For Muslims: Ezra...the Son of God?

[Byzantine_Wolf]

taken from: islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html…

:doh2: What was it I had said?

…please quote me at least one Jewish source that confirms this.

You quote a Muslim article that quotes from Jewish sources (or at least one, in addition to Muslim and secular sources). Is it really that hard to allow contemporary sources to speak for themselves? Must it only be through the lens of Islam?

We must be sure that hadith is realy said by prophet Muhammad, first. I’m not sure and you must confirm it. We have eanough reasons to say that some people create apoctryphal hadithes and big number of such hadithes came in hadith books.

I’m afraid you’re ignoring the larger point I’ve made, as well as the request I’ve made. If you are to say that these hadiths are not authentic - despite the fact they are sahih (authentic) hadiths taken from respected sources (Bukhari/Muslim) - then please show me why. I’ve made my case for their reliability - now you make your case that they are not.

Simply saying “I’m not sure” isn’t a scholarly response. It’s also quite rude in debate - you’re basically telling the person, “You’re wrong, but I refuse to say why.” If you were in a serious moderated debate, and someone presented evidence and you said, “I dismiss that as untrustworthy!” and the other person said, “Why?” and you simply replied, “I’m not sure,” you would be laughed off the stage.

Quran never asked god to curse others.Yes Quran says they’ll to hell. It is not only reason. They deny prophethopod of prophet Muhammad.

Quran doesn’t say the Jews believe Ezra to be the Son of God like Christians believe Christ to be the Son of God, It just says that they say he is son of god. And Quran is not prophet Muhammad’s quotes, it is god’s word

I must confess that I find it quite ironic that I, a Christian, am the only one allowing the Quranic text to speak for itself.

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [S. 9:30; Yusuf Ali; emphasis mine]

“The Jews say this, and the Christian say this.” That’s putting it in the same context. The Quran identifies both as equal falsehoods. Furthermore, it says "Allah’s curse be on them. Other translations say, “Allah fight against” or “Allah destroy” the Jews and Christians, but in any context…it’s not good.

Incidentally, this is from the article you cited:

For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah

So your own sources disagree with you.

And about “the jews” it is the problem of translations. Quran says وَ قالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّه‏ and it just mean…We don’t must translate الیهود to “the Jews” it must translate to “Jews” . I don’t see enough reasons to translate to “the Jews”.

Oh good! So it’s even more generic! At least with “the Jews” you could at least argue it was a specific group because of the definite article, but because you have shrunken it down to simply “Jews,” you make the translation of the Quran speak in even more generic terms, ie Jews entire. Which would actually fit quite well with the sahih hadiths where Mohammad simply speaks of Jews in general.

About jews of yasreb, Absolutly Quran criticizes and answers the cults who came to talk by him and we know only Jews of yasreb came to him for debates, So this verse answers them.

No it doesn’t, because that is only found in the hadiths, and according to you we cannot trust hadiths unless we know for certain that they can be trustworthy…and you haven’t thus far shown any standard for us to judge hadiths, nor why we should trust the hadiths you are drawing from. That, again, is inconsistency.

As it stands in the Quran and only by what the Quran says, Jews say Ezra is the Son of God. It doesn’t say cults. It simply says “Jews believe this.”

And pleas don’t deflect the thread. This thread is about Ezra in Quran and it is better we try to conitue talking about it

I wasn’t. I was simply showing that the context of the curse and the war is because of what the Jews believe as shown in the context of the Quran through honest exegesis rather than eisegesis separated from the text.

Do what?

Please think before you post. The context of what I was saying was obvious. I quoted what you said to do, and said I will leave you at that, then followed it up with further context. Answering this way makes me wonder if you are truly reading my arguments in full or simply responding piecemeal to what I am saying.

As I said before Quran didn’t said all of jews and Quran is not a book about relegions and just replied the persons whi dicussed muslims.

Quran never talks about worship or veneration.

The Quran may not use the exact wording “all of Jews,” but neither does it say “the Jews of Yasreb,” nor “the Jews of Medina.” You have read into this by quoting from outside sources, which you then refuse to show proof for the reliability of, although you dismiss any outside sources provided by me outright without saying why. Again, this is not intellectual dishonesty, and quite frankly every one can see through this logical fallacy.

