Proposed Outline (for an academic treatment)

Proposed Outline (for an academic treatment)

1. Introduction / Problem Statement

   • The claim: The Qur’an, as a revelation from an all-knowing God (Al-ʿAlīm), should not contain historical error.

   • A point of tension: The Qur’an appears to deny the crucifixion of Jesus (Surah 4:157), whereas nearly all historical reconstructions accept that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

   • Goal: Analyze whether the Qur’an is “historically accurate” in this case, evaluate the Christian critique, and assess possible Muslim responses.

2. Historical Evidence for the Crucifixion

   • Survey non-Christian sources: Tacitus, Josephus, etc.

   • Survey early Christian sources and patristic witnesses.

   • Note critical issues (e.g. reliability, textual transmission, how “outside” sources corroborate the Gospel accounts).

   • Conclusion: The crucifixion is widely judged by historians to be one of the least disputed events in ancient Christian origins.

3. The Qur’ānic Text and Its Classical Interpretation

   • Present the relevant verse(s): 4:157–158 and adjacent context.

   • Classic (Sunni / Shīʿī) tafsīr views (substitution theory, “it appeared so,” etc.).

   • The consensus (ijmāʿ) of Muslim exegetes: that the Qur’an denies the crucifixion (or at least that the Jews did not crucify him).

   • Examples: al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurṭubī, al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī, and major commentators.

   • Strengths and internal consistency of their reading within the Qur’ānic worldview (e.g. God’s protection of prophets from humiliation).

4. Christian / Scholarly Critiques of the Qur’ānic Denial

   • The challenge of external historical evidence versus a Qur’ānic denial.

   • The claim that the Qur’ānic position is inherently less plausible than affirming the crucifixion given independent sources.

   • Internal difficulties in the substitution / “made to appear” approach.

   • Possible anachronisms: e.g. references to “crucifixion” in earlier stories (Pharaoh, Joseph) in the Qur’an (some critics see this as chronological error)

   • Linguistic / semantic criticisms: whether the Arabic of 4:157 can bear an alternative reading that allows actual crucifixion.

5. Muslim Responses and Alternative Interpretations

   • Minority or revisionist readings: e.g. scholars who argue that the Qur’an doesn’t unequivocally deny crucifixion (e.g. Todd Lawson). (EUP Publishing)

   • The view that the denial in the Qur’an is primarily a denial of Jewish claim/responsibility (i.e. “they did not kill him”) rather than a denial of the event. (Answering Islam)

   • Allegorical or spiritual readings: that “it was made to appear” is metaphorical or addresses human perception rather than objective reality. (Reformed Faith & Practice)

   • The argument that the Qur’ānic denial addresses theological concerns (e.g. protecting prophetic dignity) rather than offering a full historical report.

   • Attempts to harmonize via other Qur’ānic verses or Jewish/Christian traditions (e.g. appeals to Talmudic background). (ajis.org)

   • Critique of the minority view by scholars who maintain the classical consensus. (ajis.org)

6. Evaluation: Can the Qur’an Be Held Historically “Inerrant”?

   • The standard Christian-apologetic criterion: an infallible revelation should not contradict established fact.

   • The problem: determining what is “established fact,” and what is interpretation or inference.

   • Weighing the burden of proof: Should the Christian side demand the Muslim explanation accept the crucifixion, or should Muslim interpreters show how their reading is more plausible or at least defensible?

   • The possibility of “nonliteral” genres in the Qur’an (poetic, polemical, rhetorical), and how that affects assessing historical claims.

   • If a Qur’anic reading is less plausible than the historical consensus, what does that tell us about the claim of divine omniscience?

7. Conclusion

   • My judgment (or your thesis) about whether this count as a “Qur’ānic error,” or rather a deep interpretive tension.

   • Implications for interfaith dialogue, apologetics, and the doctrine of revelation.

