Intertextuality: An Introduction

By: Ismail Moosa

The Qurʾān is the speech of God, impeccably preserved over a span of over fourteen centuries. Despite speaking at the level of the audience, being the speech of the Creator, it is expected to contain astounding precision and knowledge of things no human at the time could know. The Qurʾān implies in many verses that its miracle is, in addition to its eloquence, the knowledge that it contains[i]. This knowledge can be scientific in the sense that it relates to the way the world around us works, historical in that it contains details of history not known in the 7^th century Arabia, linguistic referring to the knowledge of other languages, or textual, meaning the knowledge of texts circulating in the ancient world. In order to prove precision and superhuman knowledge from any of the above aspects, it is necessary that there should be a sizeable amount of knowledge on the topic already that can confirm the precision of the Qurʾān[ii]. Since these fields have developed only in the last century or so, there is obviously a dearth of this type of discussion in classical works.

The topic of the Qurʾān’s knowledge of scientific facts has been and will continue to be the focus of many articles, papers and treatises. To an extent, its knowledge of historical facts has also been expounded upon. However, very little has been done with respect to the Qurʾān’s knowledge of other languages and of other texts from an Islamic perspective. There is a small yet growing body of literature on the topic of intertextuality in the Qurʾān. As will be explained, intertextuality is the field that studies one text’s interaction with other texts. In the case of the Qurʾān, intertextuality primarily deals with the Qurʾān’s engagement with Judeo-Christian material. Since some of this interaction is corrective with respect to belief, practice and history, intertextuality does contain examples of the Qurʾān’s historical precision. And since these texts are written in other languages, it also deals with examples of the Qurʾān’s knowledge of other languages.

Whilst the trend in Western academia was to discuss the alleged “sources” of the Qurʾān, this has changed in recent times with many non-Muslim academics realizing that there is a lot more going on than simple borrowing, some even going as far as to recognize the Qurʾān’s surgically precise corrective nature. As such, some of the literature on the topic, like Yaqeen Institute’s paper called “The Qurʾān’s Engagement with Christian and Jewish Literature”, focuses more on providing a framework for a Muslim to intellectually understand intertextuality in a way that does not constitute borrowing from corrupted sources. The purpose of this paper is different. It is simply to introduce by way of example the different levels at which the Qurʾān interacts with and corrects previous texts. This is to allow Muslims to use this as a strong piece of evidence for the Qurʾān’s divine authorship and also to allow ʿulamāʾ to begin to appreciate the depth in the verses of Qurʾān and the importance of knowing the texts it interacts with.

What is Intertextuality?

Broadly, intertextuality refers to the interaction of one ancient text with another. This can include using other texts as sources, referencing them, alluding to them, or correcting them. In the context of the Qurʾān, since the source is divine, using other texts as a source can be ruled out. The Qurʾān’s interaction with other texts, specifically Judeo-Christian ones, is a decidedly Qurʾānic concept. In chapter 27 verse 86 it states, “Indeed, this Quran clarifies for the Children of Israel most of what they differ over.” Further emphasizing this concept is Chapter 5 verse 48 that says, “We have revealed to you [O Prophet] this Book with the truth, as a confirmation of previous Scriptures and a supreme authority on them”.

From the perspective of a Muslim, the field of intertextuality has three core purposes. The first is to prove the divine origin of the Qurʾān to non-Muslims. The second is to experience firsthand the miracle of the Qurʾān in a way similar to the experience of those who were proficient in Arabic at the time of the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ. The third is to open up deeper meanings in certain verses and other exegetical possibilities. After providing a multitude of examples on intertextuality, its impact on exegesis will also be considered using the much-debated verse that denies the crucifixion of ʿĪsā ʿalayh al-salām.

Types of Intertextuality

Since there is not much written in the topic, any breakdown of the different types is sure to be arbitrary. For the purposes of this article, two major categories will be examined. The first is correctional intertextuality. This covers instances where the Qurʾān corrects certain factual errors in the Bible, some of which can be verified by modern historical methods. It also includes the correction of certain recurring themes and beliefs within the Judeo-Christian literature. The second is inter-linguistic intertextuality that deals with the Qurʾān and its use of subtle wordplays with other languages, predominantly Hebrew. The best way to get to grips with the field is to go through different examples.

