The Portrait of Jesus in the Qur'an

J. Paul Rajashekar
[printer-friendly version - opens in new browser window]

In the current climate of a heightened curiosity about Islam and the Muslim world, an avalanche of literature has focused our attention on the political, social and cultural divide between Muslims and Christians. This upsurge is to be expected. Curiosity about Islam has often peaked in situations of conflict. This was true in the eighth century when the Muslim Moors conquered Spain, during the time of Western Christian Crusades from eleventh to thirteenth centuries, during the siege of parts of Europe by the Ottoman Turks in fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, or at the time of the "hostage crisis" in Iran in the late 1970s and during the "Gulf War" in the early 90s.

Fear and prejudice have played a major role in inhibiting Christian-Muslim understanding. Mutual anathemas have prevented meaningful interaction. From a Christian standpoint, Islam has been an enigma ever since its birth. Christian perception of Islam and the Muslim perception of Christianity in the course of history have been so distorted that it is not all that surprising that Christians and Muslims often have seen themselves as enemies. In the course of the last 1,400 years, Christians and Muslims have tended frequently to see themselves mutually as at war with each other. Given this history of conflict, one finds few instances of positive Christian-Muslim exchange. Sustained dialogue and interaction between the two faiths has not occurred. Prior to the modern missionary movement, Christians seldom displayed an interest in evangelizing the Muslims!

The current upsurge of new interest in Islam, I am afraid, follows the same historical pattern. But it also provides another opportunity for both Muslims and Christians to revisit mutual postures of prejudice and search for a better understanding of each other. Besides the cultural, social and political divide between the adherents of the two faiths, there exist profound theological disparities. These antagonisms are well known but insufficiently explored or understood in popular literature. Despite Abrahamic affinities in the two faiths a deep divide exists in their perceptions of Jesus.

Eighteenth-century Qur'an from Seminary library collections. Click for enlargement.

This brief essay is an attempt to expose the reader to the Quranic perspectives on Jesus. A qualified acceptance of Jesus, of both acknowledgement and disavowal, in Islamic belief has been the subject of Christian critique or polemic against Islam through the centuries. A divergent reading of Jesus’ role in history and in divine economy has been the source of theological friction between the two communities. Christians have not always understood the Muslim misgivings about Jesus within the framework of Islamic rationality. Much of the Christian response to Islam in history has been based on Christian apologetics against Judaism, which preceded Christianity. But that response has been inadequate against a religion that not only came after Christianity but also claims to supercede the Christian faith. It is imperative, therefore, that Christians seeking to understand Islam and the Muslim world in the current context first hear the Muslim meaning of Isa (the Arabic name for Jesus) in order to grasp the depth of theological disparities that exist between the two faiths. This essay is not an apologia for Islam or Muslim beliefs, but rather an exploration of the possibilities of a Christian-Muslim dialogue on Chistology.

The attempt here, for the most part, is to let crucial passages from the Qur’an speak for themselves, and my comments are primarily explanatory in nature, offered from a Christian perspective in the hope that they illumine divergences in understanding and disparities in theological rationality. Brevity of this essay prevents me from commenting on the issues of authority, exegetical difficulties, textual ambiguities, problems of translation and interpretation, the composite character of the Surahs (chapters) and other technicalities of Quranic texts. My citations are drawn from Readings in the Qur’an, selected and translated by Kenneth Cragg (Collins, 1988). Emphasis (in bold print) has been added to verses or phrases of the texts cited below as the focus of my exploratory comments.

Quranic Testimony to Jesus

Despite the Quranic acceptance of Jesus as a major prophet in the long line of God’s prophets from Adam to Muhammad, the Muslim scripture contains few or limited references to Jesus. There are no direct quotes of the sayings of Jesus as known in Christian Scriptures nor does a narrative description of his ministry appear in the Qur’an. References to Jesus are embedded in composite passages, thus making it difficult to weave a clear picture of Jesus or his ministry.

