Exposing ahmed deedat and his blind followers especially zakir nayak . With the Wahabi-sponsored PeaceTV television station, the views of Ahmed Deedat and Zakir Naik have recently spread forcefully across the Indian Subcontinent.the programmes are spreading some false Qadiani and Wahabi ideas which dont accurately represent what the Scriptures actually say.For example, Zakir Naik and Ahmad Deedat advocate a Qadiani theory about Jesus death called the swoon theory which was first invented by Western atheists and then introduced to Muslims by the Qadianis. This theory is scorned by almost all scholars, even critics of Christianity, and it has obscured the truth of Scripture.Now I attempt to show you what the Qurān , Injīl, and history actually say about this important question of whether Jesus was crucified.i will deal with the following questions in this order: 1. Does the Qurān deny that Jesus died? 2. Can the Qadiani Swoon Theory be true? 3. Does the Injīl really say that Jesus was crucified? 4. Does the crucifixion fit with the Tawrat & Zabur? WHAT DOES THE QURAN AND ISLAM SAY? The Islamic Views of Jesus Death Zakir Naik tries to make it appear that Islam and the Qurān unanimously deny the crucifixion, but this is simply not the case. Naiks interpretation is actually a discredited theory invented very recently by Western atheists and introduced into Islam by the heretical Qadiani sect. Many Muslims in the modern period think Islam teaches that Jesus did not die but was bodily raised directly to heaven. Actually, the major mufassirūn (Islamic commentators) like al-Tabari and al-Razi refute this, saying that accepting Jesus death is actually one consistent interpretation of the Qurān : O Jesus, I am causing you to ‘die [mutawaffika] and raising you to myself... (Sura Al ‘Imran 3:55) The early Muslim commentator Al-Tabari gives four possible meanings for this passage, one of which is that Jesus literally died. He writes: Death (wafat) means the death of real, literal dying, that is, ‘I am causing you to die literally. He goes on to relate traditions which support such an interpretation. Tabari himself thought the substitution theory most probable, which says that another innocent person was murdered on the cross in Jesus place who looked like Jesus. Renowned commentator Fakhruddin Razi also admitted that literal physical death of Jesus is a valid interpretation of this passage.However, Razi refuted the substitution theory of Tabari for some reasons, and this theory is no longer popular. Muslim scholar Dr. Kamel Hussein writes: The idea of a substitute for Christ is a very crude way of explaining the Qurānic text. They had to explain a lot to the masses. No cultured Muslim believes in this nowadays. Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub writes: The substitution theory will not do, regardless of its form or purpose... it makes a mockery of divine justice and the primordial covenant of God with humanity. So what we see is that there is no one main Islamic view of Jesus death. The early Muslim authorities admitted that the literal death of Jesus was one very possible Qurānic scenario, but their own preferred theory regarding the crucifixion (the substitution theory) is by their own admission full of improbabilities and has been rejected by Muslim scholars as too improbable. Are Zakir Naiks arguments true? What does the historical evidence say? There is actually only one single verse in the entire Qurān which critics use to deny the crucifixion of Jesus: They [The Jews] declared: We have put to death the Messiah ‘Isa son of Mary, the apostle of Allah. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did. Those that disagreed about him were in doubt concerning his death, for what they knew about it was sheer conjecture, they were not sure that they had slain him. Allah lifted him up to His presence; He is mighty and wise. -Sura Nisa 4:157 (N.J. Dawood translation) The Jews in Jesus day were actually weak and subjugated and unable to sentence people to death---it was actually the Romans who crucified Jesus. This is in fact, is exactly what the Injīl teaches on the matter. The Jews were the proud instigators of the false charges against Jesus. However, Palestine was under Roman rule at that time and they had no authority to touch Jesus. If they would have killed him according to the sharia of the Torah, they would have stoned him to death, not ‘lifted up as the prophecies of Messiah predicted. Jesus himself even predicted beforehand that he would be killed not by the Jews but by the Gentile Romans (Matthew 20:19) Tabari and Razi, who had no direct access to the historical account in the Injīl, would not have known about this natural solution. But on an even deeper level, it was neither the Jews nor the Romans who killed Jesus, but it was Gods plan. It was very good