Correctional Intertextuality: Factual errors

Example 1: The Bright Hand of Mūsā ʿalayhi al-salām

In the Tanakh, in the book of Exodus, Moses’ hand being white is attributed to leprosy.

“Then the Lord said, “Put your hand inside your cloak.” So, Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, the skin was leprous, it had become as white as snow.” [Exodus 4:6]

The Qurʾān directly corrects this by stating on three occasions[iii] that the whiteness was “not due to any illness” (min ghayr sūʾ).

Example 2: The Filial Piety of ʿĪsā ʿalayhi al-salām

In the Gospels, on more than one occasion, Jesus is presented as speaking disrespectfully to or about his mother.

“Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. [Mark 3:31-33]

“When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” [John 2:4]

The Quran emphasizes that ʿĪsā has always been dutiful to his mother. “And (He has made me) dutiful to my mother.” [19:32]

Example 3: God Does Not Rest

In the book of Genesis 2:2 it states that when God finished creating, he rested on the seventh day. This is reiterated in Exodus 31:17.

The Qurʾān on the other hand states, “Indeed, We created the heavens and the earth and everything in between in six Days,¹ and We were not [even] touched with fatigue.” [50:38]

The above consisted of corrections that could not be independently verified. The following two examples are in fact verifiable by modern historical knowledge.

Example 4: The Size of the Exodus.

The number of people that crossed the red sea with Moses as he escaped the Pharoah is not explicitly stated in the Bible, although it can be estimated. In Exodus 12:37, it says that there were 600 000 men excluding women and children. This should mean that the total number of people was around 1.5 million. This number is unrealistic for multiple reasons such as:

1. There are no archaeological records whatsoever for their forty years of wandering in the desert, which is unthinkable for so many people.
2. They were only 70 people 400 years prior.
3. The Egyptian population being around 5 million at the time.

The Qurʾān however paints a different picture. It quotes Pharoah as saying, “These [outcasts] are just a handful of people” [26:54] indicating that the number of people that made the exodus was not that large.

Example 5: The Title of the Ruler of Egypt

As is commonly known, the ruler of ancient Egypt was called Pharoah. However, this title only began to exist around the 15^th century BCE. The Bible describes events in Egypt at the time of Abraham (20^th century BCE), Joseph (18^th century BCE) and Moses (14^th century BCE). In each instance, it uses the term Pharoah which is anachronistic in the first two. The Qurʾān however, whilst not discussing Abraham in Egypt, refers to the rulers of Egypt at the time of Joseph and Moses by their historically correct titles. When referring to the king of Egypt at the time of Joseph the Qurʾān uses the word malik (king) and at the time of Moses it uses the word firʿawn (pharoah)

Correctional Intertextuality: Thematic and Theological Errors

The following examples are less about correcting factual historical errors and more about the overarching themes in the Bible that are problematic and corrected by the Qurʾān. This will consist of three broad themes.

Theme 1: The Notion of the Jewish People Being Unconditionally Chosen

Throughout the Tanakh, the scripture of the Jews referred to by Christians as the Old Testament, the intense focus on the Jewish people together with specific verses that proclaim their superiority give the impression that they will always be a select group of God no matter what. Despite many verses of the Bible restricting these promises to the obedient ones only, there are yet others within the Tanakh and in the Rabbinic material that unrestrictedly grant favor to the Israelites and laud them over other nations. The Qurʾān does state that the Jews were given favour in 2:47 and 2:122 but also juxtaposes this with the fact that this favour was due to the responsibility they had borne of carrying the light of monotheism to the gentiles which they did not fulfill (3:187). Therefore, the best of people now are those who follow the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ (3:110).

There are many places in which the Qurʾān corrects this thematic error. The first that we will examine is God’s covenant with Abraham. In the Bible, it appears as though his descendants will inherit the land no matter what and all of them are part of the covenant. Notice how the Qurʾān restricts it.

