Al-Nisa (4): Verse 157

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah."

This statement indicates a grave disbelief on their part, as they claimed to have committed the act. This implies they were eager and striving to kill him. Undoubtedly, this claim constitutes immense disbelief.

Objection: The Jews were disbelievers regarding Jesus, hostile to him, and intended to kill him, calling him "the sorcerer, son of the sorceress," and "the doer, son of the doer." How then could they say, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"?

Answer (Twofold):

1. They said it mockingly, similar to Pharaoh's statement: "Indeed, your Messenger who has been sent to you is mad" (Ash-Shu'ara: 27), and the statement of the Quraysh disbelievers regarding the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH): "And they said, 'O you to whom the Message has been revealed, indeed you are mad'" (Al-Hijr: 6).
2. It is possible that Allah substituted a good description for their ugly description in recounting their words, to elevate Jesus (peace be upon him) above what they used to call him.

But they neither killed him, nor did they crucify him, but [the appearance of] it was made to resemble to them.

When Allah recounted the Jews' claim that they killed Jesus (peace be upon him), Allah refuted this claim by saying: "But they neither killed him, nor did they crucify him, but [the appearance of] it was made to resemble to them."

There are two questions regarding this verse:

Question 1: To what is the verb shubbiha (was made to resemble) attributed? If attributed to the Messiah, then he is the one resembled (mushabbah bihi), not the one resembling (mushabbah). If attributed to the killed person, that person was not explicitly mentioned.

Answer (Twofold):

1. It is attributed to the prepositional phrase (al-jār wa al-majrūr), similar to saying, "It occurred to him," meaning, "But resemblance occurred for them."
2. It is attributed to the pronoun referring to the killed person. The phrase "But they neither killed him" implies that the killing occurred to someone else, making that 'other' implicitly mentioned, thus justifying the attribution of shubbiha to him.

Question 2: If it is permissible for Allah to cast the likeness of one person onto another, this opens the door to sophistry. If we see Zayd, perhaps it is not Zayd, but Allah cast the likeness of Zayd upon him. If this is allowed, then certainty regarding marriage, divorce, and ownership based on visual recognition ceases. Furthermore, it leads to questioning the validity of Tawātur (mass transmission), as the certainty derived from Tawātur depends on its ultimate grounding in sensory perception. If we permit such resemblance in sensory matters, it opens the door to attacking Tawātur, which invalidates all religious laws.

The response cannot be that this is exclusive to the time of the Prophets (peace be upon them). If what you claim is true, it must be known through proof and evidence. Whoever does not know that proof and evidence must not be certain about any sensory perception, nor rely on any transmitted reports. Moreover, even if miracles are closed off in our time, the path of Karāmāt (miracles granted to saints) remains open, bringing back the same possibility in all eras. In summary, opening this door leads to attacking Tawātur, and attacking Tawātur leads to attacking the prophethood of all Prophets (peace be upon them). This is a secondary issue leading to an attack on fundamental principles, so it must be rejected.

Answer: Scholars have differing views on this matter, presenting several approaches:

First View (Many Theologians): When the Jews intended to kill Jesus (peace be upon him), Allah raised him to heaven. The Jewish leaders feared civil strife from the common people. So, they took a person, killed him, and crucified him, deceiving the people that this was the Messiah. The people only knew the Messiah by name because he rarely mingled with them. This resolves the question. Objection: Christians transmit from their predecessors that they witnessed him being killed. Response: The Tawātur of the Christians traces back to a small number of people, and it is not impossible for them to agree upon a lie.

Second View (Allah cast his likeness upon another person): This view has several sub-interpretations:

1. When the Jews knew he was present in a certain house with his companions, the head of the Jews, Judah, ordered one of his companions, named Tityus, to enter and bring Jesus out to be killed. When he entered, Allah took Jesus out through the roof of the house and cast the likeness of Jesus upon that man. They thought it was him, so they crucified and killed him.
2. They appointed a guard for Jesus. Jesus ascended the mountain and was raised to heaven. Allah cast his likeness upon that guard, who was killed while proclaiming, "I am not Jesus."
3. When the Jews moved to seize him, ten of his companions were with him. He told them, "Who will sell Paradise by having my likeness cast upon him?" One of them said, "I will." Allah cast the likeness of Jesus upon him, and he was taken out and killed, while Allah raised Jesus (peace be upon him).
4. There was a man claiming to be one of Jesus's companions, but he was a hypocrite. He went to the Jews and informed them about Jesus. When he entered with the Jews to seize him, Allah cast Jesus's likeness upon him, and he was killed and crucified.

