A Study of Christ in Christianity and Islam

I have heard it said before that the only things that Christianity and Islam disagree on are those things they agree on. The person who told me this meant that while these two religions agree on many things, the things they hold in common are also the cause of the greatest amount of disagreement and friction. Among these commonalities is agreement on the identity of several prophets, namely those of the Old Testament. However, apart from Mohammed, there may be no greater point of conflict than the identity of Jesus Christ. It is impossible to understand Christianity without understanding Jesus Christ, and yet he is a prominent figure in Islam as well. The goal of this paper, then, is to examine and evaluate the Islamic understanding of the person and nature of Jesus Christ within the Qur’an and Islamic thought.

First, there is a linguistic element to consider: are the actual names for Jesus the same within the Bible and the Qur’an? The name Jesus comes from the Greek “Iesous,” which is a Hellenized version of the Aramaic name “Yesua.”[1] There are also scholars who claim that the Arabic name for Jesus, “Isa,” is more likely linguistically related to the Biblical name “Esau,” but Isa is similar to Yesua in its consonantal construction and Jesus is called Isa in both Arabic and Persian.[2] Therefore, it seems that there are no linguistic discrepancies to consider in our analysis and we can move on to the theological differences.

It is these theological considerations that are at the heart of the matter. For all the conflict and bloodshed over the disagreement of Jesus’ identity, the Bible and the Qur’an both affirm a few similar views. Firstly, they both affirm that Jesus was born of a virgin. The Gospel of Luke recounts this story (Luke 1:26-38; 2:1-20) and pays specific attention to, as Braswell notes, “the visit of the archangel Gabriel and the miraculous conception of Jesus.”[3] The Qur’an also gives an account of God selecting Mary to bear Jesus as a baby although she is still a virgin (Surah 3:45-49) yet the Bible goes into greater detail and mentions Mary’s fear (Luke 1:29-30) and her joy (Luke 1:46-56) while the Qur’an illustrates an outline of Jesus’ ministry (Surah 3:40).

Secondly, the Bible and the Qur’an both testify that Jesus performed many miracles. The Qur’an mentions that he healed the blind, lepers, and even raised the dead all by God’s leave (Surah 5:110) which are also attested to in the Bible (Matthew 9:6-7;14:20; Mark 1:34; John 11:43-44). Yet once again the Qur’an is brief in its attestation, providing the miracles in a list rather than as narratives: “and when thou createst out of clay… as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird… and thou healest the blind and the leper by My leave, and thou bringest the dead forth… (Surah 5:110).” In the gospels, we are given detailed accounts of the persons and places of Jesus’ miracles. While I understand that the crux of the Qur’an is not Jesus but rather Mohammed, Mohammed did not perform any miracle apart from receiving the Qur’an. It is therefore surprising, to me, that even though Jesus is not the core of the Qur’an, that it treats his miracles only briefly despite the great power that he shows.

Thirdly, Jesus shares several titles in both texts. He is called the Messiah (John 1:41: Surah 4:157 ), the Word of God (John 1:1; Surah 4:171) and a servant of God (Matthew 12:28; Surah 19:30). While the Qur’an also attributes the title Messiah to Jesus, the title of Messiah is never fully defined in the Qur’an, nor does it carry the same connotation of salvation that it does in the Old and New Testaments but rather marks Jesus as merely being in the same line of prophets as Abraham, Moses and later Mohammed.[4] Similarly, the Qur’an’s title of “servant of God” refers to one who submits, a “Muslim,” and also refers to the Old Testament prophet Isaiah:[5] “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations (Isaiah 42:1).” Therefore, the reference to Isaiah illustrates Jesus as being someone who is chosen by God (Surah 3:45-49) and who bears God’s spirit (Surah21:91). The judgment of the nations is not Jesus’ role according to the Qur’an, but only God’s (Surah 42:10).