I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God. [Genesis 17:7-8]

“[Remember] when Abraham was tested by his Lord with [certain] commandments, which he fulfilled. Allah said, “I will certainly make you into a role model for the people.” Abraham asked, “What about my offspring?” Allah replied, “My covenant is not extended to the wrongdoers.” [02:124]

The second example of the Qurʾān correcting the notion of Israelite supremacy stems from an example given in Sifrei Devarīm, a commentary on the book of Deuteronomy. It says:

A man sent his ass and his dog to the granary, where fifteen se ʾ ah[iv] [of grain] were loaded atop the ass and three se ʾ ah on the dog. The ass walked and the dog strained to breathe, his tongue lolling. He cast aside one se ʾ ah and placed it atop the ass and then did the same with the second and then the third. This is how Israel accepted the Torah, together with its commentaries and its minutiae. Even those seven commandments that the Noahides could not abide and cast aside, Israel came and accepted. [Sifrei Devarim 343-6]

In this parable the Jews boast regarding their fulfillment of the Torah and lack of such from the other nations. The Qurʾān flips this parable on its head in the following verse by using the same comparison of a donkey but changing it from a positive comparison to a negative one. “The example of those who were entrusted with [observing] the Torah but failed to do so, is that of a donkey carrying books. How evil is the example of those who reject Allah’s signs! For Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people.” [62:5]

The third example, also stemming from Rabbinic literature, is with respect to the severity of taking human life. However, one example proffered by the Jews in the Talmud restricts it only to the life of an Israelite.

The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world. [5:32]

The Qurʾān, together with making the statement universal, also adds extra clauses that make it much more practical.

Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. [5:32]

Theme 2: Life after death

A fact that startles many Muslims is that the Jewish scripture, the Tanakh, contains almost no mention of judgement day and the hereafter. As a result, many Jews are agnostic about this although it is accepted in later Rabbinic writings. There are a handful of stories in the Tanakh that purport to speak about the acquisition of the land of Israel. When we look at the Qurʾānic equivalent of these stories we see that what the Biblical stories portrayed as being about the Israelite nation taking the land are actually about the resurrection of the dead before the day of judgement. To better understand this, observe the following Qurʾānic verses followed by their Biblical counterparts.

Or [are you not aware of] the one who passed by a city which was in ruins. He wondered, “How could Allah bring this back to life after its destruction?” So, Allah caused him to die for a hundred years then brought him back to life. Allah asked, “How long have you remained [in this state]?” He replied, “Perhaps a day or part of a day.” Allah said, “No! You have remained here for a hundred years! Just look at your food and drink, they have not spoiled. [But now] look at [the remains of] your donkey! And [so] We have made you into a sign for humanity. And look at the bones [of the donkey], how We bring them together then clothe them with flesh!”¹ When this was made clear to him, he declared, “[Now] I know that Allah is Most Capable of everything. [2:259]

In the Biblical story, the prophet Ezekiel asks not about life after death but about Israel returning to its former glory after exile.

⁴ Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! ⁵ This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath^[a] enter you, and you will come to life. ⁶ I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

⁷ So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. ⁸ I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

⁹ Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” ¹⁰ So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

¹¹ Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ ¹² Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. ¹³ Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. ¹⁴ I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’ [Ezekiel 4:13]

Another example of this is found in the very next verse of the Qurʾān wherein Allah tells us of Abraham asking Him how the dead will be resurrected.

And [remember] when Abraham said, “My Lord! Show me how you give life to the dead.” Allah responded, “Do you not believe?” Abraham replied, “Yes I do, but just so my heart can be reassured.” Allah said, “Then bring four birds, train them to come to you, [then cut them into pieces,] and scatter them on different hilltops. Then call them back, they will fly to you in haste. And [so you will] know that Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. [2:260]

The Biblical story on the hand speaks about Abraham asking for a sign that he will get the land of Israel although it is unclear what the sign eventually is.