But you are quite right in saying that the Quran is not a “book about religions,” because if it were graded by what those religions it talks about actually believed, it would fail miserably.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Small typo in my last post…

Again, this is not intellectual dishonesty, and…

I meant to write, “this is intellectual dishonesty.” Whoops.

 

[friendship]

:doh2: What was it I had said?

You quote a Muslim article that quotes from Jewish sources (or at least one, in addition to Muslim and secular sources). Is it really that hard to allow contemporary sources to speak for themselves? Must it only be through the lens of Islam?

My problem is inaccessibilty to jewish sources but that article refrenced to a jewish source

I’m afraid you’re ignoring the larger point I’ve made, as well as the request I’ve made. If you are to say that these hadiths are not authentic - despite the fact they are sahih (authentic) hadiths taken from respected sources (Bukhari/Muslim) - then please show me why. I’ve made my case for their reliability - now you make your case that they are not.

Simply saying “I’m not sure” isn’t a scholarly response. It’s also quite rude in debate - you’re basically telling the person, “You’re wrong, but I refuse to say why.” If you were in a serious moderated debate, and someone presented evidence and you said, “I dismiss that as untrustworthy!” and the other person said, “Why?” and you simply replied, “I’m not sure,” you would be laughed off the stage.

My friend, you are using hadithes to confirm your claim, and it is your duty to confirm that the hadith is trustworthy, and after that It’ll be my duty that accept your claim or try to give you eanough reasons to deny the hadithes.

A bout Sahih books, Sahih is their name and there many hadthes whitch sunnis deny them. I am as a shiah don’t need any thing over “These book are not our sources” but I tried to continue the discussion.

I must confess that I find it quite ironic that I, a Christian, am the only one allowing the Quranic text to speak for itself.

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [S. 9:30; Yusuf Ali; emphasis mine]

“The Jews say this, and the Christian say this.” That’s putting it in the same context. The Quran identifies both as equal falsehoods. Furthermore, it says "Allah’s curse be on them. Other translations say, “Allah fight against” or “Allah destroy” the Jews and Christians, but in any context…it’s not good.

I don’t think that my sentences are ironic. Nobel Quran says the jews said Ezra is son of God and Christians said Christ is son of God, But Quran never said they have same theory about them. have look at these sentences:

Christians say Jesus is the Christ.
Muslims say Jesus is the Christ.

Do these sentences show that Christans and Muslims have same velief about Jesus? Absolutly not.

Incidentally, this is from the article you cited:

For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah

My friend I just tried to show you a article with a jewish refrence, I don’t mean every thing it said is true.

Oh good! So it’s even more generic! At least with “the Jews” you could at least argue it was a specific group because of the definite article, but because you have shrunken it down to simply “Jews,” you make the translation of the Quran speak in even more generic terms, ie Jews entire. Which would actually fit quite well with the sahih hadiths where Mohammad simply speaks of Jews in general.

My friend my engilsh is not good, But as I understand the arabic verse It doesn’t mean all of jews. Absolutly translation can’t view the verse very good. The vere didn’t jews but says “jew”(not polural) and we must research about the meaning of this name. translators translated “ال” witch cme before jew to “the”. It can be true but it must mean “The jew said Ezra is son of god” So we must talk about a jewish one who said that!

As you see it is not easy to translate this verse. I think it is better to mean the “group of jewishes” whitch means jews of yasreb. Quran as I said before is not a book about relegions and just answered the persons came to debate with muslims some times. Absolutly prophet Muhammad didn’t have debate with all of jewishes.

No it doesn’t, because that is only found in the hadiths, and according to you we cannot trust hadiths unless we know for certain that they can be trustworthy…and you haven’t thus far shown any standard for us to judge hadiths, nor why we should trust the hadiths you are drawing from. That, again, is inconsistency.

As it stands in the Quran and only by what the Quran says, Jews say Ezra is the Son of God. It doesn’t say cults. It simply says “Jews believe this.”

