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

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(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]

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! [M. Pickthall]

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! [M.H. Shakir]

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them]. God assail them! How they are deviated! [Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute Translation]

The Jews say, ’Ezra is the Son of God’; the Christians say, ’The Messiah is the Son of God.’ That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted! [Arthur J. Arberry]

AND THE JEWS say, “Ezra is God’s son,” while the Christians say, “The Christ is God’s son.” Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth! [They deserve the imprecation:] “May God destroy them!” How perverted are their minds! [Muhammad Asad]

[all emphasis mine]

This is a curious passage because it is well known that Jews do not worship Ezra as the Son of God, especially in the same context which Christians worship Jesus as the Son of God. Not even within the book of Ezra in the Bible do we find any such worship. Yet despite this, the Quran wishes for Allah to curse, fight or destroy them for it. If you look at the previous verse (S. 9:29), it becomes apparent that Muslims are even told to make war with Jews for it.

Ibn Kathir, famous 14th century Muslim scholar and commentary writer, doesn’t seem to argue whether Jews worship Ezra as the Son of God or not - in fact, he seems to accept it as fact. As written in the Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

As for the Jews, **they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God**, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars source; emphasis mine]

The same with Tafsir al-Jalalayn:

The Jews say: Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say: The Messiah, Jesus, is the son of God. That is the utterance of their mouths, for which they have no support, nay, imitating the utterances of those who disbelieved before [them], from among their forefathers, mimicking them. God assail, curse, them! How they are deviated!, turned away from the truth, despite the proofs having been established. source; emphasis mine]

Some scholars and translators, such as E.H. Palmer and Rodwell, claim it to be Mohammad’s imagination. However, this odd belief appears to be sourced to a small sect of Jews in Medina who accosted Mohammad for not believing that Ezra was a Son of God. The hadith sources report on this:

According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās – quoted by Tabarī in his commentary on this verse – some of the Jews of Medina once said to Muhammad, “How could we follow thee when thou hast forsaken our qiblah and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?” [From Muhammad Asad’s commentary on S. 9:30, http://www.altafsir.com/ViewTranslations.asp?Display=yes&SoraNo=9&Ayah=30&toAyah=30&Language=2&LanguageID=2&TranslationBook=7”]source]

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

(Part 2/2)

I am aware that, because of this fact, many Muslims argue that this passage is not referring to all Jews, but a select few. Yet when we look at the original Arabic, and go to the specific parts regarding the Jews and Christians, we find no differentiation:

wa qalati al-yahoodu: The Jews say…

wa qalati al-nnasara: The Christians say… source]

The grammar is practically the same for both. We know that the Quran consistently charges the Christians with false beliefs concerning Christ, therefore just as this must refer to all Christians, so it must also refer to all Jews. The Quranic text itself (as well as the majority of translations) is very clear: the Jews and the Christians worship men as the Son of God. If it is indeed referring to only a small number of Jews, why the use of such language in this passage?

Also, why is there no further differentiation between Judaism and its sects in the previous and following verses? The language of the Quran (just as in S. 9:30) is not specific but broad. S. 9:31, in fact, continues the charge against all Christians and keeps the same language.

Also problematic for this explanation is the fact that Mohammad himself said Jews worshiped Ezra as the Son of God, as found in valid hadith sources discussing what will happen to unbelievers in hell:

“…Then the Jews will be called upon and it will be said to them, ‘Who do you use to worship?’ They will say, ‘We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.’ It will be said to them, ‘You are liars, for Allah has never taken anyone as a wife or a son’…” [Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 105; emphasis mine]

And again:

“…Then it will be said to the Jews, ‘What did you use to worship?’ They will reply, ‘We used to worship Ezra, the son of Allah.’ It will be said to them, ‘You are liars, for Allah has neither a wife nor a son’…” [Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s; emphasis mine]

And again:

“…Then the Jews would be summoned, and it would be said to them: What did you worship? They will say: We worshipped 'Uzair, son of Allah. It would be said to them: You tell a lie; Allah had never had a spouse or a son…” [Sahih Muslim Book 001, Number 0352; emphasis mine]

Therefore according to Mohammad, Jews will be cursed in hell and called liars because they worship Ezra as the Son of God…again, something which Jews do not do.

I’m curious if any Muslims on this forum can respond to all this and perhaps explain it better for us.

 

[Nine_Two]

While I don’t know much about Arabic, in every language I’ve come across, the lack of a qualifying adjective indicates a generalization and means “all.” Given the second clause of that accusation regarding Christians, this seems to be the case with Arabic as well, since neither have qualifiers attached.

 

[Kadaveri]

Lack of a qualifier doesn’t mean ‘all’. This need to heavily qualify any negative statement is a quite modern phenomenon which arose out of Western political correctness, which to this day has not touched the Arab world; you’ll constantly hear Arabs talking about how the Turks are doing this and the Jews are doing that when it’s understood that they’re talking about government policy and not peoples in general. You could also take Saint Paul up to task when he said that “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” (Titus 1:12)

However there is a qualifier in the Qur’anic statement, as 9:31 ends with “subhanahu `amma yushrikoon”. *Yushrikoon *is a present participle and means an action that is being done now, and its use implies the action being temporal, and it has been established that the Jews in Medina did believe that Ezra was some kind of incarnation of God. This usage is very different to how in other places the Qur’an addresses Christians beliefs about Jesus, which are countered many times in ways which express the fundamental and permanent nature of the Christians’ blasphemy (4:171, 5:17, 5:72-73 to give examples), yet there are no similar verses directed at Jews.

