|
The Crucifixion of Christ:
A Fact, not Fiction
by
John Gilchrist
THE CRUCIFIXION: FACT, NOT FICTION
1. Did Jesus Plan an Attempted
Coup?
2. The Image of Jesus in Deedat's
Booklets
3. Did Jesus Defend Himself at His
Trial?
4. The Theory that Jesus Survived the
Cross
5. Wild Statements in Deedat's
Booklet
6. Gospel Truths Deliberately
Suppressed by Deedat
The Crucifixion: Fact, not Fiction
The Bible is an anvil on which many hammers have been
broken, yet its enemies never tire of attempting to make
some impression on it. Ahmed Deedat of the Islamic
Propagation Centre in Durban made little headway with his
booklet "Was Christ Crucified?" even though over a hundred
thousand copies were eventually distributed, but instead of
abandoning his project he has published a new attack on the
Christian faith in the form of his booklet "Crucifixion or
Cruci-fiction?"
The whole theme of this publication is that Jesus was a
man of weak temperament and character who plotted an
unsuccessful coup in Jerusalem and who fortuitously survived
the cross. This theory has no Biblical foundation and is
contradicted by the Qur'an which teaches that Jesus was
never put on a cross (Surah 4.157). It is promoted only by
the Ahmadiyya cult of Pakistan which has been declared a
non-Muslim minority sect. Only Deedat knows why he continues
to espouse the cause of a discredited cult and why he
advocates a theory that is anathema to true Christians and
Muslims alike.
In this booklet we shall set forth a refutation of
Deedat's publication, concentrating solely on the subject at
hand without dealing with many issues in his treatise where
he goes off at a tangent or writes purely rhetorically.
1. DID JESUS PLAN AN ATTEMPTED COUP?
Deedat constantly employs a theme in the early part of
his booklet to the effect that Jesus planned a coup during
his last week in Jerusalem which eventually had to be
aborted. Under the heading 'An Aborted Coup' he says "...
his high hopes did not materialise. The whole performance
fizzled out like a damp squib..." (Deedat, Crucifixion or
Cruci-fiction?, p. 10). It must come as a surprise to all
Christians and Muslims to hear a new argument, first
conceived nearly twenty centuries after the event, that
Jesus was planning a political coup. For the one thing Jesus
constantly avoided was any involvement in the politics of
his day. He refused to be drawn into debates on the merits
of paying taxes to the Roman oppressor (Luke 20. 19-26),
withdrew from the crowds when they wanted to make him a
political leader (John 6.15), and regularly taught his
disciples not to be like those who sought political power
(Luke 22.25-27).
The Jews did everything they could to convince Pilate,
the Roman governor, that Jesus was advocating a revolt
against Caesar (Luke 23.2) and yet even Deedat, in an
unguarded moment, is constrained to admit that this charge
"was absolutely false" (p.27). It is thus of great
significance to find that even Deedat acknowledges that
Jesus "did not look like a Zealot, a political agitator, a
subversive person, a terrorist!" (p.27) and goes on to say
in his booklet:
His was a spiritual kingdom, a ruler to rescue his nation
from sin and formalism.
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p.27).
It is therefore all the more remarkable to find him
attempting to prove elsewhere in his booklet that Jesus was
indeed plotting a political coup to deliver the Jews from
their overlords. His comments on page 27 of his booklet
unwittingly pull the carpet right out from underneath his
own thesis! He admits that Jesus was not planning a
revolution.
The theory is in any event absurd as appears from an
analysis of some of Deedat's arguments in its favour and we
shall briefly consider these to prove the point. We begin
with his treatment of Jesus' statement just before his
arrest that those of his disciples who had no sword should
sell their garments and buy one (Luke 22.36). He interprets
this to mean that Jesus was calling them to arms and to
prepare for a jihad a "holy" war, whatever that might be.
What followed on this statement of Jesus is of great
significance. His disciples said:
"Look, Lord, here are two swords". And he said to them,
"It is enough".
Luke 22.38
Two swords would hardly be "enough" to stage a revolution
and it is obvious that Jesus meant "enough of that", that
is, your misunderstanding of what I am saying. Nevertheless,
because he is trying to convince his readers that Jesus was
planning a coup, he is at pains to argue that two swords
would have been enough to overthrow the whole Jewish
hierarchy in Israel and immediately thereafter their Roman
overlords! As is to be expected, his argument is hardly
persuasive. He resorts to further flights of fancy in
suggesting that Jesus' disciples were "armed with sticks and
stones" (p.13) like some riotous mob. There is not a shred
of evidence in the Bible to support this claim, raised by
Deedat purely to try and mitigate the strange anomaly that
Jesus would consider two swords sufficient to stage a major
revolt! At another place Deedat says:
The disciples of Jesus always misunderstood
him.
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-fiction?, p.23).
The word "always" is in bold print in this quote in his
booklet. Once again Deedat has unwittingly contradicted
himself for, if Jesus intended that his disciples should arm
themselves to the hilt as Deedat suggests, then his
disciples understood him perfectly, for this is precisely
what they took his statement to mean. But he is right in
saying that the disciples regularly misunderstood him - here
as much as at any other time. We need to consider what Jesus
said just after saying that they should purchase swords to
get a better understanding of this matter. He said:
"For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in
me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is
written about me has its fulfillment".
Luke 22.37
The scripture he quotes is from Isaiah 53, a prophetic
chapter written about seven hundred years beforehand in
which the prophet Isaiah foresaw the suffering of the
Messiah on behalf of his people in which he would make
himself an offering for sin (Isaiah 53.10). The whole verse
from which Jesus quoted reads as follows:
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the great, and
he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he
poured out his soul to death, and was numbered with the
transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made
intercession for the transgressors.
Isaiah 53.12
Jesus plainly stated that this prophecy was about to be
fulfilled in him and its meaning is abundantly clear. He
would "pour out his soul to death" the following day on the
cross and would be "numbered with the transgressors" (he was
duly crucified between two thieves - Luke 23.33). Yet he
would "bear the sin of many" as he atoned for the sins of
the world on the cross and would "make intercession for the
transgressors" (he prayed for his murderers from the cross -
Luke 23.34). Because of this gracious work God would grant
him to "see the fruit of the travail of his soul and be
satisfied" (Isaiah 53.11) and would give him "the spoil" of
his victory - a clear prediction of his resurrection.