Quran is God’s word in Muslims’ beliefs. We accept what it said and I showed that this verse talked about a group of jews. If there are no jewish who believe to this we can say the cult who believe that must been exterminated.

About hadithes about jewish located around yadsreb they are motevater and Quran talked about them two.

 

[friendship]

Please think before you post. The context of what I was saying was obvious. I quoted what you said to do, and said I will leave you at that, then followed it up with further context. Answering this way makes me wonder if you are truly reading my arguments in full or simply responding piecemeal to what I am saying.

I gave you a message to say them and you said “I’ll let you do that”! I absolutly think about my posts!

The Quran may not use the exact wording “all of Jews,” but neither does it say “the Jews of Yasreb,” nor “the Jews of Medina.” You have read into this by quoting from outside sources, which you then refuse to show proof for the reliability of, although you dismiss any outside sources provided by me outright without saying why. Again, this is not intellectual dishonesty, and quite frankly every one can see through this logical fallacy.

But you are quite right in saying that the Quran is not a “book about religions,” because if it were graded by what those religions it talks about actually believed, it would fail miserably.

When we don’t know Quran talks about all jews or jews of mecca we can’t deny it’s verses. About hadithes as I said you must confirm that hadith is true.

Quran is not a book about relegions but it’s claims about relegions is true and you didn’t confirm that it is false.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

My problem is inaccessibilty to jewish sources but that article refrenced to a jewish source

I find that hard to believe. Rabbinical traditions, sections of the Talmud, and sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia are easily accessible online, perhaps just as much as Muslim sources. It should be easy for you to find something related to this subject as written by Jewish scholars or theologians.

And why quote it if you are going to later on make such statements as this:

My friend I just tried to show you a article with a jewish refrence, I don’t mean every thing it said is true.

You therefore invalidate the very source you used to prove your point.

My friend, you are using hadithes to confirm your claim, and it is your duty to confirm that the hadith is trustworthy, and after that It’ll be my duty that accept your claim or try to give you eanough reasons to deny the hadithes.

I have already made my case - many times in fact - for the trustworthiness of the hadith sources. You have not made given one single reason that they should not be trusted. You have continually responded with, “I’m not sure,” and “Well I’m Shi’a and that’s a Sunni hadith, so whatever.” When I ask for Shi’a hadith that are relevant to your point, you say, “Well I don’t know any.”

I have presented many times why we should trust the hadiths. You have not presented one iota of evidence why we should not, but simply leave the burden of proof on the other party and say they aren’t trustworthy. Repeating an argument without demonstrating it is not a real argument. In fact, it is a strawman.

I don’t think that my sentences are ironic. Nobel Quran says the jews said Ezra is son of God and Christians said Christ is son of God, But Quran never said they have same theory about them. have look at these sentences:

Christians say Jesus is the Christ.
Muslims say Jesus is the Christ.

Do these sentences show that Christans and Muslims have same velief about Jesus? Absolutly not.

You are comparing apples and oranges. You are presenting an irrelevant scenario and attempting to use it as a standard against a real scenario. The verse does not say, “Muslims believe Jesus is the Christ and Christians believe Jesus is the Christ.” The Quran distinguishes between the Christian and Muslim beliefs. It does not, however, distinguish between the Jewish and Christian beliefs regarding Ezra and Christ - it treats them as one and the same.

My friend my engilsh is not good, But as I understand the arabic verse It doesn’t mean all of jews. Absolutly translation can’t view the verse very good. The vere didn’t jews but says “jew”(not polural) and we must research about the meaning of this name. translators translated “ال” witch cme before jew to “the”. It can be true but it must mean “The jew said Ezra is son of god” So we must talk about a jewish one who said that!

I highly doubt that. In that case, every single Muslim translator of the Quran, even ones well respected by Muslim scholars, would be in gross error. If you are going to contest this, then it’s you versus Yusuf Ali, M. Pickthall, M.H. Shakir, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute, and Muhammad Asad.

In fact, I must confess that your translations seem to change. At first you’re OK with the translation “the Jews.” Then you turn around and argue that the translation is called “Jews.” Then when that proves counterproductive to your argument, you jump and say that, in fact, the verse is speaking of only one Jew. Is it also speaking of only one Christian? It is highly doubtful that it is.

