₦airaland Forum

honesttalk21:
➜It's actually not really strange. Ibn Kathir's tafsir is a compilation of transmitted material, not a Sahih collection. Reports found there include material outside the rigorously authenticated hadith corpus, including differing or weaker traditions.
➜ So its absence from Bukhari or Muslim doesn't make the report mysterious or Qur'anic; if anything, it is another reason to assess the report on its own chain and content rather than elevate it to Qur'anic fact.

Well, what is strange is that you do not want me to consider them Qur'anic, yet the Qur'anic traditions are also transmitted material nonetheless and certified. I am sorry; we are talking here of a tafsir by Ibn Kathir, if not the most respected Qur'anic commentator there is. 😒

2. Assess it how? Let me guess: you expect me to take the words of a modern Qur'anic scholar over the classic, famous Ibn Kathir of Islam?😒😒

Don't mix it up. The distinction is not "transmitted vs transmitted." The Qur'an is transmitted through tawatur, with mass, independent chains across generations. A tafsir report like this is a separate transmitted narration, generally assessed through its isnad and content.

Then this isn't modern scholarship versus Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir himself records differing reports about the substitution rather than presenting one version as Qur'anic text. So I'm not overruling Ibn Kathir; I'm applying the distinction his own tafsir demonstrates. Respecting a classical scholar doesn't turn his transmitted reports or interpretations into revelation.

Kobojunkie:
Well, what is strange is that you do not want me to consider them Qur'anic, yet the Qur'anic traditions are also transmitted material nonetheless and certified. I am sorry; we are talking here of a tafsir by Ibn Kathir, if not the most respected Qur'anic commentator there is. 😒

2. Assess it how? Let me guess: you expect me to take the words of a modern Qur'anic scholar over the classic, famous Ibn Kathir of Islam?😒😒

Kobojunkie:
Ignorance is not bliss! When you propagate lies, you become no different from those you think you attack. If you do not get the story straight, don't you see your religion is made even more meaningless by your lies?😒😒

The following is what the Quran actually says about what happened to Isa of Islam. Allah of Islam took Isa of Islam away and deceived his disciples and others into believing that the man who died on the cross was, in fact, the Isa of Islam. https://legacy.quran.com/4/153-159

You need to read the Quran and the Hadiths for yourself so you can learn exactly what the Islamists believe and better compare it to what is contained in other texts. 😒

Can you explain how allah took Isa away
Secondly why is allah deceptive? This is a serious allegation according to what you wrote up there.

honesttalk21:
➜Don't mix it up. The distinction is not "transmitted vs transmitted." The Qur'an is transmitted through tawatur, with mass, independent chains across generations. A tafsir report like this is a separate transmitted narration, generally assessed through its isnad and content.
➜ Then this isn't modern scholarship versus Ibn Kathir. Ibn Kathir himself records differing reports about the substitution rather than presenting one version as Qur'anic text. So I'm not overruling Ibn Kathir; I'm applying the distinction his own tafsir demonstrates. Respecting a classical scholar doesn't turn his transmitted reports or interpretations into revelation.

1. I am not the one mixing anything up here. Ibn Kathir literally did that for us from about 800 years ago. And as before, nothing wrong with following precedent here. 🥱

2. I wouldn't really say it differs. I would instead say it adds a different context or detail to events. And again, it is Ibn Kathir, so why shouldn't I say that OP is right to assert that it is the Islamic view? I have not so far been able to find any other tafsirs or comments that claim Ibn Kathir was wrong in his assertions. So, why not? 🥱

maivd:
➜Can you explain how allah took Isa away. Secondly why is allah deceptive? This is a serious allegation according to what you wrote up there.

I can't! 🥱

maivd:
Can you explain how allah took Isa away
Secondly why is allah deceptive? This is a serious allegation according to what you wrote up there.

Can you explain why God created hell fire and Satan? There is a purpose for everything, jesus wasn't killed he was taken up. So why are you twisting the Qur'an.

Ibn Kathir listing multiple versions doesn't make them Qur'anic, nor does it establish one as settled doctrine. He never calls the substitution story Qur'anic fact; that's being inferred from his inclusion of it.

