point number 1.

3. The Quran actually speaks of the preservation of the Torah here:

/ 032.023 / : We did indeed aforetime give the Book to Moses: be not
then in doubt of its reaching (thee): and We made it a guide to the
Children of Israel. (Yusuf Ali)

Addtionally, we learn from the bible that the reason that Isaac is
referred to as Abraham's only son is because Ishmael was born through
Hagar, who was not Abraham's wife. Hence Ishmael was an illigitimate
son. God promised Abraham a son who would inherit his blessing as we
read in GENESIS 15:

1 After this, the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: "Do not
be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your very great reward."

2 But Abram said, "O Sovereign Lord, what can you give me since I
remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of
Damascus?"

3 And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my
household will be my heir."

4 Then the word of the Lord came to him: "This man will not be your
heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir."

5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the
stars--if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall
your offspring be."

6 Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as
righteousness.

First we see here that Abraham thought that Eliezer of Damascus would
inherit his estate because he had no children. Then the Lord promised
him offspring that would be numerous like the stars in the heavens.

Then we see that Sarah and Abraham decided to try to fulfill God's
prayer themselves. Since Sarah was still barren, she told Abraham to
go into Hagar the maidservant as we read in GENESIS 16:

1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an
Egyptian maidservant named Hagar;

2 so she said to Abram, "The Lord has kept me from having children.
Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through
her." Abram agreed to what Sarai said.

3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife
took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be
his wife. Sarah was upset because Hagar despised her because she was
pregnant while Sarah was still barren. God commanded Hagar to submit
to Sarah nevetheless:

7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it
was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.

8 And he said, "Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from,
and where are you going?" "I'm running away from my mistress Sarai,"
she answered.

9 Then the angel of the Lord told her, "Go back to your mistress and
submit to her."

10 The angel added, "I will so increase your descendants that they
will be too numerous to count."

11 The angel of the Lord also said to her: "You are now with child
and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has
heard of your misery.

12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against
everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in
hostility toward all his brothers."

We see that Ishamel is described as being hostile and against his
brothers. Does this sound familiar? Abraham was 86 years old when
Ishmael was born according to verse 16:

16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.

This was against God's promise, and as a result, Abraham had to wait
13 years before God would appear to him again:

GENESIS 17 says -

1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and
said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless.

2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly
increase your numbers."

Notice Abraham is now 99 years old and the Lord says he WILL confirm
his convenant. That means that God's covenant was not realised
through Ishmael. In fact, God makes it explicitly clear that the
covenant is through Isaac, not Ishmael:

/15/ God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no
longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah.

16 I WILL BLESS HER AND WILL SURELY GIVE YOU A SON BY HER. I will
bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples
will come from her."

17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son
be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the
age of ninety?"

18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your
blessing!"

19 Then God said, "YES, BUT YOUR WIFE SARAH WILL BEAR YOU A SON, AND
YOU WILL CALL HIM ISAAC. I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH HIM as an
everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I
will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will
be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great
nation.

/21/ BUT MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC, whom Sarah will
bear to you by this time next year."

22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

Verse 16 shows that Ishmael is not considered to be the son
promised by God, because God says that HE will provide a son through
SARAH and that SARAH would be the mother of nations. Notice, Sarah is
considered the mother of nations, not Hagar, so in this sense, Isaac
was Abraham's only son.

Verses 19 and 21 emphatically state that Isaac was the one of God's
choosing though whom He would establish His covenant.

At this point, it would also be of interest to mention that the line
of prophethood mentioned in the Quran actually includes Isaac's line,
not Ishmael. Surely, if Ishamel is the firstborn son, a true
legitimate son, and especially the one through whom Mohammed, the
"/greatest of all prophets/" had descended, then his name would be
mentioned, not Isaac's. Yet startlingly, we read:

019.049: When he had turned away from them and from those whom they
worshipped besides Allah, We bestowed on him Isaac and Jacob, and
each one of them We made a prophet. (Yusuf Ali)

045.016 : We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book,
the Power of Command and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance,
things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. (Yusuf
Ali)

029.027 : And We gave (Abraham) Isaac and Jacob, and ordained among
his progeny Prophethood and Revelation, and We granted him his reward
in this life; and he was in the Hereafter (of the company) of the
Righteous. (Yusuf Ali)

Here we see that Isaac's name is mentioned instead of Ishmael in the
Abrahamic line. If Ishmael is truly to be considered greater than
Isaac, we would have expected to see his name there. Furthermore, we
find that Allah preferred Israel above all nations. Israel was the
name God gave to Jacob, the son of Isaac. If Ishmael was greater,
then we would not expect Israel to be preferred above all nations.
Not only that, but the prophethood is given through Isaac's lineage,
not Ishmael's. That in itself would disqualify Mohammed.