As you see it is not easy to translate this verse. I think it is better to mean the “group of jewishes” whitch means jews of yasreb.

I thought it was only one Jew, now it’s a group? :ehh: You’re again presenting simultaneous realities.

The fact is, the Quran does not say “group of Jews,” or “these specific Jews.” As I already said, that is reading into the text using outside sources - which you have not presented any evidence for and which you have not set any standards for.

About hadithes about jewish located around yadsreb they are motevater and Quran talked about them two.

No, the Quran says nothing within the context of that verse about the Jews in Yasreb. No where does it say that. That is eisegesis.

I gave you a message to say them and you said “I’ll let you do that”! I absolutly think about my posts!

So you did understand what I said. Also, I followed that comment up with a paragraph where I clarified what I meant by that and why I was saying that.

When we don’t know Quran talks about all jews or jews of mecca we can’t deny it’s verses.

I don’t quite follow. I was arguing that to continually say “the Quran is speaking of some Jews” when that is not the context shown in the Quran and is only found in outside verses - which you reject and refuse to provide standards for - is a false argument.

Quran is not a book about relegions but it’s claims about relegions is true and you didn’t confirm that it is false.

Thus far it seems that Mohammad suffered from the hasty generalization fallacy and believed all Jews worshiped Ezra as the Son of God the same way Christians do Christ - I haven’t seen anything to thwart me away from that thinking. The Quran furthermore has a false notion of the Trinity and who Christ is in relation to God within Christian belief which alone tells me it is false…but that is a subject for another thread and as you said you do not want to detract from the subject of Ezra.

 

[Haadi]

I don’t really want to discuss this issue, but there is a general rule among Sunnnis and it says: “whatever the Quran has generalized, the Sunnah has restricted”

 

[friendship]

I find that hard to believe. Rabbinical traditions, sections of the Talmud, and sources such as the Jewish Encyclopedia are easily accessible online, perhaps just as much as Muslim sources. It should be easy for you to find something related to this subject as written by Jewish scholars or theologians.

The article I showed shows a jewish source, Is it false?

And why quote it if you are going to later on make such statements as this:

Originally Posted by friendship
My friend I just tried to show you a article with a jewish refrence, I don’t mean every thing it said is true.

I don’t think so. That article gave jewish refrence and it is impotant. Absolutly my beliefs are diffrent is some parts. They are sunni and I am shiah.

I have already made my case - many times in fact - for the trustworthiness of the hadith sources. You have not made given one single reason that they should not be trusted. You have continually responded with, “I’m not sure,” and “Well I’m Shi’a and that’s a Sunni hadith, so whatever.” When I ask for Shi’a hadith that are relevant to your point, you say, “Well I don’t know any.”

I have presented many times why we should trust the hadiths. You have not presented one iota of evidence why we should not, but simply leave the burden of proof on the other party and say they aren’t trustworthy. Repeating an argument without demonstrating it is not a real argument. In fact, it is a strawman.

I answered you several times before. Non of authors saw prophet and khalifahs of sunnis and Imams of shiah. So their qoute can’t be trastworty if they didn’t say who said for them the hadith. they must say who quted for them and who quoted for that one.

As sunnis and shiah believe that their hadith book contain many apocryphal hadithes.

As I said you give those hadithes and it is your duty that confirm that realy proohet Muhbammad said that sentences. Please don’t repeat same sentences.

In addition please don’t jeer me in your sentences

You are comparing apples and oranges. You are presenting an irrelevant scenario and attempting to use it as a standard against a real scenario. The verse does not say, “Muslims believe Jesus is the Christ and Christians believe Jesus is the Christ.” The Quran distinguishes between the Christian and Muslim beliefs. It does not, however, distinguish between the Jewish and Christian beliefs regarding Ezra and Christ - it treats them as one and the same.

No No. What I said is true. If I say “Both of Christians and Muslims bilieve that Jesus is the Christ” It doesn’y mean that Muslims believe that Jesus and God are one!