Deedat ignores the full statement of Jesus because it
contradicts his purpose, but it is surely clear that Jesus
was anticipating his crucifixion, death and resurrection as
the Saviour of the world and was not planning a coup as if
he were a common upstart. The imminent events would take
Jesus away from his disciples, and his exhortations to buy
purses, bags and swords was a colloquial way of advising
them to prepare to earn their own living once he had gone.
Central to Deedat's theme of an abortive coup is the
argument that the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem a week
earlier among a crowd of disciples hailing him as the
Messiah was a march on Jerusalem. He uses these exact words
when he says:
The march on Jerusalem had fizzled out.
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.21).
Under the heading 'March into Jerusalem' Deedat
acknowledges that Jesus expressly rode into the city seated
on a donkey. Surely this was a most unlikely vehicle of
conveyance for a coup Jesus clearly chose it because donkeys
symbolise peace and docility, and he wished to show
Jerusalem that he was coming in peace and was fulfilling
this promise of God recorded in another prophecy centuries
earlier:
Rejoice, greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O
daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an
ass.
Zechariah 9.9
He came in humility and peace on a beast which symbolised
his purpose. "He shall command peace to the nations", the
prophecy continues (Zechariah 9.10). It is grossly absurd to
suggest that Jesus was heading a "march" or that he was
instigating a violent "armed struggle" as people would say
today.
Deedat conveniently overlooks the fact that just as Jesus
was about to be arrested the same night his disciples cried
out, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" (Luke 22.49).
One of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut
off his ear, but Jesus immediately rebuked him and healed
the man who had been injured. All the evidence shows that he
was not planning a destructive coup at all but was preparing
for the supreme gesture of love he was to exhibit to the
world in his pending suffering and death on the cross for
the sins of men. In the same book quoted above we read that
God once promised:
"I will remove the guilt of this land in a single
day".
Zechariah 3.9
That day had just arrived, and Jesus was making himself
ready to "secure an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9.12) by
taking away the sins of the world on that fateful Friday for
which he had come.
The theory that Jesus was planning an abortive coup is a
gross injury to his gracious dignity and a shocking
caricature which one does not expect from a man who is
supposed to believe that Jesus was one of the greatest men
who ever lived.
Deedat has never done military training and his ignorance
in this field is exposed on page 14 of his booklet where he
suggests that Jesus took Peter, James and John with him into
the Garden of Gethsemane as an inner line of defence with
eight more guarding the gate. He boldly suggests that this
was a masterly tactic "that would bring credit to any
officer out of 'Sandhurst'", a "leading military academy in
England" (p.14). A former officer in the British Army once
commented on this claim by saying to me 'that he had never
heard such things taught at Sandhurst! Deedat says of the
eight disciples that Jesus left at the gate:
He positions them strategically at the entrance to the
courtyard; armed to the hilt, as the circumstances would
allow.
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.14).
He goes on to say that he took Peter, James and John,
"these zealous Zealots (the fighting Irishmen of their day)"
(p.14), to prepare his inner defense. This argument
flounders on closer analysis. Peter, James and John were
peaceable fishermen from Galilee (Jesus had only one Zealot
among his disciples and 5 it was none of these three - Luke
6.15) and they were his closer circle of disciples
throughout his Ministry. On the occasion of his
transfiguration these same disciples alone went up the
mountain with him while the rest mingled with the crowds
below (Matthew 17.1, 14-16). Likewise, when he raised the
daughter of Jairus from the dead, he again took the same
three disciples with him into the house (Luke 8.51). He
often took these three disciples, Peter, James and John,
into his closest confidence on appropriate occasions and
this shows clearly that Jesus was not planning a masterly
defence in Gethsemane when he took them with him into the
inner part of the garden. Rather, he was once again seeking
their close fellowship on yet another of those important
occasions when he desired only the intimate companionship of
his closest disciples. All this shows quite conclusively
that there is no substance in the argument that Jesus was
planning a coup.
2. THE IMAGE OF JESUS IN DEEDAT'S BOOKLET.
One of the strangest things about Deedat's booklet is the
caricature he presents of the person of Jesus Christ.
Strange, indeed, because Muslims are supposed to honour
Jesus as the Messiah and as one of the greatest of God's
prophets. One or two statements in his booklet are
considerably offensive to Christians and must surely injure
sincere Muslims who have learnt to respect Jesus as a man of
honour and dignity. It is hardly surprising that Deedat's
booklet was at one time declared "undesirable" by the
Director of Publications in South Africa (early in 1985). In
one place he says:
Jesus had failed to heed the warning of the Pharisees to
curb the over exuberance of his disciples (Luke 19.39).
He had miscalculated. Now he must pay the price of
failure.
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?,p.10).
On another page he says that "Jesus had doubly
miscalculated" (p.19) in that he thought he could rely on
his disciples to defend him and that he would only have to
deal with Jews. As if such allegations were not sufficient
to defame Jesus, he goes on to speak of the "hot and cold
blowings of Jesus" and fills up the measure of his slanders
in saying:
It can be claimed with justification that Jesus Christ
(pbuh) was the "Most unfortunate of all God's
Messengers".
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.23).
We are sure that even Muslims must find such statements
extremely offensive. Christians do not hesitate to regard
them as blasphemous. Nevertheless it is not our desire to
express emotional indignation but to show how fatuous
Deedat's claims are.
It requires only a cursory analysis of those last hours
in the life of Jesus before his crucifixion to see that
there can be no substance at all in the claim that Jesus had
"miscalculated" or ever blew "hot and cold". For the one
thing that characterises everything Jesus said on the last
night he was with his disciples was a total awareness of all
that was to befall him and his willingness to undergo it.
He knew that Judas Iscariot would betray him (Mark 14.18
- he had known this for a long time in fact as appears from
John 6.64) and that Peter would deny him three times
(Matthew 26.34). He predicted that he would be apprehended
and that all his disciples would desert him (Mark 14.27). We
just cannot find any ground at all for Deedat's claim that
Jesus hoped his disciples would fight for him and that he
had "miscalculated". For these passages show quite plainly
that Jesus had calculated exactly what was going to happen,
for his disciples all did precisely what he said they would
do.