Saying it adds context actually proves the point that it's outside the Qur'anic text. And the absence of another tafsir calling him wrong doesn't create consensus. Silence isn't consensus.

Kobojunkie:
1Iam not the one mixing anything up here. Ibn Kathir literally did that for us from about 800 years ago. And as before, nothing wrong with following precedent here. 🥱

2.I wouldn't really say it differs. I would instead say it adds a different context or detailto events. And again, it is Ibn Kathir, so why shouldn't I say that OP is right to assert that it is the Islamic view? I have not so far been able to find any other tafsirs or comments that claim Ibn Kathir was wrong in his assertions. So, why not? 🥱

honesttalk21:
➜ Ibn Kathir listing multiple versions doesn't make them Qur'anic, nor does it establish one as settled doctrine. He never calls the substitution story Qur'anic fact; that's being inferred from his inclusion of it.
➜ Saying it adds context actually proves the point that it's outside the Qur'anic text. And the absence of another tafsir calling him wrong doesn't create consensus. Silence isn't consensus.

1. Again, the Quran literally says nothing on the subject. Recall again why we are told we should consult the Tafsir when reading the Quran. 🥱

Thus, tafsir al Qur’an is the scholarly discipline dedicated to explaining the meanings of the Qur’an, clarifying its intended messages, understanding the circumstances of its revelation (asbab al-nuzul), and deriving its practical rulings and moral lessons.

And here, we have Ibn Kathir coming in with transmitted information that does not invalidate the particular Qur'anic texts while providing us, via transmitted information, the circumstances of the text's revelation. 🥱

2. Did you really say that? "Silence isn't consensus," that is?😶😶

ahmedio2017:
➜Can you explain why God created hell fire and Satan?
➜ There is a purpose for everything, jesus wasn't killed he was taken up. So why are you twisting the Qur'an.

If by God, you specifically mean the YHWH of Israel, I can explain why He did what He did.

2. Nah! Jesus Christ of Israel was killed and, by defeating death, as He promised He would on the third day, He proved Himself worthy as the lamb of YHWH and also the Messiah that was prophesied of through the Prophet, the King to reign over Israel forever. He had to die in order to fulfill His promise and take His place at the right hand side of His Father, YHWH of Israel, from where He began reigning almost 2000 years ago. 🥱

Isa of Islam is instead the one who was not killed but was raised to be with his Allah of Islam in the Quran. The two beings have nothing in common. 🥱

Kobojunkie:
They were to go into the world to the Lost sheep of Israel wherever they may be found, to gather them back. That is what His mandate from YHWH of Israel was, and the same mandate He gave to his followers. 😒😒

Salvation cannot be for everyone because the only ones who needed saving from anything were the Lost Sheep of Israel. 😒

The Covenant was made only to the Israelites by the YHWH of Israel in His Law of Moses ---the Constitution of the ancient nation of Israel --, and it explicitly offered them a chance for Salvation, redemption from the curse of sin(not sin alone). The Israelites, as He proclaimed through Moses, were eventually condemned/cursed by him, the YHWH of Israel. And the redemption that came right as that happened was the salvation from the same curse, which He offered to those of them who were spared the purging that followed the curse.😒😒

1. Jesus Died for the "Whole World" (Not Just Israel)
The New Testament explicitly states that Jesus’s sacrifice was global, distinct from and reaching far beyond ethnic Israel.
• 1 John 2:2 – "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (This directly separates the immediate Jewish audience from the rest of the world).
• John 1:29 – John the Baptist announces Jesus as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
• John 3:16 – "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son..."

2. The Purpose of Gathering Israel Was to Bless the Gentiles
The Old Testament covenant itself was never meant to stop at Israel. Israel was chosen to be a conduit of salvation to the rest of the world.
• Genesis 22:18 – God tells Abraham, "and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed..."
• Isaiah 49:6 – God tells the Messiah that saving Israel is too small a task: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob... I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."