I highly doubt that. In that case, every single Muslim translator of the Quran, even ones well respected by Muslim scholars, would be in gross error. If you are going to contest this, then it’s you versus Yusuf Ali, M. Pickthall, M.H. Shakir, the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute, and Muhammad Asad.

In fact, I must confess that your translations seem to change. At first you’re OK with the translation “the Jews.” Then you turn around and argue that the translation is called “Jews.” Then when that proves counterproductive to your argument, you jump and say that, in fact, the verse is speaking of only one Jew. Is it also speaking of only one Christian? It is highly doubtful that it is.

Translation have many problems and it may be my versus! No problem

Problem is that verses didn’t say anything about all of jews. OK?

I thought it was only one Jew, now it’s a group? :ehh: You’re again presenting simultaneous realities.

The fact is, the Quran does not say “group of Jews,” or “these specific Jews.” As I already said, that is reading into the text using outside sources - which you have not presented any evidence for and which you have not set any standards for.

What Quran said “the jew” but In arabic(cause my english is not good) such word may mean some believers who has same bilief.

I thought it was only one Jew, now it’s a group? :ehh: You’re again presenting simultaneous realities.

The fact is, the Quran does not say “group of Jews,” or “these specific Jews.” As I already said, that is reading into the text using outside sources - which you have not presented any evidence for and which you have not set any standards for.

What Quran said “the jew” but In arabic(cause my english is not good) such word may mean some believers who has same bilief.
.

 

[friendship]

No, the Quran says nothing within the context of that verse about the Jews in Yasreb. No where does it say that. That is eisegesis.

Jewishes of yasreb are only jews group whitch has some relations by muslims so Quran talked about them

So you did understand what I said. Also, I followed that comment up with a paragraph where I clarified what I meant by that and why I was saying that.

Quran talks about them. For example(59:2-14) as tafasir say these verses are about Bani Nazir

I don’t quite follow. I was arguing that to continually say “the Quran is speaking of some Jews” when that is not the context shown in the Quran and is only found in outside verses - which you reject and refuse to provide standards for - is a false argument.

I didn’t deny any verse.

Thus far it seems that Mohammad suffered from the hasty generalization fallacy and believed all Jews worshiped Ezra as the Son of God the same way Christians do Christ - I haven’t seen anything to thwart me away from that thinking. The Quran furthermore has a false notion of the Trinity and who Christ is in relation to God within Christian belief which alone tells me it is false…but that is a subject for another thread and as you said you do not want to detract from the subject of Ezra.

Prophet Muhammad never said all of jews and you didn’t confirm trustworthy of your hadithes

 

[friendship]

Dear Byzantine, The discussion in a phas that we just repeat out sentences and don’t accept arguments of eatchother and it is “مراء”. So talking more don’t help me and “مراء” is forbidden in Islam. I thank you cause of such good dicussion and say Good bye to this thread.

God bless you http://askdin.com/images/smilies/Small/Gol.gif

 

[friendship]

Persian preverb: They ask Logham(the sage)“Who educated you to be debonair”, He answered: boisterouses, Every things thay did I abstain that.

You realy educate me to be debonair!

 

[friendship]

You have to knowlage to learn me something just your actions show me, what I must abstain.

You just try to oblige me get you to my ignore list, but sorry, you’re so boodoggle to be there. So continue your blather and I read & laugh

 

[friendship]

It is your problem, I sent a post to byzantine and said I don’t want continue this thread, But said: “You must be very fit with all the running you do.” Absolutly I just answered you. OK, nothing man go out and cry and come back and insult me again!:clapping:

You was my friend yesterday but you showed you are not a real friend and attcked to me and insulted me. Absolutly you finished the friendship and attcked me again now.

But you can’t make me mad :coffeeread:

 

[friendship]

Oh, You don’t understand again, I said my answers and Byzantine can answer me again but I see that we just repeat our answers and it is “مراء”. All you can think that I can’t answer! And it was not debate, It was just a friendly discussion but you didn’t let it to be.

 

[friendship]

Persian preverb: Answering the asinine is silence!

 

[friendship]

Dear byzantine_wolf thank you for this good discussion. I wrote my asnwers and I think this thread can’t have new things in it, so I’ll say goodbye and don’t answer any one on this thread. It was a very good to discussion. I hope have other discussions with you in other threads.