The Lord also told him, “I am the Lord, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But Abram replied, “Lord God, how can I know that I will possess it?” And the Lord said to him, “Bring Me a heifer, a goat, and a ram, each three years old, along with a turtledove and a young pigeon.” So, Abram brought all these to Him, split each of them down the middle, and laid the halves opposite each other. The birds, however, he did not cut in half. And the birds of prey descended on the carcasses, but Abram drove them away. As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and suddenly great terror and darkness overwhelmed him. [Genesis 15:7-12]

Theme 3: The Divine Protection (ʿiṣmah) of the Messengers

Throughout the Bible, aspersions are cast against many of Prophets. The Qurʾān often corrects this by heaping praise upon the Prophets in general terms. For example:

• The Qurʾān refers to Solomon and Job as “how wonderful a servant” (38:30) (38:44)
• And remember Our servants: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the men of strength and insight. We truly chose them for the honor of proclaiming the Hereafter. And in Our sight, they are truly among the chosen and the finest. (38:45-47)
• [We also guided] Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot, favoring each over other people [of their time] (6:86)
• Also remember Ishmael, Elisha, and Ⱬul-Kifl.¹All are among the best. (38:48)
• The Qurʾān also refers to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Aaron and Elijah as “our believing slaves” in chapter 37.
• The Qurʾān says the following after mentioning 18 different messengers. “and We chose them and We guided them to a straight path.” (6:87)

In addition to these general praises, in some instances the Qurʾān directly corrects the Biblical aspersions. Three examples will be given.

Sulaymān ʿalayhi al-salām:

In the Bible, Solomon is portrayed as having committed idolatry and worshipped other Gods.

 In his old age, his wives tempted him to follow other gods. He was no longer committed to the Lord his God as his father David had been. ⁵ Solomon followed Astarte (the goddess of the Sidonians) and Milcom (the disgusting idol of the Ammonites). ⁶ So Solomon did what the Lord considered evil. He did not wholeheartedly follow the Lord as his father David had done. ⁷ Then Solomon built an illegal worship site on the hill east of Jerusalem for Chemosh (the disgusting idol of Moab) and for Molech (the disgusting idol of the Ammonites). ⁸ He did these things for each of his foreign wives who burned incense and sacrificed to their gods. [ 1 Kings 11:4-8]

In the Qurʾān, in addition to the aforementioned praises, it also says, “And Solomon did not go into unbelief” [2:102].

Hārūn ʿalayhi al-salām:

According to the Biblical narrative, Aaron was involved in building the golden calf that the Israelites worshipped.

² Aaron answered them, “Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me.” ³ So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. ⁴ He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods,^[b] Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” [Exodus 32:2-4]

The Qurʾānic narrative on the other hand has al-Sāmirī building the golden calf. It also explains that Hārūn ʿalayhi al-salām warned the people against worshipping this calf and reminded them that Allah is their God.

They argued, “We did not break our promise to you of our own free will, but we were made to carry the burden of the people’s [golden] jewellery,¹ then we threw it [into the fire], and so did the Sâmiri.” Then he moulded for them an idol of a calf that made a lowing sound. They said, “This is your god and the god of Moses, but Moses forgot [where it was]! Aaron had already warned them beforehand, “O my people! You are only being tested by this, for indeed your [one true] Lord is the Most Compassionate. So, follow me and obey my orders.” [20:87-90]

Dāwūd ʿalayhi al-salām:

Perhaps the most interesting example is that of David and his alleged affair with Bathsheba as explained in the Bible.

² One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, ³ and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” ⁴ Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. ⁵ The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.” [1 Samuel 11:2-5]

The Lord sent Nathan to David. When he came to him, he said, “There were two men in a certain town, one rich and the other poor. ² The rich man had a very large number of sheep and cattle, ³ but the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb he had bought. He raised it, and it grew up with him and his children. It shared his food, drank from his cup and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him.

⁴ “Now a traveler came to the rich man, but the rich man refrained from taking one of his own sheep or cattle to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him. Instead, he took the ewe lamb that belonged to the poor man and prepared it for the one who had come to him.”

⁵ David burned with anger against the man and said to Nathan, “As surely as the Lord lives, the man who did this must die! ⁶ He must pay for that lamb four times over, because he did such a thing and had no pity.”  Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! [2 Samuel 12:1-6]

The Qurʾān does not directly speak about the incident, but after praising David profusely it then mentions the example of the rich man and the poor man and alters it to show that David was not sinful.