He constantly told them that last fateful night that he
was about to be parted from them (John 13.33, 14.3, 14.28,
16.5) and that they should not lose heart for his sufferings
would be entirely in accordance with all that had been
predicted in the prophecies of the former prophets (Luke
22.22). When the Jews finally came to arrest him, far from
preparing any kind of defence, he walked straight into their
hands. We read:
Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came
forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" They
answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth". Jesus said to them, "I
am he". Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with
them.
John 18.4-5
Jesus came forward, knowing all that was to befall him.
He knew that he was about to be crucified and killed, but
that he would rise on the third day, as he had so often
predicted in plain language (Matthew 17.22-23, 20.19, Luke
9.22, 18.31-33). In fact there was no need of a showdown
with the Jews at all. If Jesus had wanted to avoid arrest,
all he needed to do was to leave Jerusalem. Instead he went
to the very place where he knew that Judas Iscariot would
lead the Jews to look for him (John 18.2) and when they
came, he voluntarily gave himself over to them. Furthermore
he hardly needed the valiant efforts of eleven disciples to
defend him for he plainly testified that he could have
called on twelve legions of angels to help him if he had so
wished (Matthew 26.53). Just one angel had the power to
destroy whole cities and armies (2 Samuel 24.16, 2 Kings
19.35) and one shudders to think what twelve legions of
angels could have done to protect him.
There is just simply no substance in Deedat's claim that
Jesus was plotting and scheming and became a failure through
his miscalculations. On the contrary it is quite remarkable
to see how he knew precisely what was to happen to him. Far
from being a "failure", he became the most successful man
who ever lived the only man who has ever raised himself from
the dead to eternal life and glory. Muhammad failed to
conquer death and it brought his life to nothing in Medina
in 632 AD and holds him to this day in its grip. Jesus,
however, succeeded where Muhammad had failed. He is "our
Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life
and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy
1.10). He triumphed over death and ascended into heaven
where he ever lives and reigns. So much for Deedat's insult
that he was supposed to be the "most unfortunate" of all
God's messengers. The truth is that he was the greatest man
who ever lived.
It has became apparent, and will become more so as we
proceed, that Deedat's booklet is nothing but a distortion
of the Scriptures. He perverts the meaning of texts which he
feels can be tortured into serving his purpose and simply
suppresses others which refute his theories completely.
3. DID JESUS DEFEND HIMSELF AT HIS TRIAL?
On page 28 of his booklet Deedat attempts to discredit
the Gospel records of Jesus' crucifixion further by
contesting a prophecy in Isaiah 53.7 which predicted that he
would not open his mouth in his defence at his trial but
would be led to the cross "as a sheep before its shearers is
dumb". It is quite clear from the prophecy that this did not
mean that Jesus would say nothing at all once he was
arrested but rather that he would not venture to defend
himself before his accusers. Deedat's whole argument depends
on certain statements made by Jesus which he attempts to
draw out as defences made against his accusers.
He attempts to ridicule Jesus by asking whether he spoke
"with his mouth closed" when he told Pilate that his kingdom
was not of this world (John 18.36), when he called on one of
the officers of the High Priest to testify of anything he
had said wrongly (John 18.23), and when he prayed to God
that, if possible, the cup of suffering he faced might be
taken away from him (Matthew 26.39).
It needs to be pointed out that NONE of these statements
was made by Jesus during his public trials before the
Sanhedrin in the house of Caiaphas the high priest, or
before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. The first
statement was made to Pilate during private conversation in
the praetorium; the second was made during Jesus' appearance
before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, which was not
during his trial before the Sanhedrin as Deedat wrongly
suggests (p.28) - the trial only took place after this event
in the house of Caiaphas as the Gospels clearly show (John
18.24, Matthew 26.57); and the third was made in the Garden
of Gethsemane before Jesus was even arrested. The evidence
brought forth by Deedat is therefore totally irrelevant to
the point and he proves nothing at all. What does concern us
is whether Jesus defended himself either before the
Sanhedrin in Caiaphas' house or during his public trial
before Pilate. It does not surprise us to find that Deedat
overlooks what the Gospels plainly have to say about these
two official trials. After hearing the evidence against
Jesus before the Sanhedrin, Caiaphas put Jesus on terms to
answer his accusers and what transpired is of great
importance:
And the high priest stood up and said, "Have you no
answer to make? What is it that these men testify against
you?" But Jesus was silent.
Matthew 26.62-63
Instead of defending himself he promptly testified, in
answer to the next question, that he was indeed the Son of
God - a testimony that prompted the Sanhedrin to sentence
him to death. The important point is that, in answer to his
accusers, we read plainly that Jesus was silent. Likewise we
read that when Pilate put much the same question to him the
same thing transpired. He did not open his mouth to say
anything in his own defence.
But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders,
he made no answer. Then Pilate said to him, "Do you not
hear how many things they testify against you?" But he
gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that
the governor wondered greatly.
Matthew 27.12-14
Deedat subtly conceals these incidents which tell us
plainly that Jesus was silent before the Sanhedrin when
accused by the false witnesses that had been put forward,
and that he made no answer not even to a single charge -
when accused before Pilate. In his traditional fashion
Deedat suppresses the evidences that relate directly to the
subject at hand and instead tries to draw arguments from
other occasions not relevant to the issues.
It is also interesting to find that exactly the same
thing happened when Jesus appeared before Herod, the Jewish
king, before being sent back to Pilate.
When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long
desired to see him, because he had heard about him, ant
he was hoping to see some sign done by him. So he
questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. The
chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently
accusing him.
Luke 23.8-10
Once again, when Jesus was accused, he made no answer. On
every occasion when he was actually on trial before the
Sanhedrin, Herod or Pilate, he said absolutely nothing in
his own defence and so fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah that
he would not defend himself at his trial by opening his
mouth to speak on his own behalf. None of the statements
quoted by Deedat was made while Jesus was actually on trial
and so yet another of his arguments falls entirely to the
ground.
