Title: If Jesus (pbuh) was not Crucified... Question: I hope you might be able to help me with some confusion I'm having. I am a Christian who is studying the claims of Islam. I'm currently listening to a debate about the crucifixion with Ahmed Deedat, and a question keeps plaguing me. It appears that God allowed the people to think that it was Jesus who was crucified and died, although Jesus did not actually die. Why would God send the Gospel with His prophet Jesus, and then allow all of the disciples of Jesus to be misled by believing that Jesus died on the cross, and thus distort the original message of the Gospel? I understand in an answer of yours on the internet that God allowed the Injeel to be corrupted because there were always faithful prophets who spoke for God, that is, until Mohammed came. Who and where were these faithful prophets of the true Injeel from the time of Jesus to the time of Mohammed (approximately 600 years)? Thanks for your help. God Bless, Robert Havicon Jr Answer: Muslims do not believe that God allowed all of the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) to be misled. On the contrary, they believe that the belief that Jesus (pbuh) was crucified, to expiate the sins of man, was actually propounded by St. Paul which, later on, overwhelmed the correct beliefs taught by Jesus (pbuh). Under the influence of these beliefs, the process of canonization of the writings was also significantly influenced by the beliefs to which the authorities ascribed. Thus, it seems to the Muslim mind that the writings, which entailed anything contrary to the beliefs of the canonizing authorities, were not only rejected but were also greatly condemned. With the growth of the Pauline Christianity, any beliefs, which were contrary to those held by the Pauline Christians were declared heresies and were strongly condemned by the Christians. Thus, we find that in the writings of Ignatius (AD 30 - 170) there is a clear reference to one of the 'heresies' in the following words [1] : He really, and not merely in appearance, was crucified, and died, in the sight of beings in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 9) It is also clear from the writings of the later Apostolic Fathers that Ignatius' strong and eloquent condemnation of such 'heresies' did not succeed in silencing them. Thus, Iranaeus (AD 120 - 202) has further elaborated on this 'heresy' in the following words: But the father without birth and without name, perceiving that they would be destroyed, sent his own first-begotten Nous (he it is who is called Christ) to bestow deliverance on them that believe in him, from the power of those who made the world. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all... (Iranaeus Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 24) And Tertullian (AD 145 - 220) has referred to a similar story in his writings: ... that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead (Tertullian Part Second, 9. Appendix, Chapter 19) You ask: I understand in an answer of yours on the internet that God allowed the Injeel to be corrupted because there were always faithful prophets who spoke for God, that is, until Mohammed came. Who and where were these faithful prophets of the true Injeel from the time of Jesus to the time of Mohammed (approximately 600 years)? In my referred answer, I have not written specifically about the Injeel (Gospel), but have given a more general remark. I have written: Till the time that the institution of prophethood continued, there was no need to protect the scriptures of the previous prophets [2] . The new or the current prophet was always as reliable and as powerful an authority of God's laws and His likings as the previous ones. Thus, during that phase of the history of man when the institution of prophethood continued, it was the current prophet's word of mouth, which was the primary source of God's religion; the books of the previous prophets were no more than a secondary source. Had the institution of prophethood continued even after Muhammad (pbuh), the position of the Qur'an would, obviously, not have been any different. Thus, in simple terms, the answer to your question is that till the time that the institution of prophethood continued, God protected His message and His guidance to man, through His prophets. There was no need, at that time, to protect the books revealed upon the previous prophets. Later on, when, after Muhammad (pbuh), the institution of prophethood was discontinued for ever, it was now imperative to protect the finally revealed book, for the purpose of protecting His message and His guidance to man, as no further prophet was to be sent for the purpose. I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad September 26, 2001 [1] Many Other such references can be seen scattered throughout his writings. See: The Epistles of Ignatius to the Trallians, Chapter 10, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 4, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Chapter 2 and The Epistle of Ignatius to the Phillippians, Chapter 3. [2] Here the term 'Prophets' or 'Apostles' of God should not be confused with 'apostles', as used for the representatives and companions of a prophet of God. What the Christians call 'Apostles' were actually not prophets of God, according to the Muslim beliefs but messengers, representatives and companions of one of the prophets of God.