Has the story of the two plaintiffs, who scaled the [wall of David’s] sanctuary, reached you [O Prophet]? When they came into David’s presence, he was startled by them. They said, “Have no fear. [We are merely] two in a dispute: one of us has wronged the other. So judge between us with truth—do not go beyond [it]—and guide us to the right way. This is my brother.¹ He has ninety-nine sheep while I have [only] one. [Still], he asked me to give it up to him, overwhelming me with [his] argument.” David [eventually] ruled, “He has definitely wronged you in demanding [to add] your sheep to his. And certainly, many partners wrong each other, except those who believe and do good—but how few are they!” Then David realized that We had tested him, so he asked for his Lord’s forgiveness, fell down in prostration, and turned [to Him in repentance]. [38:21-24]

In this story, the man does not steal the ewe but rather asks for it. Thus, this implies that David did not commit a sin as suggested by the Bible and rather did something permissible.

Inter-linguistic Intertextuality

The Names of The Prophets

In multiple places in the Qurʾān, there is a wordplay on the meaning of the name of a prophet before or after the prophet’s name. See the following five examples.

1. Isḥāq ʿalayhi al-salām. The name Isḥāq in Hebrew means “the one who laughs”. We see how this is utilized in the following verse of Qurʾān. “And his wife was standing by, so she laughed,¹then We gave her good news of [the birth of] Isaac (which means he who laughs)” [11:71]
2. Yaʿqūb ʿalayhi al-salām. The name Yaʿqūb in Hebrew, and possibly in Arabic as well, means one who follows or comes after. In the same verse as the above, we find wordplay on the meaning of this name. “after Isaac, Jacob.”
3. Zakariyyā ʿalayhi al-salām. The word Zakariyyā in Hebrew means God remembers or mentions and could be rendered in Arabic as dhikr Allah. We see this manifested in the following verse. “[This is] a mention of the mercy of your Lord to His servant Zechariah” [19:2]
4. Yaḥyā ʿalayhi al-salām. The word Yāḥyā in the Qurʾān refers to John the Baptist. In Hebrew his name is Yoḥanān which means compassion that comes from God. This is how he is described in the Qurʾān. “(and we granted him) compassion from Us”
5. Nūḥ ʿalayhi al-salām. The name Noah in Hebrew means to come to rest in peace. In the Quran, he is addressed as follows. “O Noah! Come down (from the Ark) with peace from Us.” The words used, ihbiṭ bi salām, are an exact translation of Noah.

Other Interlinguistic Intertextuality

1. We hear and we disobey. In the Qurʾān Allah describes how He took the covenant of the Israelites and their response. “And when We took your covenant and raised the mountain above you [saying], “Hold firmly to that [Scripture] which We have given you and obey,” they answered, “We hear and disobey.”” [2:93]

Commentators of the Qurʾān, for various reasons, did not believe that the Israelites actually told Allah directly “we disobey”. So, they interpreted it to mean that they said we obey but their actions thereafter can be expressed via the phrase “we disobey” or this is what they had in their hearts. When we look at the Biblical story and examine the Hebrew therein, a beautiful play on words can be observed. The verse reads, “We will listen and obey.” However, what is startling is that the Hebrew for we hear and we obey is shamānū wa ʿaṣīnū. In other words, in Hebrew, samiʿnā wa ʿaṣaynā means we hear and we obey but in Arabic it means we hear and we disobey. Thus, it appears Allah quoted their words but gave it a different meaning.

2. Drinking the calf. In the same verse, chapter 2 verse 93, Allah says, “The love of the calf was rooted in their hearts because of their disbelief”. The word used for rooted in their hearts is ushribu fī qulūbihim al-ʿijl which literally means they were made to drink the calf. The meaning of drinking is not taken because it says “in their hearts” which implies that it cannot be literal drinking. Interestingly the Bible says the following. “As Moses approached the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, he burned with anger and threw the tablets out of his hands, shattering them at the base of the mountain. Then he took the calf they had made, burned it in the fire, ground it to powder, and scattered the powder over the face of the water. Then he forced the Israelites to drink it.”