4. THE THEORY THAT JESUS SURVIVED THE CROSS.
We have never ceased to wonder why Ahmed Deedat continues
to promote the theory that Jesus was indeed crucified but
came down alive from the cross. Our amazement arises from
two considerations. On the one hand, this idea is held to
only by the heretical Ahmadiyya sect in Islam and is
denounced by all true Christians and Muslims. On the other
hand, this theory has been refuted time and again and,
whereas Deedat continues to promote it, he can offer no
reply to the arguments produced against it.
For example, on page 36 of his new booklet, he claims
that when the centurion watching over Jesus on the cross
"saw that he was dead already" (John 19.33), this means
purely that he "surmised" that Jesus had died and that there
was nothing to verify his death. In a reply to his earlier
booklet 'Was Christ Crucified?', I showed quite plainly that
the centurion's observation was the best possible evidence
that Jesus was already dead. The centurion had to confirm
before the Roman governor that the crucified man was already
dead and, if he was wrong, his own life was likely to be
forfeited. We read:
And Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and
summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was
already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that
he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.
Mark 15.44-45.
The Roman governor Pilate knew that if the centurion
confirmed his death, then it was sure, for in those days any
soldier who allowed a prisoner to escape would lose his own
life in consequence.
When the Apostle Peter escaped from prison some time
later in the city, the sentries appointed to guard him were
summarily executed (Acts 12.19). Again, when another jailer
supposed that Paul and Silas had escaped from prison as
well, "he drew his sword and was about to kill himself"
(Acts 16.27), until he discovered they had not. He preferred
to die by suicide than by execution. Death was the penalty
for allowing prisoners to escape - what then could the
centurion expect if a man condemned to death had escaped
because he had made some careless and negligent
observations? No one but the centurion could have been such
a reliable witness to the death of Jesus on the cross!
Although an emphatic refutation of Deedat's assumption
that the soldiers only "surmised" that Jesus was dead has
thus been given, Deedat continues to promote the same old
argument. He casually overlooks the conclusive evidence
against his theory and just simply reproduces it. It is a
poor advocate who can only repeat his original arguments
once these have been thoroughly disproved by his opponent.
Not only did the centurion observe very conclusively that
Jesus was dead but one of the soldiers thrust a spear into
his side - an act calculated to ensure his death. One of the
common Roman methods of killing people was to "put them to
the sword", that is, to thrust them through. This is
precisely what the soldier did to Jesus and, even if he had
been in perfect health, he could never have survived such a
blow. Yet Deedat ridiculously suggests that this
death-dealing blow "came to the rescue" of Jesus and helped
to revive him by stirring up his blood so that "the
circulation could regain its rhythm" (p. 39). Surely not
even the most gullible of his readers will believe such
absolute nonsense - that a death-blow, a spear-thrust
through his body, could help to revive him! When one has to
resort to such absurdities, it is clear that there is no
merit in the argument.
A similar absurdity is set before the reader a few pages
on in Deedat's booklet where he is discussing the occasion
when Mary Magdalene came to anoint the body of Jesus shortly
after his crucifixion:
In 3 days time, the body would be fermenting from within
- the body cells would be breaking up and decomposing. If
anybody rubs such a decaying body, it will fall to
pieces.
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.44).
This, too, is sheer scientific nonsense. Jesus had died
late on the Friday afternoon and it was only a day and two
nights later, as Deedat admits on the same page, that Mary
Magdalene came to anoint his body. No body will "fall to
pieces" within such a short period. In bold letters Deedat
adds that Mary came alone to the tomb to supposedly help
Jesus recover, yet in Matthew 28.1 and Luke 24.10 we
discover that she was accompanied by at least two other
women, Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and that only to
bring spices which they had prepared according to the burial
custom of the Jews. There is just no substance in Deedat's
arguments. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are
facts of history - the only fiction is his theory that Jesus
supposedly survived the cross and recovered.
We do not propose to go into the moving of the stone,
whether Jesus tried to show his disciples that he was not
yet dead, or the subject of the Sign of Jonah. Although all
these subjects are treated in Deedat's booklet, we have
given a thorough answer to them in the second booklet in
this series entitled "What Indeed was the Sign of Jonah?"
which readers may obtain from our Fellowship free of charge.
Another argument once again repeated by Deedat that has
often been refuted is his suggestion that Jesus was
reluctant to die. In refutations of his previous booklet on
the subject of the crucifixion I have shown clearly that
Jesus was only reluctant to be forsaken by his Father and be
abandoned to the realm of sin and the wickedness of sinful
men. This fear reached its pitch in the Garden the night
before Jesus was crucified when the hour had come for him to
be handed over to sinful men (Matthew 26.45). Had he been
reluctant to die, this fear would only have reached its
climax as he faced the cross the next day but, after he had
been strengthened the night before by an angel who
ministered to him (Luke 22.43), he faced death with
remarkable fortitude. He calmly walked forward, knowing all
that was to befall him, as we have seen. He walked right
into a course that he knew must lead to his crucifixion and
death.
He calmly took all the injuries heaped on him the
following day and without any sign of fear or protest give
himself over to be crucified. As he was taken out of
Jerusalem he showed more concern for the women of the city
and their children than for himself (Luke 23.28) and on the
cross cared only for those around him and not for himself
(John 19.26-27). Indeed, instead of finding that he was
reluctant to die, we discover in the Gospel narratives that
he set his face towards the cross and, although he had many
opportunities to avoid it, he did not seize them but went
on, determined to redeem men from their sins.
Yet another of Deedat's arguments thus comes to nothing.
We find him in considerable confusion in another place when
he says:
For God Almighty will never allow His truly "anointed
one" (Christ) to be killed -(Deuteronomy 18.20).
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p. 15).
There is no substance in the suggestion that God would
not allow his anointed one to be killed for there was a
specific prediction in the prophecy of the great prophet
Daniel that the "anointed one shall be cut off, and shall
have nothing" (Daniel 9.26). It is in fact from the very use
of the word messiah in this text that the Jews came to call
the awaited Saviour of the world the "Messiah", and yet it
is right in this text that we read that this very Messiah
would be cut off - a clear prediction of the crucifixion and
death of Jesus.