3. Jesus Explicitly Mandated Preaching to Non-Israelites
While Jesus initially focused his earthly ministry on Israel (Matthew 15:24), his post-resurrection final command completely obliterated those geographic and ethnic boundaries.
• Matthew 28:19 – "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." (The Greek word used here is ethne, meaning non-Jewish ethnic groups/Gentiles).
• Luke 24:47 – "...and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
• Acts 1:8 – "But you will receive power... and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

4. The Curse of the Law Applied to Gentiles Too
The narrative claims only Israel needed saving from the curse of the Law. However, Paul explains that the Law served to convict the entire world so that everyone would need salvation.
• Romans 3:19 – "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God."
• Galatians 3:14 – Paul explains why Christ redeemed Israel from the curse: “He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus...”

5. Prophetic Proof of a Mixed Kingdom
Revelation shows the final result of Jesus's death, proving it successfully redeemed people who are completely unrelated to the lost tribes of Israel.
• Revelation 5:9 – Heaven sings to Jesus: “...because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.”

safarifarms:
➜1. Jesus Died for the "Whole World" (Not Just Israel)
The New Testament explicitly states that Jesus’s sacrifice was global, distinct from and reaching far beyond ethnic Israel.
• 1 John 2:2 – "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world." (This directly separates the immediate Jewish audience from the rest of the world).
• John 1:29 – John the Baptist announces Jesus as "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"
• John 3:16 – "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son..."
2. The Purpose of Gathering Israel Was to Bless the Gentiles
The Old Testament covenant itself was never meant to stop at Israel. Israel was chosen to be a conduit of salvation to the rest of the world.
• Genesis 22:18 – God tells Abraham, "and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed..."
• Isaiah 49:6 – God tells the Messiah that saving Israel is too small a task: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob... I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth."...

1. The context of the 3rd reference there of John 3 makes clear that the world referenced by John the Baptist, as well as Jesus Christ of Israel in John 3: 16, is the world that is comprised of the Israelites, as explained in the verses prior.

14 “Moses lifted up the snake in the desert. It is the same with the Son of Man. He must be lifted up too.
15 Then everyone who believes in him can have eternal life.”
16 Yes, God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him would not be lost but have eternal life.
17 God sent his Son into the world. He did not send him to judge the world guilty, but to save the world through him. - John 3 vs 14 - 17

The World that was loved in the Wilderness with Moses by YHWH of Israel was the World that comprised the Israelites in the desert --Numbers 21. It is the same with Jesus Christ of Israel, meaning the World Jesus Christ of Israel loves is the same World His Father loved in the Wilderness and lifted a snake for love. John 3: 16 is simply using a metonymy to describe the Israelites as the World that was loved and the same that was given by YHWH of Israel to His Son so that it may be redeemed from the curse of sin, similar to how he redeemed them using the snake in the Wilderness.🥱

2. The term Gentile is a term that is used to refer to members of the same family living in the diaspora; i.e. is used to refer to people who are all members of the same bloodline, aka family.

2 Japheth’s sons were Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras.
3 Gomer’s sons were Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah.
4 Javan’s sons were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim.[a]
5 All the people who lived in the area around the Mediterranean Sea came from these sons of Japheth. The people separated and went to different countries according to languages, families, and nations. -Genesis 10 vs 2 - 5

IT was first used about the family of Japheth; I believe he was the father of the Arabs. And it was later on used about the family of Jacob — meaning those who are of the bloodline of Jacob, just as YHWH made clear through His Prophets.

Also, the covenant explains that every nation on the earth would be blessed through Abraham's descendants. It does not say anything of our particular religious interpretation that somehow makes you convinced you can plug yourselves into a covenant made only for Abraham's descendants. 🥱🥱

ahmedio2017:
Can you explain why God created hell fire and Satan? There is a purpose for everything, jesus wasn't killed he was taken up. So why are you twisting the Qur'an.

You made a claim and I asked how, who are the eye witness that saw Jesus escape the cross. The Christian God will not deceive that is why there are accounts of his capture and nailing on the cross. But in the case of islam it claims it was deception on the side of islam God,my question is who was with Jesus at the time that can verify your claims of his escape.

