Salam Alaykum

I would like to know whether Ahmad Deedat's views on how Isa (AS) was saved are acceptable to the Muslim Ulama.

To summarize, Deedat held that Isa (AS) was physically put on the cross, but his enemies took him down too fast, thus unable to kill him. He quotes the Bible extensively, of course, but I would like to know if such a view is acceptable to any of the scholars of Islam, past or present.

Ahmad deedat was is not exactly a scholar of Islam, he was a scholar on comparitive religion, mainly christianity (bible). He may have made errors.

Now to answer you question, the answer is no. No scholars I know of holds that view.

The issue is that I asked one student of knowledge (not exactly a student, but he is well-acquanted with different positions), and he told me that some Muslim scholars had held that Isa (AS) did die and will be resurrected later on for his second coming.

So I am also wondering about Ahmad Deedat's views and Muslim scholars. Of course, since Deedat used the Bible, then he was bound to make conclusions from there mostly, as anyone who has read his works knows.

Well, I don't know what some other scholars said, they will have a hard time affirming that the prophet Isa died.

Firstly it is clear from the Quran he was not cruficied nor killed. He was taken up.

Secondly their are hadith that say's Isa bin maryam was taken up alive and he will come back alive during the time of dajjal. He will do his job than die, and will be resurrected on the day of Judgement

Bro ae you sure he said that? can you give me evidence?

As far as I know his belief was that Isa bin maryam did not die nor killed but was raised up alive.

you might want to read this: http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?re...ahmad%20deedat

It is in the Sheikh Deedat's book The Choice, Volume 2. However, he mentions that Nabi Isa did not die, instead he fell unconscious because of the trauma (of being crucified and nailed to the cross) and when the soldiers believed he was dead, they took his body down and had his companions bury him. Then, the prophet recovered, injured but alive.

Some scholars agree to his theory, but others opt for the substitution theory instead (that Isa alayhi salaam was taken up and somebody else was made to appear as him).

Bro, the intial question was Jesus dying and being ressurected. Which is not true. Read the third post.

Secondly their is not evidence from the Quran and the sunnah that Jesus lost concious,that he was buried but was alive and recovered.

Here is further evidence:

b) Shaykh Ahmed Deedat (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

They did not crucify him or kill him, but it seemed to them that they had done so, but they did not crucify or kill the Messiah, because it is certain that they did not kill him. This is how the Muslims understand the confusion about the crucifixion and killing of the Messiah, which is that they did not kill him but this is what they thought and believed that they had done.

Jesus – God, man or myth? (p. 112).

(c) And he (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

The one who was crucified was another person who resembled him. The Gospel of Barnabas confirms the view which says that another person was killed instead of him on the cross. This is in accordance with our view, the Muslims. The confusion arose because they killed another person who resembled him.

Jesus – God, man or myth? (p. 138)

Bro, I am more inclined to believe that the prophet was taken up alive and someone else was substituted in his stead. This is because the Quranic notion is that he was never crucified to begin with;

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (Surah an-Nisaa', 4:157)

Maybe someone can explain better.

Muslim Knight,

Actually based on that verse alone it would seem that either opinion could go. What other supporting evidence is there to suggest he wasn't anywhere near the cross?

EDIT: (Spelling correction, incase some people get the wrong idea)

you beat me to it.

lol soz that was his second question.

because he was not crucified.