We are particularly intrigued to find that Deedat quotes
Deuteronomy 18.20 as a reference to the coming "anointed
one", the "Christ", the Messiah, namely Jesus. In his
booklet "What the Bible Says About Mohammed" he labours to
prove that the prophecy of a coming prophet in Deuteronomy
18 is a reference to Muhammad, even though we have proved
again and again that it was an anticipation of the coming of
the Messiah, namely Jesus. (The Qur'an confirms that the
only Messiah, the only "anointed one", al-Masih, was Jesus -
Surah 3.45). It is therefore most significant to find Deedat
making one of his occasional slips and conceding in the
above quote from his booklet that the prophecy relates to
Jesus, the Messiah, and not to Muhammad.
Perhaps the most absurd argument in the whole of Deedat's
booklet is his suggestion that God, in hearing Jesus' prayer
in the Garden of Gethsemane, sent his angel to strengthen
him "in the hope that God will save him" (p.35). He goes on
to argue that God especially put it into the minds of the
soldiers that Jesus was already dead on the cross and says
this was "another step in God's plan of rescue" (p.36). The
argument, thus, is that after hours of scourging, beating,
having thorns pressed into his head, being forced to carry
his cross, being crucified, succumbing into unconsciousness
in exhaustion at the point of death after hours of
indescribable agony, and enduring an awful sword thrust, God
wonderfully stepped in to "save" him by fooling everybody
into thinking that Jesus was already dead when he was really
only at the point of death.
One struggles to find any logical progression of thought
in this line of reasoning. If it was God's intention to
"save" Jesus, surely he would have taken him away
immediately, as the overwhelming majority of Muslims
believe. What sort of "comfort" or "strengthening" could the
angel have given if God's hand was only to be revealed after
hours of indescribable agony and torture to the point of
death on the cross?
Firstly, such pain and suffering would have been
unnecessary and God's deliverance brought about only after a
tragic delay. Secondly, it could have been no comfort to
Jesus to know that he faced the horrors of crucifixion only
to be delivered at the point of death. Furthermore, if Jesus
was taken down alive from the cross purely because he was so
close to death that all thought he was already dead, we
cannot see how God "saved" him or even where he intervened.
This would have been nothing more than an accident caused by
an illusion.
The whole argument is obviously strained against the
logical progression of the events in the Gospels. The truth
of the whole matter is that Jesus was physically at the
breaking point in contemplating suffering for sin. He had
just told his disciples that he was "exceedingly sorrowful -
even unto death" (Mark 14.34). God heard the prayer of Jesus
and the angel gave him strength to proceed and endure the
cross and death and so fulfil his mission to redeem sinners
from sin, death and hell.
To save Jesus from dying while at the point of death
after hours of agony on the cross would have been an
untimely and senselessly delayed delivers accompanied by a
lengthy period of painful recovery from the horrific ordeal.
To save him from death by raising him in glory and perfect
health is sensible, logical, and is in fact the genuine
Biblical accent of the crucifixion.
We press on to Deedat's argument that Jesus disguised
himself after surviving the cross so that no one would
recognize him, calling this "a perfect masquerade!" (p 49).
He suggests that when Jesus met two disciples on the road to
Emmaus the day he walked out of the tomb alive (Luke 24.15)
he conceiled his identity until he revealed it in breaking
bread before them, and then went away This is nothing bat an
attempt to water down the incident in the Bible which has a
far more dramatic element. It will be useful to quote
exactly what happened:
When he was at table with them, he took the bread and
blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their
eyes were opened and they recognised him; and he vanished
out of their sight. They said to each other, "Did not our
hearts burn within us as he talked to us on the road,
while he opened to us the scriptures?"
Luke 24.30-32.
The drama here unfolds rapidly. Suddenly their eyes are
opened and he vanishes out of their sight! If we look
carefully at this passage we can see what really happened
when they recognised Jesus.
The Bible states that after his resurrection his body
bore the nature that all the righteous will bear in heaven
He was able to transcend all earthly limitations and could
appear or vanish at will. He could suddenly appear in a
locked room (John 20.19) and could conceal or reveal himself
at will.
So here, it was not Jesus who removed a "disguise". The
text plainly says "THEIR eyes were opened" Suddenly THEY
were able to perceive who he was. So likewise we read that
the risen Jesus, in his eternal body, was not only able to
open men's eyes to perceive his true identity but could even
open their minds to perceive the meaning of God's revealed
Word (Luke 24.45).
Just as he suddenly appeared in the room (Luke 24.36), so
he equally suddenly vanished out of their sight. The
dramatic character of the narratives in Luke 24 cannot be
explained away in rationalistic terms. The thrust of this
whole chapter is the resurrection of Jesus fromn the dead
(cf 24.46) and it was this remarkable event that led to such
dramatic incidents
The whole theme of the narratives in the Gospels is the
crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus. It requires a
good deal of word-twisting to argue otherwise. An example is
Deedat's suggestion that Jesus was laid in a "big, roomy
chamber" (p.79) All the Gospels teach plainly that this was
nothing but a tomb which had been especially hewn out of a
rock by Joseph of Arimathea as his own burialplace. In
Matthew 27.60 we read that Joseph took Jesus' body and "laid
it in his own new tomb" (so also Mark 15.46, Luke 23.53). In
John 19.41-42 it is twice said Jesus was laid in a TOMB and
bound according to the BURIAL-CUSTOM of the Jews Deedat's
attempts to torture these accounts of a funeral into his own
speculation that Jesus was placed in a "big roomy camber" so
that he might "recover" are a self evident proof that there
is no substance in his argument at all.
Lastly we shall consider his four statements on page 50
of his booklet where he points out that many people
testified on the day of resurrection that he was ALIVE. The
word is placed in capital letters, is underlined, and is
accompanied by an exclamation mark in each case. This
purports to be an argument favouring his theory that Jesus
had not died on the cross but was still alive. We marvel at
such reasoning for the whole point of the resurrection from
the dead, as set out in the Gospels, is this very fact -
that Jesus was raised ALIVE from the dead. What, then, is
Deedat trying to prove? The testimonies that Jesus was alive
are central to the whole ~ Christian belief that Jesus had
risen from the dead after being killed on the cross.