LadyExcellency:
In Islam, when the Romans came to arrest Jesus, he hid among his disciples and offered them a deal:
“Who will take my place, and Allah will reward him with a castle in paradise?”
The Islamic Jesus bargains for his own survival. He offers paradise as currency for someone else’s suffering.
He escapes and someone else dies.
This fits perfectly with Muhammad’s method, castles, virgins, rivers of wine, palm trees in paradise, divine bribery, used to extract whatever Muhamed desired from his followers. They are projecting the image of Muhammad onto Jesus. At the Battle of Uhud, Muhammad asked his companions to sacrifice themselves to protect him, promising Paradise to those who did. Seven of them were killed while shielding him.

You got it but missed one part:

Everything in the Quran was fabricated by Muhammad after hearing the truth from Catholics surrounding the life and death of Jesus.

Muhammad wanted to make himself a prophet too but real prophets have self sacrificing spirit which makes them face death and any type of persecution whereas Muhammad just want to enjoy his life by all means manly possible!🙂

Mohammed Quran is falshood...Jesus is not isa.....pls go read " Who is this Allah by G J O MOSHE

Kobojunkie:
1. Again, the Quran literally says nothing on the subject. Recall again why we are told we should consult the Tafsir when reading the Quran. 🥱
And here, we have Ibn Kathir coming in with transmitted information that does not invalidate the particular Qur'anic texts while providing us, via transmitted information, the circumstances of the text's revelation. 🥱

2. Did you really say that? "Silence isn't consensus," that is?😶😶

Consulting tafsir for context doesn't mean everything in it is automatically true. Ibn Kathir is reporting transmitted material, including differing narrations;he isn't saying, this is certain Qur'anic fact. That's the distinction you're overlooking.

And yes, silence isn't consensus. The fact that later tafsir doesn't explicitly reject Ibn Kathir's report doesn't turn an ahad (single) narration into tawatur or make it Qur'anic. Consensus requires actual agreement, not merely the absence of disagreement.

As for the Quran literally says nothing on the subject, exactly. That's why tafsir is consulted. To provide context and transmitted reports surrounding the text, not to turn those reports into revelation. Ibn Kathir is transmitting such material; transmission alone doesn't make it certain.

honesttalk21:
Consulting tafsir for context doesn't mean everything in it is automatically true.

This is what makes Islam worthless!

You people will stick to whatever a book says to support your religion but when the same writer goes against your religion you will say it's weak hadith. The same you people does to the Bible yet you want to use the same Bible to authenticate your Arab religion.

It's time you grow up and learn to be TRULY HONEST about religion!🤔

honesttalk21:
➜Consulting tafsir for context doesn't mean everything in it is automatically true. Ibn Kathir is reporting transmitted material, including differing narrations;he isn't saying, this is certain Qur'anic fact. That's the distinction you're overlooking. And yes, silence isn't consensus. The fact that later tafsir doesn't explicitly reject Ibn Kathir's report doesn't turn an ahad (single) narration into tawatur or make it Qur'anic. Consensus requires actual agreement, not merely the absence of disagreement.
As for the Quran literally says nothing on the subject, exactly. That's why tafsir is consulted. To provide context and transmitted reports surrounding the text, not to turn those reports into revelation. Ibn Kathir is transmitting such material; transmission alone doesn't make it certain.

This is all funny coming from an Islamist. I recall Islamists do this very same thing to biblical texts. For example, I read in the Islamic section on Reddit that the major evidence used by Islamists literally to back their fallacious claim that Rebekkah must have been 3 years of age at the time of her marriage comes from a commentary made by a fool called Rashi, who lived more than 2000 years after the writing of the Pentateuch. Rashi, without any evidence, claimed that Rebekkah was born when Abraham was on the mount, when absolutely nothing in the Book of Genesis, which he pretends to quote, states or suggests(directly or indirectly) any of this. So, if we are to go with the stewpid practice of the Islamists, then we should take even this entry and every other found in the tafsir as Quranic truth. 🥱🥱

** For those not in the know about what the Bible actually records, the text below from Genesis 22:19-24 details all those who had been born to the family of Abraham's brother. Nothing in the text says they were all born at the same time or at the time the message was delivered to Abraham. 🥱

Islamist refers to a political ideology, not Muslims generally. Don't know if such moniker exists on this platform but it doesn't refer to me. More importantly though, tafsir is a defined Islamic discipline with its own methods and internal criticism. Scholars distinguish stronger reports from weaker ones. So while the comparison with Rashi isn't perfectly parallel, the basic point still stands that being classified as scholarly commentary doesn't make everything in it scripture or automatically true. Tafsir itself provides a basis for distinguishing what is certain from what is merely transmitted.