 

[morning_star777]

All of you are sons & daughters of God, So Ezra was son of God. therefor Quran didn’t take mistake about jew’s believe about him.

Yes,so i am son of God, and you are son of God too,here all posters are son of God, then why Koran said only about Ezra that he is the son of God for jewish? it is not fair because since all of us are sons and daughters of God( like Ezra ) so why we are not mentioned in koran as the sons and daughters of God and we( Kafir vultures) all worship each other.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Dear Byzantine, The discussion in a phas that we just repeat out sentences and don’t accept arguments of eatchother and it is “مراء”. So talking more don’t help me and “مراء” is forbidden in Islam. I thank you cause of such good dicussion and say Good bye to this thread.

That’s a pity, because I think there is still room for much discussion. I also think this is not a case of “repeating sentences,” it is just that I have continually asked you to be consistent and set standards, and you merely repeat arguments.

You: “Those aren’t the quotes of Mohammad.”
Me: “Yes they are. Mohammad is speaking in the hadiths.”
You: “Prove those hadiths are trustworthy.”
Me: “OK, they’re sahih hadiths from collections respected by Muslim scholars.”
You: “No, we still can’t trust them.”
Me: “OK, then tell me how we know we can’t trust them.”
You: “You can’t trust hadiths.”
Me: “I know. I also know there’s a certain scholarly way of showing it. Please show it to me now.”
You: “You can’t trust hadiths.”
Me: “Why not?”
You: “You can’t trust hadiths.”
Me: “OK fine, tell me what standards we can use to trust hadiths.”
You: “You can’t trust hadiths.”

And then when it comes time to examine the scripture…

Me: “The Quran says that Jews believe Ezra is the Son of God.”
You: “No, that’s only the Jews of Yasreb.”
Me: “Hey, wait! That’s only in a hadith!”
You: “Yeah?”
Me: “You said we can’t trust hadiths unless we prove it!”
You: “Yeah?”
Me: “So…what standards are you using to verify those hadiths?”
You: “Nothing. The Quran says it was the Jews of Yasreb.”
Me: “No it doesn’t, it just says the Jews believe Ezra is the Son of God. It doesn’t say specific Jews.”
You: “Well it’s just the Jews of Yasreb.”
Me: “OK…but you’re getting that from a hadith. Why can’t my hadiths be used?”
You: “You can’t trust hadiths.”

The fact is, we aren’t progressing because you continue to simply repeat arguments. I quote sources that you reject and then refuse to explain in detail why they are rejected. You then refuse to set standards we can follow consistently for sources, yanking hadith sources (uncited, I might add) and using that for your evidence, while dismissing my (cited) sources for no discernible reason other than platitudes. That’s not “jeering” you, that’s presenting an honest summary of your presentation. I firmly believe anyone reading this thread would come to that conclusion.

I am willing to further this debate. However, it must be done so with intellectual honesty and consistent standards.

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t really want to discuss this issue, but there is a general rule among Sunnnis and it says: “whatever the Quran has generalized, the Sunnah has restricted”

In other words, don’t discuss what might be wrong?

 

[famdigy]

(Part 1/2)

One of the most curious passages in the Quran is the one which states that Jews worship Ezra as the Son of God, found in S. 9:30. Some translations of the verse:

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [Yusuf Ali]
​

There are always differences of opinion among Muslims regarding the interpretation of the Qur’an, and with that in mind, I want to present an alternative view that hasn’t been explored in this thread.

All we know from the passage itself is what they said, there is no other indication of what they meant by the statement. The following is my translation of a hadith quoted from Kitab al-ihtijaj by Al-Tabrasi. It’s a long hadith and my translation is not good so I’ll quote only bits of it.

Narrated imam Hassan Al-Askari: One day a group of people from 5 religions gathered in front of the prophet, the Jews, the Christians, the Daria, the Thanwia, and the Polytheists of the Arabs.

The Jews said: We say that Uzair is the son of Allah, and we have come to you O, Muhammad to see what you say about this, if you agree with us, then we have preceded you [in this correct belief] and are better than you. If you disagree with us then we will boycott you.