In his quote from Luke 24.4-5, Deedat only quotes the
words of the angels to Mary and the other women, "Why do you
seek the living among the dead?" He significantly omits
these words which follow:
"Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee,
that the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of
sinful men, and be crucified, and on the third day
rise".
Like 24.6-7.
In these words we clearly find the angels speaking of
Jesus being CRUCIFIED and RISING ON THE THIRD DAY. Clearly
they proclaimed that he was alive because he had duly RISEN
FROM THE DEAD. Much the same was said by the brethren at
Jerusalem to the disciples from Emmaus:
"The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to of
Simon".
Luke 24.34
The united testimony of all was that Jesus was alive
because he was RISEN INDEED. "He has risen" (Mark 16.6) was
the universal testimony that day. He had come alive from the
dead and had conquered all the power of death. He had made
it possible for men to be raised with him to newness of life
(Romans 6.4) and to rise with him to eternal life in victory
over death and sin (1 Corinthians 15. 55-57). He had
fulfilled his own declaration:
"I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in
me, though he die, yet shall he live and whoever lives
and believes in me shall never die".
John 11.25
Deedat's whole argument is a pitiful caricature of the
glorious event described in the Gospels. Our brief treatment
of his argument that Jesus came down alive from the cross
and somehow recovered proves conclusively that there is
nothing at all in what he says. The misleading arguments he
presents lead us to conclude that he fails to prove his
cruci-"fiction" theory because he comes from an
"improper"-gation Centre!
5. WILD STATEMENTS IN DEEDAT'S BOOKLET
One of the things that struck me again and again as I
read through Deedat's booklets was his unrestrained tendency
to make wild statements devoid of good sense and authority.
It seems he trades on Muslim ignorance of the Bible and
simply hopes his readers will accept without question
whatever he says. He surely cannot be endeavouring to
convince Christian readers who know their Bible well and who
can only marvel at his presumptuousness. To begin with, he
says in his booklet:
From the "call to arms" in the upper-room, and the
masterful deployment of forces at Gethsemane and the
blood-sweating prayer to the God of Mercy for help, it
appears that Jesus knew nothing about the contract for
his crucifixion.
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.16)
The last statement, to the effect that Jesus knew nothing
about his crucifuxion is a fallacy set forth in bare
defiance of overwhelming facts to the contrary. Time and
again Jesus told his disciples that he would be crucified,
killed, and rise again on the third day in statements like
these:
"The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected
by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be
killed, and on the third day be raised".
Luke 9.22
"Behold we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of
man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes,
and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to
the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and
he will be raised on the third day".
Matthew 20.18-19
When he was duly raised from the dead he rebuked his
disciples for not believing all that he had told them as
well as the prophecies of the former prophets that he would
be killed and rise on the third day (Luke 24.25-26,46). On
numerous other occasions he made it plain that this was the
whole purpose of his coming to earth. He told them he had
come to lay down his life as a ransom for many (Matthew
20.28), that his body would be broken and his blood shed for
the forgiveness of their sins (Matthew 26.26-28), that he
would give up his life that the world might live (John
6.51), and that he had power to lay down his life and power
to take it again (John 10.18). It is surely absurd to
suggest that Jesus knew nothing about his pending
crucifixion. On the contrary, as he faced this climactic
moment on his life when, as the Saviour of the world, he
would redeem mankind and pave the way for many to enter
eternal life, he proclaimed "I have come for this hour"
(John 12.27). So aware was he of the fateful climax that
awaited him that he constantly referred to it as "my hour"
(John 2.4) and "my time" (John 7.6). Of no other man was it
more truly said, "cometh the hour, cometh the man". The hour
for the salvation of the world had come, and God had sent
the only man who could achieve it, Jesus Christ.
Deedat makes a similar loose statement when he says that
the title "Son of God" in the Bible "is also another
harmless expression in Jewish theology" (p.25). On the
contrary, just as Muslims hold to an austere unitarianism
which does not allow that it is possible for God to have a
Son, so the Jews of that time and to this day reject the
concept completely. When the high priest asked Jesus if he
was the Son of God, as he had been reported as making such a
claim, Jesus answered, "I am" (Mark 14.62). If this was a
"harmless expression" as Deedat claims, the high priest
would hardly have taken exception to it, but he immediately
cried out "he has uttered blasphemy" (Matthew 26.65). When
Jesus appeared before Pilate, the Jews cried out:
"We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because
he has made himself the Son of God".
John 19.7
Muslims to this day attempt to avoid this issue and
allege that Christians have turned the prophet Jesus into
the Son of God. But the Jews could hardly foist this claim
on his followers when Jesus himself made this very
confession before them. "He has made himself the Son of
God", they cried, and this was why they condemned Jesus for
blasphemy. Through his resurrection, however, God gave
assurance to all men that Jesus was indeed his own beloved
Son just as he had claimed (Romans 1.4).
Deedat makes a similar outlandish claim when he says that
"any Christian scholar will confirm" that the Gospels were
only written anything up to a number of centuries after the
time of Jesus. It has been generally accepted among all good
Biblical scholars that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark
and Luke) were all written about 55-60 AD (less than thirty
years after Jesus' resurrection) and the Gospel of John up
to 70 AD. Only the most prejudiced "scholars" could suggest
otherwise, and even hostile Critics have accepted these
dates. How could the Gospels have been written centuries
later when manuscript fragments dating as early as 120 AD
still exist and quotes from the Gospels are found in the
writings of the early Christians in the generation
immediately succeeding the apostolic age?
Deedat makes a most unfortunate statement when he says in
another place "Salvation is cheap in Christianity" (p.61).
We doubt whether Muslims will consider Abraham's willingness
to offer his son to God a "cheap" sacrifice. Surely, then,
there can be nothing cheap in the willingness of God to give
his own Son as a sacrifice for our sins. The Bible tells
Christians plainly, "you were bought with a price"
Corinthians 6.20) - what a price! - and the apostle can only
speak in consequence of God's "inexpressible gift" (2
Corinthians 9.15). There is no way to possibly evaluate the
price that was paid to save men from sin, death and hell.