Kobojunkie:
This is all funny coming from an Islamist. I recall Islamists do this very same thing to biblical texts. For example, I read in the Islamic section on Reddit that the major evidence used by Islamists literally to back their fallacious claim that Rebekkah must have been 3 years of age at the time of her marriage comes from a commentary made by a fool called Rashi, who lived more than 2000 years after the writing of the Pentateuch. Rashi, without any evidence, claimed that Rebekkah was born when Abraham was on the mount, when absolutely nothing in the Book of Genesis, which he pretends to quote, states or suggests(directly or indirectly) any of this. So, if we are to go with the stewpid practice of the Islamists, then we should take even this entry and every other found in the tafsir as Quranic truth. 🥱🥱

** For those not in the know about what the Bible actually records, the text below from Genesis 22:19-24 details all those who had been born to the family of Abraham's brother. Nothing in the text says they were all born at the same time or at the time the message was delivered to Abraham. 🥱

honesttalk21:
Islamist refers to a political ideology, not Muslims generally.

Are they Muslims doing the will of your god?
That is what matters.
If millions of Muslims across the world stands against those killers everyone will agree with you that they are not doing the will of your god but obviously you people are confused!🤔

honesttalk21:
➜Islamist refers to a political ideology, not Muslims generally. Don't know if such moniker exists on this platform but it doesn't refer to me.
➜ More importantly though, tafsir is a defined Islamic discipline with its own methods and internal criticism. Scholars distinguish stronger reports from weaker ones. So while the comparison with Rashi isn't perfectly parallel, the basic point still stands that being classified as scholarly commentary doesn't make everything in it scripture or automatically true. Tafsir itself provides a basis for distinguishing what is certain from what is merely transmitted.

Islam isn't a religion but a political system masquerading as a religion. And Pew reports show that the vast majority of adherents of Islam across the world, including those living in the West, embrace the political aspects of Islam. So, what is this really about again? Taqiyya?😒😒

2. Well, until those scholars come out to attack the claim made by Ibn Kathir, I think I will continue to stick with his claims as Sahih on this, too. 😁

As you are oblivious and weren't looking so can't see that Ahmad Shakir, while reviewing Ibn Kathir, noted that his tafsir contains isra’iliyyat despite his caution concerning them. And the material here is traced through Wahb ibn Munabbih, whose transmissions are themselves subject to scrutiny. So if no scholar has established this particular report as sound, why treat Ibn Kathir’s inclusion of it as proof? It appears in his tafsir is not the same as Ibn Kathir proved it Sahih.

Kobojunkie:
Islam isn't a religion but a political system masquerading as a religion. And Pew reports show that the vast majority of adherents of Islam across the world, including those living in the West, embrace the political aspects of Islam. So, what is this really about again? Taqiyya?😒😒

2. Well, until those scholars come out to attack the claim made by Ibn Kathir, I think I will continue to stick with his claims as Sahih on this, too. 😁

honesttalk21:
➜As you are oblivious and weren't looking so can't see that Ahmad Shakir, while reviewing Ibn Kathir, noted that his tafsir contains isra’iliyyat despite his caution concerning them.
➜ And the material here is traced through Wahb ibn Munabbih, whose transmissions are themselves subject to scrutiny. So if no scholar has established this particular report as sound, why treat Ibn Kathir’s inclusion of it as proof? It appears in his tafsir is not the same as Ibn Kathir proved it Sahih.

1. The Quran and Hadiths are literally riddled with lots of excerpts of that kind and more. 😒😒

2. We are discussing the text that was elevated by Ibn Kathir, Islam's most esteemed tafsir scholar. 😒😒

A little too preoccupied with other things to thoroughly engage?
1. That's deflection, not a rebuttal. The existence of similar material elsewhere in Islamic literature doesn't establish this particular report as sound. The real question is whether this report has actually been authenticated, not whether comparable narratives exist.