However there are many differences in these two views concerning Jesus that, while we may attempt to minimize or gloss over in the name of pluralism, or in seeking not to offend anyone, would be irresponsible not to recognize. First among these points of tension is not that Jesus was born of a virgin necessarily, but rather the nature of this virgin birth. As Braswell notes:

The birth (of Jesus) is seen as a sign (aya) of Allah’s power and as a miraculous event. And Muslims have a high regard also for Mary. However, the Qur’an presents Jesus as the son of Mary and not as the Son of God. That would be blasphemy (shirk), that is, associating the divine nature of Allah with human nature. Jesus is a created being. In Surah 3 Jesus is compared to Adam in the sense that both were created by Allah and were without a father.[6]

Here we come to a foundational difference between Christianity and Islam. Whereas the Gospels affirm that God mysteriously fathered Jesus through the vehicle of the Holy Spirit, apart from the human act of procreation, the Qur’an not only does not affirm this, but has no room within its rubric of fatherhood to understand it at all. Thus we have a bizarre tension within the tradition of the Qur’an which on the one hand affirms that Jesus’ birth was a miracle, and that he performed many miracles, but on the other hand denies any of this as being important despite it being unique. That is why Zwemer notes that:

Although the Koran and Tradition give Jesus Christ a high place among the prophets, and affirm His sinlessness and power to work miracles, all this does not distinguish His person in any way as to its nature from other prophets who came before Him. The pre-existence of the Word of God is denied.[7]

There is much ado made by those who wish to see the tensions between Christianity and Islam put to rest about how the Muslims hold Jesus in such high regard. While putting aside that they do not hold him in high enough regard for many Christians, the simple questions remains: why? Why bother affirming the virgin birth of Jesus if it has no other significance? What is the point of this miracle?

There are other miracles which are not found in the Gospels which I find similarly difficult to understand. First is the account of Jesus asserting his role as an apostle of Allah when he is still in the crib (Surah 19:30) and the second is Jesus’ making the likeness of a bird come alive (Surah 5:110). The first miracle serves, I suppose, to save Mary’s character from being slandered under accusations of adultery for bearing the child Jesus out of wedlock. Therefore the first miracle serves to defend, if not glorify, Mary. The second is even more bizarre, having no reference in the Gospels. Barton attempts to explain this by asserting that “Many of the apocryphal miracles are related of Jesus.”[8] Now I certainly do not wish to be presumptuous, nor claim to know the mind of God, but it seems to me that such supernatural occurrences only in the life of one prophet, who is not the greatest prophet, begs for an explanation. While Jesus never fully explains why He did all of his miracles in the Gospel, we can easily see how Jesus used his miracles for the glory of God. For example, concerning Lazarus’ death Jesus says “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it… Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him (John 11:4; 14).” This miracle, like the others in the Gospel, is for the sake of the witnesses so that they may believe in the love, power and person of God. In the Qur’an we are left puzzling apart from some vague assent to the mysteries of Allah’s will. While we may not know the totality of God’s purposes for his miracles that does not mean that we may not understand the reason for God’s miracles in part. Our understanding may not be total but it can still be meaningful and also help us to testify to the greater glory of God.

There is also disagreement as to the virtue and holiness of Jesus Christ. The Bible clearly states that Jesus was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Yet, in Islamic theology, there seems to be some discrepancy on this issue. The Hadith asserts that every human being, when they are still in the womb, is touched by Satan and while Satan attempted to do likewise with Jesus, he touched the placenta instead.[9] If Satan touches every child in utero then this would seem to imply something like the Christian doctrine of original sin. Furthermore, in a long list of prophets sought out as an intercessor for the believers, the Hadith relays the individual prophets asked and the specific sin for why they cannot serve properly as such. However Jesus, in this story, is not given a reason to say why he is not able to serve as this intercessor, he only passes the theological buck to Mohammed.[10] Yet, as a Muslim apologist writes:

If one adduces evidence that a man – or for that matter men – had lives of absolute moral purity, the Christians’ view will fail instantly… The infallibility of the prophets stands as anathema to Christians who trade in atonement. Many Christians believe what the Gospels seem to say that men are of two kinds: evil-doers and righteous. If this is so, to turn around and paint everyone with the brush of sin is tantamount to denouncing the explicit teachings of the Gospels.[11]

Interestingly enough, one of these “men of moral purity” cited by the author is the Old Testament Judge Samson[12] who was hardly of upright moral character (Judges 14:2). The real confusion here, on the part of the author, is concerning what makes someone righteous. The author of Proverbs tells us that “For though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again, but the wicked are brought down by calamity (Proverbs 24:16).” Ajijola obviously has a person of perfect moral character in mind when he discusses the Biblical understanding of righteousness. But this is not the Biblical understanding at all. Indeed, a righteous man may yet fall and still be counted righteous. How then are we to understand the Biblical definition?