In his study on Jesus and the Muslim, Kenneth Cragg (George Allen & Unwin, 1985), to whom I am indebted for the following analysis, notes that the Qur’an contains about 90 verses in all that refer to Jesus. Among them no less than 64 are about nativity stories (Surahs 3:33-60; 19:1-36). Approximately 26 verses refer to the mission and ministry of Jesus. Much of the information is repetitious reducing the total further. What is striking to the Christian reader is a profound veneration and celebration of the sign of Jesus’ birth and his virginal conception, bestowing an unique status upon him, but the Qur’an precludes any attention to Jesus’ teachings, his signs of wonder, miracles or ministry. This "silencing" of Jesus’ teaching is surprising, but it may have been intentional so as to suggest to the Muslim believer that the Qur’an is the ultimate summation of all prophetic teachings, including that of Jesus. The Christian reader will indeed find it baffling, or even disappointing that the teachings of Jesus receives such a short shrift in the Qur’an. Here are some crucial passages concerning Jesus:

An Islamic Christology?

In light of the passages cited above it would appear inappropriate to speak of an Islamic "Christology." Even if one were to discern a "Christology" in the Muslim scripture, it is clearly subservient to an Islamic "THEOLOGY." The Muslim creed (Shahada) is emphatic in stating "There is no god, but God" (meaning there are no other gods besides God). A monarchial conception of God and an uncompromising stance toward God’s ultimacy in Quranic understanding deems it a shirk, a cardinal sin, to elevate or associate the created into the realm of the divine. Hence the Quranic insistence to add the phrase Ibn Maryam (son of Mary) following every reference to Jesus to underscore his created status. In this regard, the Muslim view, similar to the Jewish view, does not permit the bestowal of the status of divine "Sonship" to Jesus for fear of violating or compromising the divine transcendence and sovereignty.

Does "Christology" from a Christian perspective necessarily represent a compromise of divine transcendence? This is an issue at the heart of Christian-Muslim divide. Christians through the ages have believed that their claim that "God was in Christ" is no denial of divine sovereignty but rather a clear affirmation or clarification of it. God does not disassociate Godself from the creatures, and displays a profound "interest," hence the giving of the law and the sending of the prophets. It is the Christian claim that divine transcendence is clearly acknowledged and best expressed in Jesus as the "Christ". In Christian reckoning divine transcendence is not a transcendent isolation but involvement in creation which the Qur'an too acknowledges in the sending of prophets, but it denies the quality of suffering and compassion present in Christ the Prophet.

Nonetheless, the Qur’an affirms that Jesus is Messiah, understood in the sense of his servanthood and humility (4:172; 19:28-29) and in that sense Jesus is "anointed" to be "a messenger among the people of Israel." Any Christian connotation of "messiahship" is clearly precluded in the Qur’an. Jesus is a prophet and an "apostle," in the literal sense of that term, in the long line of prophets beginning with Adam. In Islamic reckoning "prophethood" implies simply a verbal task of communicating or transmitting or passing on a message. The message and the bearer of the message are distinct and cannot be intertwined. That the Qur’an makes no reference to Jesus’ teachings on the "kingdom of God," the Beatitudes, his parables and his intimate prayers to God the Father suggests that any notion of the prophet embodying the message in his personhood is rejected. In Quranic perspective the prophetic vocation is strictly to confirm and renew the truth that has already been bequeathed by revelations of God to earlier prophets. Jesus is "annointed" purely for the task of prophethood and teaching.

However, the Qur’an has no hesitation in referring to Jesus as a "word" (Kalimah) from God. But this reference is not to be construed in the sense of the Johannine prologue of the "word made flesh," but rather as a word of promise to Mary; as divine speech or verbal declaration, "Be! and it is" (3:45-47). Jesus comes into being by a miraculous word of promise to Mary and is entrusted with the vocation to announce God’s word in the world. Because the Qur’an lacks the biblical notion of the "only begotten" it disallows any idea of an incarnational theology. The Christian claim of divine "Sonship" implicit in Jesus’ servanthood (cf. Phil. 2:6) is an anathema in Muslim belief and his "messiahship" and "servanthood" caries no redemptive significance in the Qur’an.