2. Ibn Kathir's status doesn't settle that question either. Being an esteemed scholar doesn't make every report he transmits infallible. Ahmad Shakir respected him while still noting weak Isra'iliyyat in his tafsir. Scholarly prestige is not authentication.

Kobojunkie:
1. The Quran and Hadiths are literally riddled with lots of excerpts of that kind and more. 😒😒

2. We are discussing the text that was elevated by Ibn Kathir, Islam's most esteemed tafsir scholar. 😒😒

honesttalk21:
A little too preoccupied with other things to thoroughly engage?
1. That's deflection, not a rebuttal. The existence of similar material elsewhere in Islamic literature doesn't establish this particular report as sound. The real question is whether this report has actually been authenticated, not whether comparable narratives exist.
2. Ibn Kathir's status doesn't settle that question either. Being an esteemed scholar doesn't make every report he transmits infallible. Ahmad Shakir respected him while still noting weak Isra'iliyyat in his tafsir. Scholarly prestige is not authentication.

1. Your previous comment was a deflection. Both the Quran and Hadiths are literally littered with Isra'iliyyat, so to expect none of that to find their way into tafsir is ludicrous. 🙄🙄

2. That is according to you! However, according to what I have heard from so many other Islamic scholars, Ibn Kathir has been the gold standard for commentaries for the longest time in Islam. I will stick to his words, as they do. 😒😒

1. Nobody says tafsir shouldn't contain isra'iliyyat. The point is that their presence doesn't make them established fact, which is why scholars assess these reports rather than accept them wholesale. You've effectively conceded that such material can be unreliable, which is the point.

2. And not according to me. Ahmad Shakir is a named scholar who reviewed Ibn Kathir directly and noted weak isra'iliyyat in his tafsir. “Gold standard overall” and “every report is sound” are two different claims. Respecting Ibn Kathir is one thing; treating this particular unauthenticated report as though he certified it is another.

Kobojunkie:
1. Your previous comment was a deflection. Both the Quran and Hadiths are literally littered with Isra'iliyyat, so to expect none of that to find their way into tafsir is ludicrous. 🙄🙄

2. That is according to you! However, according to what I have heard from so many other Islamic scholars, Ibn Kathir has been the gold standard for commentaries for the longest time in Islam. I will stick to his words, as they do. 😒😒

honesttalk21:
1. Nobody says tafsir shouldn't contain isra'iliyyat. The point is that their presence doesn't make them established fact, which is why scholars assess these reports rather than accept them wholesale.
➜ You've effectively conceded that such material can be unreliable, which is the point.
2. And not according to me. Ahmad Shakir is a named scholar who reviewed Ibn Kathir directly and noted weak isra'iliyyat in his tafsir. “Gold standard overall” and “every report is sound” are two different claims. Respecting Ibn Kathir is one thing; treating this particular unauthenticated report as though he certified it is another.

1. Again, that is not a point but a meaningless attempt at a deflection! 😒😒

2. I never did that! I said instead that while it could be considered unreliable, the fact that it is endorsed by Ibn Kathir himself means it is likely not unreliable.

3. Ahmad Shakir is a nobody when it comes to Ibn Kathir! And this is in Islam! 😒

1. Calling the objection meaningless doesn't answer it. You still haven't shown why appearing in tafsir makes a report authenticated. That's the point you keep avoiding.

2. That's not what Ibn Kathir's method establishes. Isra'iliyyat aren't automatically endorsed simply because he records them. Here, he transmits conflicting accounts about who was substituted without establishing one as certain. That's reporting the tradition, not certifying every version. The material is also traced through Wahb ibn Munabbih, whose transmissions are themselves subject to scrutiny.

3. Calling Ahmad Shakir a nobody doesn't address his evidence. He was a prominent hadith scholar who specifically reviewed and annotated Ibn Kathir's tafsir, applying hadith criticism to its reports. That's not an outsider dismissing Ibn Kathir; it's the same critical method being applied to transmitted material. If his assessment is wrong, explain why. Dismissing him by status doesn't establish your claim.