Jesus offers a parable of a lowly sinner and a Pharisee. The Pharisee thanks God that he is not like other man, and then asserts his own good deeds. The sinner can only beg God for mercy. Yet Jesus says the sinner, and not the Pharisee, was justified before God (Luke 18:9-14). Biblical righteousness, then, is not necessarily a state of sinlessness, but of honesty and penance before a holy God.

To clarify the point, the Hadith, which has authority within the Islamic tradition, asserts that only Jesus was untouched by Satan among all of mankind. Now, this seems to be a sort-of proto-original sin idea, or at least a nod to Jesus’ sinlessness. Yet the apologetic author asserts that other prophets were not evil-doers and therefore were righteous, in seeming contradiction to the Hadith. Now this one contradiction does not render the whole of Muslim apologetics a blatant contradiction, but it does show some confusion on the part of at least this particular author, and perhaps a greater confusion as a whole. This is also, I believe, the outworking of the nonsensical miracles attributed to Jesus which I mentioned earlier – there seems to be no reason to assent to Jesus’ sinlessness because while it is evidently acknowledged, there is no reason for this idea to be in Islamic thought because it serves no purpose.

Given the dubious Islamic assertion that there are righteous people, that is to say people who do not necessarily sin and who are free from original sin, there is no need for an atoning sacrifice. There is no universal judgment, from God, made against all mankind. Contrary to the prophet Isaiah, the righteousness of men is not like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6). “They were not by nature sinful, but weak and ignorant. And so they were in need not of a savior, but of teachers and guides.”[13] The presupposed need is not a moral one, but rather a carnal one. What is lacking is not a pure and unblemished soul, but the power and understanding of the world. Yet in the gospels Jesus tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). Here we find the second problem with the Islamic understanding of Jesus in the light of the gospels, the first being the inclusion of unnecessary and puzzling miracles: that the Islamic worldview is fundamentally carnal in its perception and understanding of reality.

This carnal understanding is quite prominent in Islamic understanding of the crucifixion, or lack thereof. The Qur’an states that while it seemed that Jesus had died and that the Jews had boasted of killing him (Surah4:156-158) that this was not actually the case. As Jesus’ enemies planned to kill him, so did Allah plan (Surah 3:54-55) to save him. Regardless, these verses appear to show that Jesus did not actually died, but Allah saved him and only made it seem as if Jesus had died. There is some disagreement within Islamic thought as how the aforementioned verses are to be understood. Braswell summarizes his findings by saying:

Some say that Jesus hid in a niche in the wall, and one of his companions died in his place. Others say that God sent angels to protect Jesus, and Judas Iscariot was made to look like Jesus and died in his place. Some believe that Simon of Cyrene was substituted while he was carrying Jesus’ cross. A traditional view held by Muslims is that the Jews tried to kill Jesus, but were unable to do so. They believe that Jesus was taken up into heaven to be with God.[14]

Although there are disagreements over the minutiae of what happened, the Qur’anic big picture is that Jesus was spared execution on the cross by Allah. Why the illusion of Jesus’ death? Ajijola answers this in his apologetics by asserting: “But the Jews… regarded him (Jesus) as an impostor, or granted that the Jews crucified him and he subsequently died on the cross the logical conclusion will be… that Jesus is accursed.”[15] Now, since the Qur’an claims Jesus to be an apostle (Surah 5:75, 19:30), The Jesus of the Qur’an cannot be crucified because they recognize, just as did the Christians and Jews, that “God’s curse rests on him who hangs from a tree (Deut. 21:8).” Yet in order to keep the name of Jesus from being dirtied in their eyes, they affirm that Allah took Jesus away in secret and replaced him with someone else. Given that people are not inherently sinful, the only possible explanation is that Allah exchanged Jesus for Judas, since Simon is not necessarily a sinner and to take one of Jesus’ companions instead would put an unfair curse upon the companion. Yet why the deception? Allah, like Yahweh, does not care about the mere opinions of people because he is far beyond and above them. Why then, did Allah not openly save Jesus, without deception? Jesus’ other miracles, done by Allah’s leave (Surah 5:110) are not done with some element of deception; presumably no illusions were involved when Jesus was healing the lepers and raising the dead.