These interpretations contradict and repel one another. Allah knows the reality of the matters best.

Know that regarding the verse, "And indeed, those who differ concerning it..." there are two opinions:

First Opinion: They are the Christians. This is because they unanimously agree that the Jews killed him, although the major Christian sects are three: Nestorians, Melkites, and Jacobites.

• The Nestorians claimed that the Messiah was crucified in respect to his humanity (nāsūt), not his divinity (lāhūt). Most wise scholars lean toward this view. They argue that it is established that a human being is not merely this physical frame; rather, he is either a noble body integrated into this frame, or a purely spiritual essence existing in itself and governing this body. Killing only affects the physical frame; the soul, which is truly Jesus (peace be upon him), was not affected by the killing.
  • Objection: This applies to every human being; why single out Jesus?
  • Response: His soul was sacred, lofty, heavenly, intensely illuminated by divine lights, and extremely close to the spirits of the angels. A soul that possesses such qualities does not suffer greatly from the pain of killing and the destruction of the body. Moreover, upon separation from the darkness of the body, it is liberated into the expanse of the heavens and the lights of the realm of Majesty, where its joy and felicity are greatly increased. These states are not attained by all people, not even from the creation of Adam (peace be upon him) until the Day of Resurrection, except by a few individuals. This is the benefit of singling out Jesus (peace be upon him) for this state.

• The Melkites said that the killing and crucifixion reached the divinity through sensation and feeling, not by direct action.

• The Jacobites said that the killing and crucifixion occurred to the Messiah, who is a substance compounded of two essences. This explains the doctrines of the Christians on this matter, and this is what is meant by: "And indeed, those who differ concerning it are in doubt about it."

Second Opinion: Those who differed are the Jews. This has two aspects:

1. When they killed the person upon whom the likeness was cast, the resemblance was cast upon his face, not his entire body. When they killed him and looked at the body, they said, "The face is the face of Jesus, but the body is that of another."
2. Al-Saddi said that the Jews confined Jesus with ten of the disciples in a house. A Jewish man entered to bring him out and kill him. Allah cast the likeness of Jesus upon him and raised Jesus to heaven. They took that man, killed him, claiming he was Jesus. Then they debated: "If this is Jesus, where is our companion? And if this is our companion, where is Jesus?" This is their difference concerning him.

Second Issue: Refuters of Qiyās (Analogical Reasoning) used this verse as evidence.

They argue that acting upon Qiyās is following conjecture (ẓann), and following conjecture is blameworthy in the Book of Allah, as it is only mentioned in a context of censure. Do you not see that Allah describes the Jews and Christians here in a context of censure by saying: "They have no knowledge of it except following conjecture," and in Surah Al-An'am regarding the condemnation of disbelievers: "They follow nothing but conjecture, and they do nothing but lie" (Al-An'am: 116), and in another verse: "And conjecture is of no use at all against the truth" (Yunus: 36)? All of this indicates that following conjecture is blameworthy.

Response: We do not concede that acting upon Qiyās is following conjecture. The decisive proof that mandates acting upon Qiyās makes the ruling derived from Qiyās known (ma'lūm), not merely conjectured (maẓnūn). This statement has depth and requires further discussion.

Then Allah said: "But Allah raised him to Himself."

Know that this phrase carries two implications:

1. Certainty of non-killing.
2. Certainty of non-action (i.e., non-crucifixion).

Under the first interpretation, the meaning is that Allah informed [the Prophet] that they were doubtful whether they killed him or not, and then informed Muhammad that certainty has been established that they did not kill him.

Under the second interpretation, the meaning is that they were doubtful whether they killed him or not, and then Allah confirmed this by stating that the person they killed was killed without certainty that it was Jesus (peace be upon him); rather, at the moment they killed him, they were doubtful whether he was Jesus or not.

The first interpretation is preferable because Allah follows it with: "But Allah raised him to Himself," and this statement is only sound if preceded by the definitive certainty of non-killing.