According to the story, on the eve of actual crucifixion, a different person’s features became exactly like Jesus(pbuh). The Jews mistook the other person (Jehova?) as actual Jesus(pbuh) and hanged the wrong person on the cross. We don’t want to go into the debate of how absurd it is for person’s features to get changed. Let us give the benefit of doubt by saying that the other person’s features did not change but to the Jews it appeared so. They mistook the other person to be actual Jesus(pbuh).
Regardless of whether this story is true or false, regardless of whether Jesus(pbuh) was hanged on cross or not, fact remains that he could not have been raised before his DEATH, as testified by verse 3:54. If he was raised alive, then the verses 4:157-158 and 3:54 are in contradiction. The Muslim scholars will never want you find out that their preaching are contradictory and that they cannot conclusively reconcile these and several other verses.
Let me show you an extreme case of corruption. This translation is of verse 4:157, done by Hilali & Khan and published by the Saudi Government. They have placed Arabic text by the side of the English translation. Any naïve reader would think that the translation is representing the actual Arabic wordings. A naïve reader may further think that the combination of Hilali &Khan and Saudi Government must have produced correct teaching. On the contrary, it is incorrect and corrupt. You will be surprised to see the extent of manipulation. Let us examine:
|4:157||Hilali & Khan :”And because of their saying (in boast) “We killed Messiah Isa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” -but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)….|
|Please note carefully, Hilali & Khan translated the Arabic WA lakin subbiha lahum as “but the resemblance of Isa (Jesus) was put over another man”. In the actual Arabic where are the words “of Isa” and “another man”? How dare Hilali & Khan put interpolated words inside the translation and surreptitiously suggest that these were “revealed text”? Did Allah reveal these words secretly to them, because apparently He forgot to reveal to Muhammad(pbuh) (nauzubillah!!!!). Or do they mean that they know better than Allah? Please note, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Shakir, Rodwell, and many others did not go this extreme. Only adamant and utterly corrupt people, including Hilali & Khan may keep arguing that the translation is OK. Do I have to dig out the their eyes to show that “of Isa” and “another man” is not in there in the actual Arabic. They say this theory is based on some Hadith or Islamic consensus or something! Well, then put those interpolated and false words inside parenthesis, will you? Put all the babble and fraudulent stories as commentary in the footnote and not as translation. Don’t fool the Muslims with this notion that all the junk and fabricated words are “revealed text”. Suffice it say at this time that Hilali & Khan’s this translation is corrupt, false and adulterated. This is just one example of how they are cheating Muslims, and naïve Muslims are digesting the falsehood.|