The Epistemic Weight of Intertextual Links

From the preceding examples, it is evident that the Qurʾān engages with other scriptures in a corrective fashion. This fact, although largely overlooked by Muslims, is relatively uncontroversial. However, there does exist a situation wherein tension can arise between the intertextual implications of a text and the exegesis given by scholars. Every example so far has been a case of intertextuality providing an additional angle or layer to the understanding of the verse without overriding the popular exegetical trends. However, what happens when there appears to be a case of intertextuality that, if taken into consideration, would mean the mufassirūn were incorrect?

There are two essential points to consider. The first is that intertextual links were not available easily to the Ṣaḥābah and the early centuries of Muslims. We would thus expect the core message of the verses of the Qurʾān to be understandable without them. The second is that the Qurʾān definitely does interact with previous scriptures. We would thus expect to get more clarity about certain verses due to knowing these intertextual links. When combined, the above two points result in the following exegetical methodology.

1. If there is consensus of the scholars over the meaning of a verse, an intertextual link cannot override this. It can merely add new layers.
2. If there is difference of opinion amongst the scholars, then an intertextual link can bring about a new meaning and override the other interpretations.

It should be noted that in one verse, certain aspects could be agreed upon whilst others debated.

A Case Study: The Alleged Crucifixion of ʿĪsā

Chapter 4 verse 157 and 158 of the Qurʾān read as follows:

And they (the Jews) (were condemned) for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they neither killed nor crucified him—it was only made to appear so.¹ Even those who argue for this [crucifixion] are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever, making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him.

The unanimous view of scholars is that ʿĪsā was not killed nor was he crucified, but rather Allah saved him and raised him up to the heavens. The way in which he was saved varies amongst exegetes with the most famous being some sort of substitutionary model. Most exegetes, if not all, appear to hold the view that this verse means that he has not been killed nor crucified and is understood as wa mā qutila wa mā ṣuliba (he was not killed nor was he crucified) instead of “they (the Jews) did not kill him nor crucify him.

Some contemporary scholars have suggested that the purport of the verse serves only to rebut the Jewish boasting and is silent on whether ʿIsā was actually killed or crucified. In other words, the verse is only negating the fact that they (the Jews) killed and crucified him and not that he was killed or crucified. They support their position using the following proofs, the last of which is intertextual.

• The entire context of the verse, taking into account the preceding verses, is to rebut Jewish claims. It is not to upend the popular Christian narrative.
• The alleged crucifixion is believed to have been enacted by the Romans and thus saying that the Jews did not kill him does not detract from the widely spread understanding.
• When we look to the Talmud, we see that the Jews did make this claim of killing and crucifying ʿĪsā. “On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning.” [Sanhedrin 43a] However, their claim is substantially different from the Christian understanding as they claim they stoned him to death and then crucified him postmortem. This is why the verse has ṣalabūhu after qatalūhu.

Reverting back to the rudimentary methodology proposed earlier, is this interpretation valid? There are a few considerations. Firstly, is the consensus of the scholars simply that ʿĪsā was not killed nor crucified or is it also that this specific verse on its own means that he was not killed nor crucified by anyone? If it is the latter, the entire theory cannot be entertained. If it is the former only, then perhaps the verse can be interpreted as above whilst also believing that ʿĪsā was not crucified by the Romans or anyone for that matter. This can be achieved by accepting that the verse itself only refutes the Jewish claim and is silent on the Roman crucifixion whilst other verses (5:110 and4:158) and the consensus negate any sort of crucifixion. It can also be achieved by believing that whilst the verse explicitly targets the Jewish claim of crucifixion, the point is to negate the entire event and not only this iteration of it. Before even entertaining the notion of this other interpretation and its ramifications, one would have to be sufficiently convinced that the Qurʾān does in fact interact with the Talmud in such a way that makes this interpretation probable, something that may vary from scholar to scholar.

[i] See 3:44, 11:49, 12:102, 16:103, 20:33, 28:44-46

[ii] The Qurʾān does not stand in need of confirmation from these external sources. But these can act as supporting pieces of evidence to those who view them as sources of authority.

[iii] 20:22, 27:12 and 28:32.

[iv] A unit of measurement