Let’s back up. What does “Son of God” mean in the first place? No legitimate Christian sect suggests that God took a wife and had a child, and most certainly none conceive that God fathered a child through a human mother outside of marriage. Furthermore, to suggest that God physically mated with an element of His creation is so far beyond the limits of religious tolerance as to plummet down the sheer cliff of blasphemy, chasing the mythology of the Greeks.
With no rational explanation available within the tenets of Christian doctrine, the only avenue for closure is to claim yet one more doctrinal mystery. Here is where the Muslim recalls the question posed in the Quran:“
…How can He have a son when He has no consort?...” (Quran 6:101)
…while others shout, “But God can do anything!” The Islamic position, however, is that God doesn’t do inappropriate things, only Godly things. In the Islamic viewpoint, God’s character is integral with His being and consistent with His majesty.
So again, what does “Son of God” mean? And if Jesus Christ has exclusive rights to the term, why does the Bible record, “...for I (God) am a father to Israel, and Ephraim (i.e. Israel) is my firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9) and, “...Israel is My son, even my firstborn” (Exodus 4:22)? Taken in the context of Romans 8:14, which reads, “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” many scholars conclude that “Son of God” is metaphorical and, as with christos, doesn’t imply exclusivity. After all, The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion confirms that in Jewish idiom “Son of God” is clearly metaphorical. To quote, “Son of God, term occasionally found in Jewish literature, biblical and post-biblical, but nowhere implying physical descent from the Godhead.” Hasting’s Bible Dictionary comments:
In Semitic usage “sonship” is a conception somewhat loosely employed to denote moral rather than physical or metaphysical relationship. Thus “sons of Belial” (Jg 19:22 etc.) are wicked men, not descendants of Belial; and in the NT the “children of the bridechamber” are wedding guests. So a “son of God” is a man, or even a people, who reflect the character of God. There is little evidence that the title was used in Jewish circles of the Messiah, and a sonship which implied more than a moral relationship would be contrary to Jewish monotheism
2-
that the one who was crucified was Christ”. This comment is far removed fromthe truth, and we do not know of anyone who made such a claim before. What iscertain is that not everyone in the world believes in the crucifixion of theMessiah; in fact most of the world does not believe in that. The lateststatistics (2014 CE) state that the number of Christians in the entire world,of all sects and denominations, is approximately 30% of the world’s population.This means that approximately 70% reject what the Christians say, or at thevery least they do not believe in it.
This was also the case before Islam came. Not everyone in the world at thattime – in fact this may be said of most of the people in the world – believedin the crucifixion. There were pagan Arabs, who knew nothing about this matterand never heard of it at all. There were also the Magians (Zoroastrians), whoworshipped fire, and who at that time had a great empire which was hostile andopposed to the Christians on religious and political grounds. There were alsopeople who did not believe in any religion … and many other peoples.
All of these people did not believe what the Christians believed, or at thevery least you cannot say that they believed in that or include them amongthose who believed in it, if you are an honest researcher who respects himselfand his intellect.
Furthermore, there were sects among the Christians themselves who believed thatthe Messiah was not crucified, and that the one who was crucified was alook-alike, as is proven in the Christian sources themselves.
St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori said:
One of the innovations of the first century was that of Florian, according towhich Christ was a non-holy force and was able to take whatever shape or formhe wanted. Hence when the Jews wanted to crucify him, he exchanged forms withSimon the Cyrene,thus Simon was crucified whilst Jesus was mocking the Jews.
John Fenton, a commentator on the Gospel of Matthew, said:
One of the second-century Gnostic sects said that Simon the Cyrene was crucified instead of Jesus.
Seuss said in his book, ‘Aqeedat al-Muslimeen fi Masaa’il an-Nasraaniyyah [Whatthe Muslims believe about some Christian issues]: The Basilidian sect deniedthe crucifixion. They were one of the first-century sects.
So how can it be said, after this, that everyone in the world was certain thatthe Messiah was crucified?
None of the followers of the Messiah were present at the crucifixion, apartfrom a few women, and some reports in the Gospels even doubt that they werethere. This doubt comes from Christian scholars themselves.
If no one was present at the crucifixion except a small number of women, whostood some distance away and watched from afar, this did not give them theopportunity to verify or be certain who the person was who was being crucified.Moreover, some of his enemies crucified the look-alike, thinking it was theMessiah. Therefore it is not valid to say, after that, that the crucifixion ofthe Messiah was narrated via “recurring testimony”.
Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
We looked at those who reported the crucifixion of the Messiah (peace be uponhim), and we found a large number who were no doubt truthful in their transmissionof it, generation after generation, all the way back to those who claimed tohave witnessed his crucifixion. Then when it comes to that group, it is adifferent story, as they are no more than guards who were there under orders,and you could expect them to lie and accept bribes in return for sayingsomething false.
The Christians affirm that they were not able to capture him by day for fear ofthe masses, and that they could only capture him at night when the people haddispersed following the Passover; and that he was only on the cross for sixhours of the day, after which he was taken down; and that he was only crucifiedin a place outside the city, in a potter’s field that was used only forobtaining clay, and was not a place that was known for the carrying out ofcrucifixions and was not allocated for that purpose. Moreover, the guards werebribed to say that his companions stole his body, so they did that.Furthermore, Mary Magdalene – who was a woman of the common people – did notcome close to the site of his crucifixion; rather she was standing and watchingfrom afar. All of this is to be found in the text of the Gospel that they have.
Therefore it cannot be true that the story of the crucifixion was transmittedvia a process of tawaatur. Rather the apparent meaning of the story, as it wasnarrated, indicates that there was some discretion and concealment, and prioragreement on what story was to be told. On that night, the disciples –according to the Gospel text – were in a state of fear and were absent from thescene, having fled for their lives and hidden themselves, even though SimonPeter had entered the house of the priest Caiaphas by day, where the priestsaid to him: You are one of his followers, but Peter denied it and fled fromthe house.
Therefore you cannot find anyone who transmitted the report of his crucifixionthat you can be sure is telling the truthJesus was not crucified according to 1stCentury Christians
American Boy Converts to Islam -His Advice to the youth?