The divergent understanding of the person of Jesus, by the Muslim and by the Christian, as evident in their respective scriptures, should not obscure the unifying fact that everything in Jesus was by divine authority. "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" (cf. Matt. 21:24) was a persistent question in the ministry of Jesus. The Qur’an too acknowledges the authority of Jesus as a "sign" from the Lord (Surah 3:50-51), but it would not go as far as the early church did in ascribing it to the authority of the cross and the resurrection.

Resurrection without the Cross?

The Qur’an recognizes the occupational hazard of being a prophet. In Surah 2:87 there is an explicit recognition that some of the messengers of God were put to death. Muhammad the Prophet himself experienced opposition from the Quraish in Mecca and had to flee to Medina (known as the hijrah in 622 CE). The saying attributed to Jesus, "Who are my helpers on behalf of God?" (3:52), and the response of the disciples, "We are the helpers of God," is, perhaps, reflective of Muhammad’s own travails than that of Jesus in the Gospels. And yet, the Qur’an insists that Jesus was not crucified or experienced an ignoble death. The heart of Christian creedal affirmation that Jesus "…was crucified under Pontius Pilate" is not only inconceivable but also unhistorical in Muslim view. It is not denied that people schemed to kill Jesus but the Qur’an is vehement in arguing that the cross neither happened nor was it a will of God.

This insistent denial of the cross, by its very negation in the Qur’an, warrants a closer scrutiny. Surah 3:55 has this puzzling sentence, where God addresses Jesus, "O Jesus, I am causing you to die and will exalt you to Myself, vindicating you from the people of unbelief…." This sentence comes close to the meaning of the Gospels in suggesting the suffering and death of Jesus as an act of self-giving caused by God and for God’s sake. A Christian reader would find this verse as a cryptic acknowledgement of Good Friday. However, the Qur’an would disallow such a reading. In Surah 4:157-159 one finds a rebuttal of the Christian claim, "As for their claim that they [Jews] killed the Messiah…the truth is they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him. They were under the illusion that they had…Assuredly they did not kill him. On the contrary, God raised him to Himself—God whose are all wisdom and power."

Interpreters of the Qur’an have had trouble in understanding this denial. Was the cross an "illusion," a false perception, an apparent act, a form of divine deception or a case of mistaken identity? All these possibilities have all been suggested by various interpreters or translators. The theological rationale for the Quranic denial of Good Friday lies in the Muslim conviction that a prophet is no true prophet if he is actually put to death. God would not allow his messengers to be discredited, disowned or humiliated and hence the crucifixion is not real but "apparent." If men schemed to kill Jesus, "God too, has His scheme of things and His prevails" (Surah 3:54). To preserve the credibility and authenticity of Jesus’ prophetic role, the Qur’an denies crucifixion and proposes an immediate deathless rapture or "Ascension" that "God raised him to Himself."

But the idea of a miraculous divine rescue or a rapture as suggested by certain passages in the Qur’an seems to contradict other passages where there are clear references to Jesus’ death (Surahs 19:33, 3:55). The claim that "God raised him to Himself" (Surah 4:157) would seem incomprehensible without positing some sort of a death. The Christian reader therefore is at a loss to understand the Quranic denial of Jesus’ cross and death on the one hand and its acknowledgement of his "resurrection to life" on the other. An a priori assumption that God would not or will not allow his prophets to be discredited contradicts the Quranic claim that affirms "God’s wisdom and power." To exclude the cross and the death of Jesus from the wisdom and power of God, from a Christian perspective, seems to negate the very Muslim claim, Allahu akbar (God is Great!). The sovereignty of God that Islam is so keen to protect at all costs in the end "limits" God by precluding God’s wisdom in the cross and suffering of Jesus!