Granted that I am not a scholar of Islam nor of Muslim culture, I can see one possible answer in the Islamic hatred of the image of the cross. This hatred of the cross is not necessarily due to the influence of the Crusades although I am sure that it did not help any, either. Muslim tradition holds that Mohammed despised the symbol of the cross to such an extent that anything bearing its symbol that he destroyed everything he brought to his house with that symbol upon it.[16] Hatred of the cross is also visible in the Islamic understanding of Judgment Day, when Jesus will evidently break the cross[17] and is present in current Islamic circles where, in some places, the cross is drawn on desert sand and defiled by children as a mark of their true standing as Muslims.[18] The carnal understanding of the cross makes it, as it was in the Old Testament and even in Jesus’ day, a sign of gross shame. It is therefore unthinkable that even the cross could be made into a sign of hope and of God’s love and power because, in this physical world, it is shameful.

There is, perhaps, no greater sense of the carnality of Islamic theology then in the understanding of Jesus being the begotten son of God. The Qur’an strongly states that Allah has never begotten a son:

Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector (Surah 4:171).

According to this aya, the Muslim concept of God is that of a strictly monad deity who is totally sufficient in and of himself. The Qur’an denied Jesus as the son of God in other passages as well (Surah 19:92; 23:91). Furthermore, Jesus never preached that he himself was the son of God (Surah 5:116). This stands directly against what the gospels claim (Matthew 4:3; 8:29; 14:33; 26:63 Mark 3:11; John 3:16; 5:8). Miller offers this explanation of the strong Muslim reaction against Jesus being the son of God:

Thinking of sonship in only the physical sense, the Muslim misunderstands and is repelled by the title which Christians delight to give to their Lord (Sura 2:110). Even when it is explained that Christ’s sonship is spiritual and not physical, and that he was from eternity the Son of God, the Muslim remains unhappy and unconvinced.[19]

Again, the carnal nature and rubric through which Islamic theology interprets Jesus’ sonship puts it at odds with the gospels. Personally, at least before I became a Christian, I understood religions to be concerned with things spiritual, supernatural and otherworldly. Yet in Islam I find just the opposite. I understand that Allah is seen to be God, and transcendent at that. Still, it only seems to be able to frame things within a purely material framework.

As the Koran always speaks of Jesus as the son of Mary, the declaration that he is the son of God makes Mary the consort of Deity, and against this interpretation they rebel. In the same way and for the same reason they deny that God is the father of men. Their conception of Allah is so exalted and his position is so vastly above all human relations, that they find it difficult to put him into paternal relations with men.[20]

It is important to remember that while the Muslim community, as a whole, views the world through a more carnal paradigm, it also certainly holds a very exalted view of a transcendent God who is not, as some Protestants are in the mistake of assuming, our “buddy.” God is not our equal nor our peer but rather an awesome, holy and loving God who is totally and absolutely beyond our comprehension. Yet “For God, who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6).” Therefore, while Allah is lofty and transcendent, the best that can be said about Jesus, while being born of a virgin, is that he is merely like Adam (Surah 3:59); a created, fatherless being.

The Muslim apologist offers the argument that many people in the Bible are called “son of God,” and he cites several verses (Exodus 4:22; Psalms 68:5; Matthew 5:9, Luke 3:8, 2 Cor. 6:18).[21] Sadly, Ajijola’s misunderstanding of these Biblical texts only proves that while Allah is transcendent, he is not close to his creation at all. There is no intimacy between Allah and his creation whereas Yahweh will call those who follow him a son of his own, and be their heavenly father, in a close and living relationship.