Kobojunkie:
1. Again, that is not a point but a meaningless attempt at a deflection! 😒😒

2. I never did that! I said instead that while it could be considered unreliable, the fact that it is endorsed by Ibn Kathir himself means it is likely not unreliable.

3. Ahmad Shakir is a nobody when it comes to Ibn Kathir! And this is in Islam! 😒

honesttalk21:
1. Calling the objection meaningless doesn't answer it. You still haven't shown why appearing in tafsir makes a report authenticated. That's the point you keep avoiding.
2. That's not what Ibn Kathir's method establishes. Isra'iliyyat aren't automatically endorsed simply because he records them. Here, he transmits conflicting accounts about who was substituted without establishing one as certain. That's reporting the tradition, not certifying every version. The material is also traced through Wahb ibn Munabbih, whose transmissions are themselves subject to scrutiny.
3. Calling Ahmad Shakir a nobody doesn't address his evidence. He was a prominent hadith scholar who specifically reviewed and annotated Ibn Kathir's tafsir, applying hadith criticism to its reports. That's not an outsider dismissing Ibn Kathir; it's the same critical method being applied to transmitted material. If his assessment is wrong, explain why. Dismissing him by status doesn't establish your claim.

1. Meaningless waste of time. 😒

2. The fact that it is endorsed by Ibn Kathir makes it reliable in Islam. 🤔

3. Again, Ahmad Shakir is a nobody when it comes to Ibn Kathir! And this is in Islam! 😒

Continuing with your indefensible statements doesn't authenticate them then tell was Ibn Kathir a prophet or companion of the prophet to make him more worthy than Shakir?

Kobojunkie:
1. Meaningless waste of time. 😒

2. The fact that it is endorsed by Ibn Kathir makes it reliable in Islam. 🤔

3. Again, Ahmad Shakir is a nobody when it comes to Ibn Kathir! And this is in Islam! 😒

honesttalk21:
➜Continuing with your indefensible statements doesn't authenticate them then tell was Ibn Kathir a prophet or companion of the prophet to make him more worthy than Shakir?

Indefensible? My literal defense is that Ibn Kathir remains the most respected Quranic commentator in Islam. Still, no other personality has been raised to the same status as he is in Islam, where tafsirs are concerned. And this is all despite Islam's awareness of the inclusion of that narrative in his commentary for Quran 4 vs 153-159. We are talking about a tafsir that is about 800 years old and esteemed in Islam. His interpretation of the Quran remains the gold standard among Islamists. So, what in the world are you going around and around in circles for or about?😒

Ibn Kathir being respected isn't in dispute. The question is whether that makes this specific report reliable. Egypt's Dar al Ifta ranks his tafsir second only to al Tabari's, while al Tabari himself records disagreement among exegetes over the nature of the crucifixion resemblance. Respected authorities transmitting a disputed report doesn't settle the report itself. That's the distinction you keep avoiding, not me.

Kobojunkie:
Indefensible? My literal defense is that Ibn Kathir remains the most respected Quranic commentator in Islam. Still, no other personality has been raised to the same status as he is in Islam, where tafsirs are concerned. And this is all despite Islam's awareness of the inclusion of that narrative in his commentary for Quran 4 vs 153-159. We are talking about a tafsir that is about 800 years old and esteemed in Islam. His interpretation of the Quran remains the gold standard among Islamists. So, what in the world are you going around and around in circles for or about?😒

honesttalk21:
➜ Ibn Kathir being respected isn't in dispute. The question is whether that makes this specific report reliable. Egypt's Dar al Ifta ranks his tafsir second only to al Tabari's, while al Tabari himself records disagreement among exegetes over the nature of the crucifixion resemblance. Respected authorities transmitting a disputed report doesn't settle the report itself. That's the distinction you keep avoiding, not me.

The same thing that makes every other one of his other tafsirs reliable? Reverence for his work in the Islamic community for the past 800 or so years. That is exactly what makes even this work undisputedly sahih. 😁😁