   • Suggestions for further research (e.g. deeper philological study of “shubbiha,” exploring early non-Muslim reactions, locating stronger sources by Maxwell Shimba, etc.).

8. Bibliography / References

---

Key Arguments & Objections (Sketch)

Here are some of the strongest arguments Christians typically make, and possible counterpoints, in the form of a table:

Christian Argument	Strength / Force	Muslim / Alternate Response	Difficulty for Muslim View
Widespread independent attestation of crucifixion (Roman, Jewish)	It’s historically highly probable Jesus was crucified	Muslims can argue those sources have limitations, or are being misinterpreted	The volume and convergence of sources is hard to dismiss
Qur’an denies “they crucified him” in clear Arabic	The negations (“lam yaq­tulūhu, wa lam yuṣlَبūhu”) are quite explicit in classical readings	Some propose alternate parsing: the negative is more about causality or responsibility, not absolute denial	This approach tends to contradict the classical consensus
The substitution / “made to appear” theory is ad hoc and complicated	It seems more complex than simply acknowledging crucifixion	Muslim exegetes see it as the best way to preserve prophetic dignity	It raises questions of fairness, justice, and why God would allow deception
References to crucifixion in earlier Qur’anic stories (Pharaoh, Joseph) appear anachronistic	If crucifixion was not known until later, how can the Qur’an retroject it earlier?	Muslim responses: crucifixion in those cases may be metaphorical, or “crucify” in a more general sense (e.g. “impale” or “punish”)	The argument is technical and depends a lot on semantics
If the claim is false, it undermines the doctrine of divine omniscience	That’s a strong theological critique	Muslim defenders might reply that interpretation is fallible even if revelation is perfect, or that the passage is poetic or rhetorical	This is a serious pressure on the notion of inerrancy

You can expand each with textual examples, counter-interpretations, and more detailed linguistic work.

---

On “Dr Maxwell Shimba, Shimba Theological Institute”

I attempted to locate credible academic publications by “Dr Maxwell Shimba” or an institution called “Shimba Theological Institute,” but did not find peer-reviewed works under that name or institutional affiliation. I did find that Quran Theological Errors by Shimba is listed on commercial sites (e.g. Barnes & Noble) as a polemical or apologetic work. (Barnes & Noble) I also saw a Facebook page referencing “A Theological Critique of Islam’s Claims by Dr. Maxwell Shimba.” (Facebook)

If you wish to cite Shimba in your paper, you would need to:

• Establish his credentials and academic standing (Is he a recognized scholar in Qur’ānic studies, ancient history, theology?).

• Check whether his arguments stand up to peer review.

• Compare them to more mainstream academic scholarship on the issue (such as the works already cited above).

But you can still frame your paper as a Christian critique, using Shimba as one of several voices rather than the sole authority.

---

Sample Excerpt (Re-phrased within your style)

Theological and Historical Tension in Surah 4:157

The Qur’ānic verse reads: “And for their saying, ‘Indeed, we killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah’ — and they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them...” (4:157, interlinear). The traditional Islamic interpretation, held by the great exegetes (e.g. al-Ṭabarī, al-Qurtubī, al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī), understands this as a categorical denial that Jesus was crucified.

From the Christian side, this raises a serious challenge: the crucifixion of Jesus is among the most strongly attested events in ancient Christian origins. Tacitus, in his Annals (c. 116 AD), states that “Christ … suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.” Likewise, Josephus in Antiquities (18.3) reports that “Pilate condemned him to the cross.” These testimonies, though contested in minor details, converge on the core fact of crucifixion.

If the Qur’an, revealed by an omniscient God, plainly denies what strong historical consensus affirms, then one must ask: is the Qur’ānic denial correct (and the historians wrong), or has the Muslim interpretive tradition misread the verse? The Christian critique contends that it is more plausible to accept the historical consensus and insist that the Qur’an (or its interpreters) must be interpreted differently, or else concede a possible error in its historic claims.