Salvation in Christianity is the most expensive thing this
world has ever seen - the life of the only Son of the
eternal God. In the same way no man can obtain this
salvation unless he commits his whole life to God through
faith in his Son, and surrenders his whole personality and
character to his will.
Lastly, in one of his typically inaccurate charges,
Deedat claims that the story of the appearance of Jesus to
his doubting disciple Thomas, as recorded in John 20.24-29,
is a "flagrant 'gospel fabrication'" (p.31), and has the
temerity to claim further:
Biblical scholars are coming to the conclusion that the
"doubting Thomas" episode is of the same variety as that
of the woman "caught in the act" - (John 8. 1-11), i.e.,
it is a fabrication!
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.76).
Most significantly Deedat does not tell us who these
so-called "Biblical scholars" are. There is not a shred of
evidence anywhere to back up the claim that the story of
Thomas's unwillingness to believe in the risen Christ until
he had seen him and his declaration on duly seeing him that
he was his Lord and his God, is a "fabrication". The story
is found extant in all the earliest manuscripts available to
us without any variance in reading, and the evidences
therefore are unanimously in favour of its authenticity.
There is no support whatsoever for the speculation that this
story may have been invented.
Deedat seems to base his claim on the assumption that
Jesus was not nailed to the cross but only tied with ropes.
He makes another really wild statement when he says
"contrary to common belief, Jesus was not nailed to the
cross" (p.31). Archaeological discoveries in the land of
Palestine have confirmed that Romans crucified victims by
nailing them to their crosses (a skeleton was found with a
nail through both feet in recent years). Furthermore it is
the universal testimony of the prophecies to and historical
records of Jesus' crucifixion that he was nailed to his
cross (Psalm 22.16, John 20.25, Colossians 2.14). Deedat's
argument is not only "contrary to common belief" as he
admits, but, like so many of his points, is also contrary to
the Scriptures, contrary to reliable historical records,
contrary to archaeological discoveries, contrary to the
evidences, and, as all too often, contrary to good sense. He
cannot produce even an iota or a shred of evidence to
support his claim that Jesus was fastened to the cross with
ropes and, instead, has to resort to an unwarranted and
thoroughly presumptuous attack on the sound historical
record that Jesus was nailed to the cross, once again
without any evidence whatsoever that this record is a
"fabrication".
If there had been any merit at all in Deedat's attack on
the Biblical record of the crucifixion, death and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, he would hardly have had to
resort to such ridiculous claims as those we have
considered. They indicate a fair measure of desperation in
the critic as he battles against the odds to prove an
untenable thesis.
6. GOSPEL TRUTHS DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSED BY
DEEDAT.
After all that has gone before it will not surprise our
readers to find Deedat deliberately expunging words from the
Bible that do not suit his purpose. On the day after Jesus'
crucifixion the chief priests came to Pilate and in Matthew
27.62-64 we find a request made by them that the tomb should
be sealed. It appears in Deedat's booklet as follows:
"Sir, we remember that that deceiver said ... Command,
therefore, that the sepulchre be made secure until the
third day, lest ... the LAST error shall be worse than
the FIRST (error)".
(Deedat, Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?, p.42).
Twice in the quotation one finds three innocuous-looking
dots as though something has been omitted because it is
unimportant or irrelevant to the issues. Deedat's argument
is that the Jews had suddenly realised that Jesus might
still be alive and that they might have been "cheated"
(p.42). They supposedly went to Pilate to get him to seal
the sepulchre so that he could not escape and recover.
Nevertheless, says Deedat, they were a day too late and
their "last" error was to allow some of Jesus' disciples an
opportunity "to render help to the wounded man" (p.43).
All that has happened here is that Deedat has had so
forcibly expunge two clauses in the quotation referred to,
not because they are considered unimportant, but because
they refute his arguments completely and oblige the reader
to discover a totally different picture of what was really
transpiring. We shall record the whole quotation as it
appears in a modern translation and shall place in capital
letters the words wrenched out by Deedat and replaced with
dots. The passage reads:
"Sir, we remember how that impostor said, WHILE HE WAS
STILL ALIVE, 'AFTER THREE DAYS I WILL RISE AGAIN'.
Therefore order the sepulchre to be made secure until the
third day, lest HIS DISCIPLES GO AND STEAL HIM AWAY, AND
TELL THE PEOPLE, 'HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD', and the
last fraud will be worse than the first".
Matthew 27.62-64.
We see immediately that the Jews did not for one minute
believe that Jesus had come down alive from the cross. They
went to Pilate, speaking of something Jesus had said WHILE
HE WAS STILL ALIVE. These words can only be interpreted to
mean that in their view Jesus WAS NO LONGER ALIVE. And they
asked Pilate to seal the tomb, not because they feared a
wounded man might recover, but because they feared his
disciples would steal his body and proclaim that he HAD
RISEN FROM THE DEAD. This is the obvious and plain meaning
of the passage.
It is quite clear why Deedat omitted the clauses in
italics. They disprove his theory completely. In fact we
have found him regularly using this devious tactic in his
booklets against Christianity. He distorts the Scriptures by
wrenching some texts out of context which he feels can be
tortured and perverted into serving his ends, and then
casually ignores others completely which thoroughly discount
his theories. Only in this case he has done this with just
one passage, twisting some of its words to try and prove
that the Jews thought Jesus was still alive, and expunging
others which immediately show that this was not what was in
their minds at all.
Surely any sincere Muslim can see that the whole theme of
his booklet on the crucifixion is a contortion of the truth
and that he has constantly warped the clear statements in
the Gospels which testify unambiguously to the fact of the
crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
We might add that this is not the first time that we have
come across publications published by Deedat's Centre where
quotations from other writings are so mistreated. We would
advise all readers to treat such quotations, where words are
deleted and are simply replaced by three dots, with extreme
caution. Invariably what is left has been twisted into
yielding an interpretation that the whole quotation could
not possibly yield.