It should be apparent that Islam is categorical in its stance toward Jesus to view him only in terms of a prophet and nothing more. His miraculous birth is celebrated, but any notion of incarnation rejected. His servanthood is esteemed, but his "Sonship" vehemently denied. He is accorded an exalted status by virtue of being "taken up," but the Qur’an precludes a victory over death. His message is never quoted directly, but is absorbed fragmentarily into the text of the Qur’an. What one finds then in the Qur’an is a profound acknowledgment and a deep disavowal, a recognition and a non-recognition, an acceptance and a rejection, all at the same time. Jesus in the Qur’an does not evolve into the Christ of Christian conviction, and his prophethood does not climax into the Incarnate Word of Christian theology. The clue to this deep divergence between Muslims and Christians lies in the Quranic disavowal of vicarious suffering or atonement, since Islam has no doctrine of original sin.

Contrary to Christian perception of Islam, the Qur’an places a strong emphasis on God’s mercy and compassion. Each of its chapters begins with the phrase, "In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate." These attributes of "mercy" and "compassion" include the idea not only of forgiveness, but also of a bounteous mercy that sustains, protects and rewards people. God forgave Adam for his sin of disobedience and made him a viceroy over the created order. Thus the sin of Adam has no lasting effect upon the subsequent generations. The Qur"an therefore emphasizes the moral responsibility and accountability of each believer before God. All humans are responsible for their own actions and will be judged according to the record found in the Book of Deeds (Surah 45:29-30). Hence there is no need of a redeemer or an intercessor. Thus on the day of the Last Judgment, each community will be judged by the standards brought by its prophets and Book and people will be forgiven or punished, consigned to heaven or hell, based on their deeds and the extent of their submission to the will of God. The sign of that Day of Reckoning, according to the Islamic tradition (hadith), will be the descent of Jesus as God’s witness against the resurrected tribes of all nations.

Courage for Dialogue

The Muslim misgivings summarized above may appear insurmountable, so as to discourage a meaningful dialogue between Christians and Muslims at present. However, the deep Christological divide between the two communities need not detain us in a mutual affirmation of Allahu akbar. The claim that "God is Great" is not an abstract statement. In Christian instincts God’s "greatness" and "love" are understood transitively that they include God’s condescension in humility, meekness, obedience and in the servanthood of Jesus. In the Christian claim, Jesus’ "Sonship," as a metaphor, is intended to accentuate or translate God’s "greatness" in the realm of the historical and the mundane.

Similarly, the claims that "God was in Christ" or "the Word became flesh" are by no means a denial of God’s sovereignty but rather an enhancement of it. Islam too recognizes this notion rather obliquely in terms of the prophetic agency but not in terms of redemptive identity. Islam as a religion of "submission" has somehow failed to grasp the full meaning of the submission in Jesus. The "cross" as the supreme symbol of human submission to God’s will becomes the very embodiment of God’s will and mind which is at the heart of the Christian claim. It is the onus of the Christian community to articulate that claim and the ontological significance it entails in dialogue with Muslims.

The contemporary mood of Muslims is such that a dialogue between Christians and Muslims may seem difficult or daunting at present. It seems that the heart of the Muslim claim that proclaims "God is Great" has been set aside and replaced by another claim Islamu akbar by some Muslims. No doubt political and ideological issues have encouraged a sense of militancy that has contributed to the perversity of Islam in some quarters. The pervasive feeling of Islamic self-sufficiency and consequently its strident attitude toward people of all other faiths, not simply Christian, may not be congenial for a dialogue on doctrines.

A distorted understanding of Jesus, especially a crude view of his "paternity" and a misunderstood notion of Christian "Trinity" as a form of polytheism, persist or abound in much of Islamic literature or in the mind of the Muslim. It takes a great deal of courage on the part of both Muslims and Christians to dispel false notions of each other and foster a dialogue that goes beyond inherited prejudices and deliberate distortions of others’ beliefs. The current curiosity about Islam and the Muslim world, I hope, bears fruit in a genuine courage and commitment for dialogue. Without such courage and commitment we all will be guilty of perpetuating a theology of hostility to which history so abundantly testifies.

Dr. J. Paul Rajashekar is Luther D. Reed Professor of Systematic Theology and Academic Dean of The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia. His email is Rajashekar@ltsp.edu.