The muslim may object and say that Surah 6:83-86 do teach that
Ishmael was a prophet and that prophethood was through him as well.
Let us read:

And Ismail and Elisha and Jonah and Lut: and to all We gave favour
above the nations: (86)

(To them) and to their fathers, and progeny and brethren: We chose
them. And We guided them to a straight way. (87)
This is the Guidance of Allah: He giveth that guidance to whom He
pleaseth, of His worshippers. If they were to join other gods with
Him, all that they did would be vain for them. (88)

These were the men to whom We gave the Book, and authority, and
prophethood: if these (their descendants) reject them, behold! We
shall entrust their charge to a new People who reject them not. (89)

Firstly, we note that that Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lut(Lot) are
said to receive Allah's favour above the nations. However, Israel is
uniquely named as being preferred above the nations, whereas Ismail
is equated as being on par with Jonah, Elisha, and Lut(Lot).

Secondly, verse 89 says that these men, including Ishmael received
the book, the authority, and prophethood. It is proposed by the
Muslim then that Ishmail was a prophet. The verse states 3 things -
the Book, the Authority, and the Prophethood. We are to ask ourselves
- which book? Is it the Torah? Is it the Injeel? Is it the Qur'an?
Because, if we are to say that this verse definitely qualifies
Ishmael to be a prophet, then we would have to say that each of the
qualities, the book, the authority, and the prophethood, are applied
to all of the names. Let us test this then:

If the Book is the Torah, then it wouldn't apply to Lot, because Lot
was before Moses, and Moses was the one who wrote the Torah. If it
refers to the Injeel, then none of the people would qualify because
they all came before the Injeel. The same applies to the Qur'an since
the Qur'an was given to Mohammed who came long after Ishmael.
Therefore, it must be said, that the only book that seems to make
sense in this surah would be the Torah, and yet that book was not
given to Lot. Therefore, we can only say that at best each of the
items mentioned , i.e. the book, the authority, and the prophethood
can only be bestowed IN PART to each of the names given. Thus, Lot
was not given the book, but perhaps he was given authority and
prophethood. But we do not know which. The verse will not say. One
cannot assume that both were given to lot based upon this verse since
he did not receive "the book". Similarly with Ishmael, he might have
been given the Torah, he might have been given the authority, and the
prophethood, BUT we do not know. The verse does not equip the muslim
to determine this. As such the verse cannot be used as a proof-text
that Ishmael was a prophet, since it fails on Lot's account for
having received the book. Perhaps some of the names received all
three, but the verse does not give such information as to which
people received which items. If the muslim wishes to argue that the
verse means that each of the persons received all three, i.e. the
book, the authority, and the prophethood, then they would have to
reject this verse and indeed the Quran as the inspired word of God
since Lot did not receive the Torah.

Since the Qur'an does not give the name of which son was to be
sacrificed, the bible does, and the Qur'an does state that the Torah
was preserved (Surah 32:33), and Genesis is a part of the Torah, and
we have manuscripts that date before, during, and after the time of
Mohammed, we can trust the mountain of evidence that indeed Isaac was
the chosen son to be sacrificed and not Ishmael.

I note that Deedat only made the casual remark about Abraham and
Isaac but I had to respond to it to impress you with the fact that we
can be assured of the testimony given in Genesis, which is a great
type of Christ upon the cross.

I would like to continue further into the discussion of Abraham and
Isaac in my next post. Since we have seen very little if any
substance from the claims made by Ahmed Deedat, I think it would be
profitable at this stage to delve further into the biblical account
and see how beautifully the Genesis account portrays Christ in this
most wonderful aspect. This account is one of the clearest pictures
concerning the crucifixion and as this series of posts is indeed on
Islam and the cross, we would do well to engage in this portion of
scripture.

Before I end this post, I would leave you with the following
questions that the Muslim must answer:

1. Why is the Qur'an silent when it comes to the name of the person
to be sacrificed if the Quran is supposed to be a light of guidance
to supposedly correct the heresies followed by Jews and Christians?

2. Why did Allah prefer Israel above all the nations?

3. Why did Allah give the covenant to Israel and not to Ishmael?
(surah 2:92-93) Note: the sin of Israel was forgiven by Allah (surah
2:53-54). Whether or not Israel became disobedient later, the
covenant was nevetheless given to them, Israel being descendants of
Isaac, not Ishamel.

4. If the swoon theory is correct, and Christ did not die upon the
cross but was only hurt, then who was the ram that was slaughtered
and offered up?

That'll do for now saints. Sorry about the length of the post. I hope
this has not been boring but rather engaging.