The Jews had remembered Jesus' oft-repeated prophecy that
he would rise from the dead after three days and they wanted
to prevent any possible fulfilment of this prophecy -
whether actual through his resurrection or contrived through
the actions of his disciples. There is no warrant for
Deedat's claim that the "Jews doubted his death" and that
they "suspected that he had escaped death on the cross" (p.
79). The words omitted by him in the quotation on page 42 of
his booklet show quite plainly that they were satisfied that
he was indeed dead, but that they did not want his disciples
to claim that he had been raised to life again.
Christians do not object to sincere critical analyses of
their scriptures and convictions. In fact we welcome them in
a way because they challenge us to be sure of what we
believe and no true Christian would want to believe things
that could not withstand critical analysis. We do sincerely
take offence, however, at publications like Deedat's
"Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction?" which do nothing but pervert
and distort the evidences for our faith and which are
calculated to injure our feelings. We are persuaded that
most Muslims would feel the same way about any Christian
publication that distorted Islam the way Deedat degrades
Christianity.
We are comforted to find that there are many Muslims in
South Africa who have expressed their keen disapproval of
such publications. A local Muslim magazine recently had this
to say of Deedat's methods:
It is a well known fact throughout South Africa, even
among Christian evangelical circles, that in so far as
Mr. Ahmed Deedat in particular is concerned, the Muslim
community of South Africa as a whole is not in total
agreement with his method of propagating Islam. The
Muslim Digest itself provides ample testimony for having
been reluctantly compelled over the years to condemn in
no uncertain terms the method of Mr. Deedat's propagation
of Islam, especially amongst Christians. No less has Mr.
Deedat been condemned by responsible Muslim religious
bodies and individuals for the manner in which he
propagates Islam that results in ill-will being generated
against Muslims.
(the Muslim Digest, Jul/Aug/Sept, 1984)
We shall close with a brief consideration of Deedat's
argument that, if it can be proved that Jesus did not die on
the cross, this proves he was not crucified at all. We have,
in earlier publications, shown that such an obtruse argument
arises from a predicament Deedat inflicts on himself with
his theory that Jesus survived the cross For the Qur'an
plainly states that Jesus was "neither crucified nor killed"
(Surah 4.157) and the overwhelming majority of Muslims
throughout the world take this (obviously, in our view) to
mean that Jesus was never put on the cross at all. I held a
symposium with Deedat in Benoni on the subject "Was Christ
Crucified?" in 1975 and the local newspaper thereafter
summed up his argument perfectly by saying, "He was
crucified, but did not die, he argued" As there are a number
of discerning Muslims who have seen that his whole theory
debases not only what the Bible says but also what the
Qur'an says about the crucifixion, he is now trying to
extricate himself from this predicament in which he has
placed himself.
He therefore argues that "to crucify" means to "kill on a
cross" and says that if a man survived the cross, this means
he was never crucified. He shows that in English "to
electrocute" means to kill by an electric bolt and that "to
hang" means to kill by hanging. Therefore he says that in
English "to crucify" must also mean to "kill on a cross" and
claims that he cannot be held responsible for a deficiency
in the English language which does not have alternative
words for an attempted crucifixion, electrocution or
hanging.
In saying this be misses the point completely. The
narratives of the crucifixion in the Bible were originally
written in Greek and more than a thousand years were to pass
before they would ever be translated into English. The
important point is not what "to crucify" might mean in
Deedat's understanding of English but what it meant in Greek
when the Gospels were first written. One quotation will
suffice to show that "to crucify" in Biblical times meant
simply "to impale on a cross". The Apostle Peter once
declared to a Jewish multitude:
"This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan
and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the
hands of lawless men".
Acts 2.23
The verse clearly reads you crucified and killed, meaning
obviously, "you impaled him on a cross and you killed him
there" Therefore it is absurd to suggest that if a man was
not actually killed on cross, this means he was never
crucified. If "to crucify" only eant to kill on a cross,
Peter would just have said "you crucified him", but by
adding "and killed", he shows plainly that "to crucify"
meant simply to impale on a cross. Deedat remains in th
predicament of advocating that Jesus was indeed crucified
but did not die - a theory repugnant to true Christians and
Muslims alike.
One struggles to follow the reasoning behind Deedat's
line of approach. He seems to think that if he can prove
that Jesus did not die on the cross, this proves that the
Qur'an is true when it says he was not killed by the Jews.
But how can the point possibly stand when the whole argument
of necessity concedes the other thing the Qur'an denies -
the actual crucifixion of Jesus? There just does not seem to
be any logic in his argument at all.
AHMED DEEDAT'S CRUCIFIXION THEORY
A Muslim Perspective from
MOHAMMED BANA
For many years Ahmed Deedat has been promoting a theory
that Jesus Christ was indeed crucified but was taken down
alive from the cross. This theory was first promoted in his
booklet "Was Christ Crucified?" and has recently been
perpetuated in his new booklet "Crucifixion or
Cruci-Fiction?" We have often remarked that Mr. Deedat has
been promoting a Qadiani theory, approved only by the
Ahmadiyya Movement which has been declared a non-Muslim
minority sect in Pakistan. His theory must be deplored by
true Christians and Muslims alike. Readers will be
interested to know that the same opinion has been expressed
by MOHAMMED BANA of Durban. He says of Deedats theory:
Mr. Deedat is fond of making lectures about other
denominations but very seldom on Islam. He seems to have
a fixed notion about Prophet Jesus' Crucifixion Theory.
In his lectures he hardly gave the Islamic viewpoint or
seldom the Christian viewpoint, thus confusing his
audience. I believe he likes to make the Qadiyanis of
this country very happy by mostly giving their viewpoint
that Jesus after being put on the cross, swooned. Now why
should Mr Deedat tell his audience that Jesus was put on
the cross and he swooned because nowhere the Qur'an
speaks that Jesus was put on the cross and he swooned.
Mr. Deedat is the only person who can tell us whether he
is preachhig either the Christian doctrine, the Muslim
doctrine or the Qadiani doctrine?"
[MOHAMMED BANA, "Allegations Confirmed", p. 3]
Mohammed Bana has rightly endorsed our complaint that the
crucifixion booklets published by Mr. Deedat are contrary to
the teaching of both the Bible and the Qur'an and should be
rejected by Christians and Muslims alike.
|