While the Bible and the Qur’an assert several similarities, those similarities are not deep. What divides the two is a cleavage between the Biblical understanding of the world in spiritual terms, and an Islamic view of the world in more carnal terms. This precommitment to a material understanding of the world is quite evident in Qur’anic interpretations of Jesus as being born of a virgin, but not being the son of God. Jesus is sinless, but certainly not anything more than a mere man. This, in turn, means that from the Muslim perspective mankind requires only guides and teachers to rescue itself from “ignorance and weakness,” which are often earthly concerns, rather than for a savior to save them from sin, death and estrangement from God. And yet because Allah is so distantly transcendent, and Islam denies the mediatory role of Jesus Christ, there is still estrangement from God because no one may be called his “son” in any spiritual, emotional or relational sense of the world.

Furthermore, because of Mohammed’s claim that he is coming from the same prophetic tradition as Moses and Jesus, he attempts to essentially make square pegs fit into round holes by attributing and acknowledging titles and miracles of Jesus without explaining their significance. Jesus is said to breathe life into the likeness of a bird, and to speak from the crib, yet these do not appear in the gospels and serve no purpose apart from vouchsafing Mary, his mother, as remaining a virgin. Jesus is called the Messiah, the spirit of God, he raises the dead, and is sinless but there are no consequences of these titles and miracles. In short, Jesus may as well have not been sinless nor performed any miracles, according to the Qur’an. Despite being such a powerful miracle worker and being totally sinless, there is nothing special about Jesus’ uniqueness in Islamic theology. The fact that these unique attributes and actions of Jesus are only briefly acknowledged and not expounded upon strikes me as Mohammed attempting to tie Christianity into Islamic heritage without being able to outshine Jesus himself in Islam, and he therefore ignores Christ’s ministry. Being the mouth of Allah, and the alleged last prophet of the only true religion gives Mohammed a certain freedom to edit and redact previous traditions that he has built upon, as he sees fit. He has given himself carte blanche to reshape theological history with the outworking being an inability to coherently and intelligibly deal with the person of Christ apart from His divinity which leaves us with the confusing and occasionally contradictory view of Jesus as expressed in Islamic theology.

Bibliography

Ajijola, A.D. Myth of the Cross. Chicago, IL: Kazi Publications, 1979.

Anas. “Hadith.” Vol 6 Book 60 Number 3. 2006. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.003

Barton, James L. The Christian Approach to Islam. Boston, MA: The Pilgrim Press, 1918

Braswell Jr., George W. Islam: Its Prophet, People, Politics and Power. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

Huraira, Abu. “Hadith.” Vol. 4 Book 54 Number 506. 2006. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/054.sbt.html#004.054.506

Miller, William M. A Christian’s Response to Islam. CO, USA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1976.

Tennent, Dr. Tim. Lecture Notes, WM/AP 647, 2006.

Zwemer, S.M. The Moslem Doctrine of God. New York: American Tract Society, 1905.

---

[1] “Jesus in Islam,” (www.wikipedia.org, 2006), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

[2] Ibid.

[3] George W. Braswell Jr., Islam: Its Prophet, People, Politics and Power (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996), 278.

[4] Dr. Tim Tennent. Lecture Notes, WM/AP 647, 2006.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Braswell, 279.

[7] S.M. Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God (New York: American Tract Society, 1905), 86.

[8] James L. Barton, The Christian Approach to Islam (Boston, MA: The Pilgrim Press, 1918), 158.

[9] Abu Huraira, “Hadith,” Vol. 4 Book 54 Number 506. 2006. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/054.sbt.html#004.054.506

[10] Anas, “Hadith,” Vol 6 Book 60 Number 3. 2006. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/060.sbt.html#006.060.003

[11] A.D. Ajijola, Myth of the Cross (Chicago, IL: Kazi Publications, 1979), 32.

[12] Ibid., 36.

[13] William M. Miller, A Christian’s Response to Islam (CO, USA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1976), 80.

[14] Braswell, 283.

[15] Ajijola, 44.

[16] Zwemer, 86.

[17] Ibid. 87

[18] Ibid. 87.

[19] Miller, 76.

[20] Barton, 268.

[21] Ajijola, 16.