illustration of this in Sura Anfal which says: It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allahs… – Sura Anfal 8:15 This passage describes the response of the Muslim warriors to their victory at the Battle of Badr. They were boasting and taking pride in what they considered their achievement until this passage corrected their error. The passage corrects their foolish boasting and instructs them to recognize that it was God who brought to pass all that happened that day. They were only the instruments that God used to fulfill His plan. In this same way, in Sura Nisa verse 157, God is telling the Jews that their boasting is totally unfounded and in error. They didnt kill the Messiah as they so proudly boast. What actually did happen to the Messiah is not the purpose of this passage to address However, as we know from the earlier books, it was the Romans who actually killed him, though it was Gods plan that brought it all to be. Perhaps the biggest reason that many cannot accept Jesus crucifixion is that it appears to be a humiliating defeat for the cause of Allah. However, the Qurān actually teaches that often in the past evil men have killed the prophets (2:61; 2:91, 3:21; 3:112, etc.). Jesus himself was well aware of his impending death beforehand when he said: I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. (John 10:17-18) Because of the resurrection Jesus death was a clear victory, because he was raised again from the dead by Gods plan father and seen by at least five hundred people in Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 15:6). The Swoon Theory Zakir Naik and Ahmad Deedat have recently popularized to the Muslim masses a Qadiani theory about Jesus death called the swoon theory which was first invented by Western atheists and then introduced to Muslims by the Qadianis. This theory is scorned by almost all scholars, even critics of Christianity, and it has obscured the truth of Scripture. I feel It would be helpful to give a little background on this swoon theory of Jesus crucifixion. This theory was first proposed by the European scholars Bahrdt and Venturini just two hundred years ago, almost eighteen hundred years after Jesus time. This view has not been widely held by non-Christian scholars since the 19th century rationalist theologian David Strauss dealt it a death blow. He wrote: It is impossible that a being who had stolen half dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill and wanting medical treatment... could have given the disciples the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of life: an impression that lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Strauss himself was an opponent of Christianity, but he admitted that this theory was particularly ridiculous and weak. Nowadays almost no Western scholar holds to this theory. However, a hundred years ago, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam, introduced Venturinis swoon theory to the Muslim world—while also claiming that he himself was the promised Messiah, the Mahdi, and a ‘subordinate prophet. Deedat preached this Qadiani swoon theory in South Africa, but respected Sunni leaders and publications condemned Deedats methods and opposed his swoon theory as a non-Muslim Qadiani theory which is not Muslim doctrine. While Deedat has gradually lost his credibility among Muslims in South Africa, his disciple Zakir Naik has revived Deedats theories in South Asia. Naik also has been condemned by Islamic scholars such as Darul Ifta of the Darul Uloom Deoband (Indias foremost Islamic centre of theological learning). They say of Naik that he is away from knowledge and wisdom, spreading mischievous things and misguiding simple Muslims to the wrong path This ‘swoon theory has all the same problems as the rejected substitution theory which Fakhruddin Razi listed some problems which Al-Razi lists which are also unanswered by the swoon theory: when we interpret the Qurān as correctly saying that it was not the Jews but the Romans that killed Jesus. The Qurānic passages are indeed unclear, and give no definite interpretation either way. Surah Al-Imran 3:7 warns against arrogantly reading ones own personal interpretation into unclear verses of the Qurān , which Zakir Naik seems to do so confidently. Where the Qurān is unclear regarding Jesus, it is obviously best to consult the Holy Injīl as the Qurān advises: And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee.. (Sura Yunus 10:94) If we do as the Qurān instructs and ask those who read the Injīl, then all doubt is removed. We come to understand not only the fact of Jesus death and resurrection and how it occurred, but also why he died - why it was Gods plan from ages past to have him die on the cross. Part 2 will follow in my next post .
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 08:36:36 +0000