The Christians said: We say that Isa is the son of Allah, in unity with Him. We have come to you to see what you will say about this. If you follow our belief, then we have preceded you [in this correct belief] and are better than you. If you disagree we will boycott you.

The Messenger said to the Jews: Have you come to me so I would accept your word without any proof? They said No.

He asked: Then what drove you to say Uzair is the son of Allah?

They replied: Because he revived the Torah for the children of Israel after it disappeared, and he was able to do this only because he is the son of Allah.

The Messenger said: How did Uzair become the son of Allah instead of Musa, while it was Musa who brought them the Torah and they’ve witnessed through him the miracles which you now know? Then, if Uzair is the son of Allah because of the Miracle of reviving the Torah, then Musa by virtue of his prophet-hood is more deserving, and if a miracle of this degree to Uzair calls for him to be Allah’s son, then the multiple miracles of Musa requires he be given a position greater than prophet-hood I can’t translate the rest because the words are difficult to understand, but the he continued by telling them how they have likened the creator to the created beings and have given Him the attributes of his creation]

They replied: We don’t mean this, this is (kufr) disbelief just as you mentioned. **We mean to say he (uzair) is Allah’s son by way of honoring him, even if a birth didn’t take place ( ولكنا نعني انه ابنه على معنى الكرامة وان لم يكن هناك ولادة ) ** Just as our scholars would say to a man they want to honour by calling him “my boy”… and this would also be said to the gentile who has no blood relation to the man and therefore when Allah did with Uzair what he did, he took him as a son by way of honoring him not by giving birth to him.

There is more to the hadith, and the prophet’s concluding reply to the Jews followed by the Christians is nothing short of cleverly spectacular. But going back to the question, the Jewish understanding of Uzair’s sonship is different than the Christian understanding of Jesus’ sonship. The Jews call uzair Allah’s son to honor Uzair, not because they worship him or because of any blood relation.

This is also true in the old testament where some prophets and even the Jews in general are called “God’s Son”, I believe this is inline with what the Jews said in the fore-mentioned hadith.

Psalm 2:7 “…Jehovah had said onto me (David), thou art my Son”
Exodus 4:22 “Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”

Perhaps the gentiles, not knowing Jewish culture misunderstood what is meant by God’s son and assumed instead that Jesus was the Son of God, and maybe this explains why the Jews don’t accept Jesus as the son of God in the literal sense.​

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Thanks for the response famdigy, and thanks for sharing a Shi’a (I assume) hadith.

The problem I still see is, if the Jews explained to Mohammad, “We mean to say he (uzair) is Allah’s son by way of honoring him, even if a birth didn’t take place,” and this foundation is biblical, then why are they cursed for it? If “the Jewish understanding of Uzair’s sonship is different than the Christian understanding of Jesus’ sonship,” as you say, and they are not worshiping Ezra the way Christians worship Christ, why is the Quran condemning it? Is there a misunderstanding between the meaning of veneration and worship?

As I said earlier in this thread (although it’s 19 pages now, so I don’t expect you to have gone through all of it ) if the issue is metaphorical versus more sincere Sonship, then the Quran seems to be comparing apples and oranges. Why does the Quran say in S. 9:30 “Allah’s curse be on them” or “Allah fight them” or “Allah destroy them” (depending on your translation) if the meaning isn’t the same as the Christians? Especially since the latter is definitely kafir in Islam and the Jews in the hadith you provided even identified as kafir. If the Quran teaches that Allah sent down previous messages, in which we find the identification of some as being metaphorical “sons of God,” then why is it suddenly an issue in Mohammad’s time?

We know there is a difference between veneration and worship. Even you, as a Shi’a, understand this. When we see Muslims kissing the black stone at the Kaba, for example, we know they are not worshiping it. When Muslims prostrate before the Kaba, we know they are not worshiping it. When Shi’a Muslims speak well and venerate the imams, we know they are not worshiping them. Yet by this loose definition provided, the Quran therefore shows a sign that it seems to not understand the difference between the two, and seems to condemn something that previous followers of God had no problem with and which many Muslims seem to have no problem with.