Heretical Claims: Denying the Qur’an on Jesus’ (Isa A.S.) Crucifixion
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian (1841–1908) made numerous false claims, including some of the most controversial regarding the life and death of Jesus Christ.
One of the most controversial claims he made concerns the belief that Jesus (Prophet Isa A.S.) was crucified, taken down from the cross, and treated with a medicinal ointment called “Marham-e-Isa” (Ointment of Jesus). This article will examine the sources Mirza used to support his claims and explore the inaccuracies and fabrications behind his argument.
It is to be noted here that according to the Holy Qur’an, Jesus (Prophet Isa A.S.) was neither killed nor crucified. However, Mirza’s claim that Prophet Isa A.S. (Jesus) was crucified, clearly contradicts with the Holy Qur’an.
According to the Holy Qur’an:
And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the messenger of Allāh.” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Rather, Allah raised him up to Himself. And Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.
Mirza’s interpretation of the crucifixion and the treatment of Jesus Christ diverges sharply from traditional Islamic beliefs. According to Mirza, Jesus was crucified, but survived the ordeal. After being taken down from the cross, his body was treated with an ointment known as Marham-e-Isa, which Mirza claims was used for quick wound healing. This ointment, according to Mirza, was documented in many medical books written by people from various religious backgrounds. However, Mirza failed to provide proof of any such writings.
The Role of Marham-e-Isa in Mirza’s Narrative
Mirza emphasized the importance of Marham-e-Isa, stating that to understand the true nature of the crucifixion, scholarly sources and truthfulness were essential. He argued that this ointment played a crucial role in Jesus’ survival after the crucifixion. However, despite his claims, no credible evidence supports the existence of this ointment as a treatment for Jesus’ wounds.
The Claim of Multilingual Evidence
Mirza further argued that Marham-e-Isa was mentioned in hundreds of medical books, written by Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Muslims. These books, according to him, were testimonies to the authenticity of his claim. However, closer examination reveals that none of these works provide evidence supporting Mirza’s version of events.
Misattribution of Sources
Mirza cited many books to support his claims, including medical works attributed to Sheikh al-Ra’is Abu Ali Sina (Avicenna), where he falsely stated that Marham-e-Isa was a prescription in Avicenna’s Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb (The Canon of Medicine). After a thorough review of these works, it is clear that no such reference exists. Instead, the ointment mentioned in Avicenna’s book is called Marham-e-Rasul, Marham-e-Shliha, and other names, none of which are connected to Jesus Christ or his crucifixion.
The Fabrication of Roman Pharmacopoeia References
Mirza also claimed that a Roman pharmacopoeia, written after the crucifixion of Jesus, contained a prescription for Marham-e-Isa. However, no such pharmacopoeia or reference exists in historical records, exposing another layer of fabrication in Mirza’s writings.
Misleading Interpretations of Ancient Texts
Mirza misinterpreted terms, including the word “Shliha,” which he claimed was Greek for “twelve.” However, the term actually originates from Hebrew and means “sent one.” Mirza’s misinterpretation highlights his disregard for scholarly methods and reliance on unfounded claims.
The Twelve Ingredients of the Ointment
Mirza also tried to connect the twelve ingredients of the ointment to the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ. However, the term “Dodecapharmacum” actually refers to a medical concoction consisting of twelve ingredients, none of which are related to the disciples or the crucifixion of Jesus.
Financial Motive Behind the Fabrication
The promotion of Marham-e-Isa appears to have been motivated by financial gain, with Mirza even setting up a factory named “Karkhana-e-Marham-e-Isa” (Ointment of Jesus Factory) in Lahore. This factory produced the so-called “Ointment of Jesus” and sold it to the public under fraudulent pretenses, claiming it was a cure for the wounds Jesus suffered during the crucifixion.
It should be of interest here that Mirza had committed simillar financial fraud before; when he collected funds to write 50 volumes of the book Barahin-e-Ahmadiyya.
He finished only five volumes of the said book citing that 50 and 5 only differ by ‘zero’ and zero has no value so 5 should be considered the same as 50; when the donors complained about the remaining volumes of the book.
Conclusion
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s claims about Marham-e-Isa and its connection to Jesus’ crucifixion have been thoroughly debunked. No historical or medical sources support his narrative, and much of what he wrote can be classified as deliberate fabrication. His actions, which included the financial exploitation of his followers, demonstrate the deceptive nature of his claims. The true story of Jesus Christ, according to Islamic beliefs, does not require such unsubstantiated claims or fraudulent treatments.
Call for Evidence
The Ghulam Ahmadiyya community is encouraged to provide evidence from any credible medical sources that mention the name Marham-e-Isa and its use for healing the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ. Until such evidence is provided, the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Kadiani remain unsubstantiated.
Mufti Ghulam Rasul Amritsari (may Allah have mercy on him), asked the following questions from Ghulam Ahmadis almost 130 years ago. These questions remain unanswered to this day. We present those questions below, again:
- Who were the people who stated in their books that Marham-e-Isa was prepared for the wounds of Jesus Christ?
- If they did actually write such a thing, what could be the sources of information for these learned authors?
References
The Holy Qur’an (4:157-158).
Ahmad, M. G. (n.d.). Masih Hindustan Mein (Vol. 15, p. 57). Ruhani Khazain.
Ahmad, M. G. (n.d.). Masih Hindustan Mein (Vol. 15, pp. 58–59). Ruhani Khazain.
Ahmad, M. G. (n.d.). Masih Hindustan Mein (Vol. 15, p. 60). Ruhani Khazain.
Amritsari, M. H., & Amritsari, M. G. R. (Trans.). (n.d.). Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb (Vol. 3, p. 405). Egyptian edition.
Dunglison, R. (1857). Medical Lexicon: A Dictionary of Medical Science (p. 209).
Khazain, M. G. (n.d.). Khazain (Vol. 14, p. 347).
Khazain, M. G. (n.d.). Khazain (Vol. 15, p. 63).
Masih, A. M. (n.d.). Review of Religions (Vol. 1, No. 10, p. 419).
Ruhani Khazain. (n.d.). Tehreek-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat (Vol. 23, p. 387).
The London Encyclopaedia: or Universal Dictionary of Science, Art. (1829). Apostolorum Unguentum (p. 507). Volume 2.
The American Revised Bible Commentary, John, Chapter 9, Verse 7; Qamus al-Kitab (p. 586).
Tehreek-e-Khatm-e-Nubuwwat, Vol. 23, Article: Marham-e-Rasul, p. 387.