9:29 does not say Muslims should wage war against the Jews because of 9:30, the two are separate statements. You’re just putting your own spin on it when such a connection is not made in the text itself.

 

[Nine_Two]

Lack of a qualifier doesn’t mean ‘all’. This need to heavily qualify any negative statement is a quite modern phenomenon which arose out of Western political correctness, which to this day has not touched the Arab world; you’ll constantly hear Arabs talking about how the Turks are doing this and the Jews are doing that when it’s understood that they’re talking about government policy and not peoples in general. You could also take Saint Paul up to task when he said that “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” (Titus 1:12)

The lack of an adjective being needed to place limits on the scope of a sentence is neither modern (For example Attic Greek is the same), nore Western (Japanese is the same). Quite the opposite from political correctness, this grammar rule creates less political correctness. Regarding the use of a nationality when speaking of what a government is doing, that’s also common in all languages, however at the time the Koran was written there was no Jewish government, so clearly this verse is not refering to the beliefs of a Jewish government.
The quote you give from St. Paul has nothing to do with the subject matter and is a strawman. If you believe that the insult levelled at the Cretans is a subject worthy of debate then by all means start your own thread on it.

However there is a qualifier in the Qur’anic statement, as 9:31 ends with “subhanahu `amma yushrikoon”. *Yushrikoon *is a present participle and means an action that is being done now, and its use implies the action being temporal, and it has been established that the Jews in Medina did believe that Ezra was some kind of incarnation of God.

9:31 is an entirely different clause, an adjective in one sentence does not modify a noun in another sentence. Si 9:31 is saying that monks and doctors of Law are looked on as Lords and replacements to God at that time. So what? That is not what this thread is about.

This usage is very different to how in other places the Qur’an addresses Christians beliefs about Jesus, which are countered many times in ways which express the fundamental and permanent nature of the Christians’ blasphemy (4:171, 5:17, 5:72-73 to give examples), yet there are no similar verses directed at Jews.

Yes and 9:30, the verse that is the subject of this thread also addressess Christian beliefs, and uses the same grammar.

9:29 does not say Muslims should wage war against the Jews because of 9:30, the two are separate statements. You’re just putting your own spin on it when such a connection is not made in the text itself.

It goes from “Fight those who do not believe in Allah” to “Jews and Christians don’t really follow Allah,” seems an odd sequence of verses if that’s not really what Mohammed meant.

While I said I don’t know much about the Arab language, everything you’ve said indicates it follows rules common to every other language I’ve ever encountered.

 

[Kadaveri]

The lack of an adjective being needed to place limits on the scope of a sentence is neither modern (For example Attic Greek is the same), nore Western (Japanese is the same). Quite the opposite from political correctness, this grammar rule creates less political correctness. Regarding the use of a nationality when speaking of what a government is doing, that’s also common in all languages, however at the time the Koran was written there was no Jewish government, so clearly this verse is not refering to the beliefs of a Jewish government.
The quote you give from St. Paul has nothing to do with the subject matter and is a strawman. If you believe that the insult levelled at the Cretans is a subject worthy of debate then by all means start your own thread on it.

It’s not a strawman at all. Are Cretans always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons? You can’t say (as is obviously true) that Paul didn’t literally mean this despite him saying ‘always’, and yet claim that the Qur’an 9:30 is speaking of all Jews when it doesn’t even say ‘always’ or ‘all’, such is a hypocritical position.

9:31 is an entirely different clause, an adjective in one sentence does not modify a noun in another sentence. Si 9:31 is saying that monks and doctors of Law are looked on as Lords and replacements to God at that time. So what? That is not what this thread is about.

It’s not an entirely different clause, and I’m not even talking about any adjectives or nouns, but verbs. 9:31 is just a continuation of 9:30, giving examples of the People of the Book’s blasphemy. The present participle at the end expresses that the basic verbs are of an action ‘that is being done’. 9:31 is also describing the actions of the People of the Book whom Muhammad had dealings with in Medina, as assested to in Hadith literature. A man named 'Adiy ibn Hatim who was a Christian before embracing Islam heard the Prophet reciting these verses and stopped him and said “But O Messenger of God, the People of the Book do not worship Priests and Rabbis as gods.” Muhammad then replied “Did they not forbid what God made permissible, and permit what God made forbidden, and the people obey them? That is how they worship them”.

Yes and 9:30, the verse that is the subject of this thread also addressess Christian beliefs, and uses the same grammar.

No they don’t use the same grammar. For instance 5:72-73 when countering Christians beliefs about Jesus uses “Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo”, the simple verb, and nowhere uses the present participle as 9:30-31 does. This implies a state of permanence to the action being described, the Christians’ blaspheming in saying that Jesus is God, that God is one of ‘three’. Also that the Qur’an attacks Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God many many times, and always does so in critiquing Christian theology, demonstrates that the Qur’an considers this to be a fundamental part of Christian theology. Whereas the Qur’an only ever mentions Jews worshipping Ezra as the son of God once, in a passing, temporal fashion and in a section of Qur’an which is not even discussing theology but rather the actions of peoples whom Muhammad was dealing with at the time, shows that it is not being tackled as a fundamental part of Jewish theology. You’re simply going nowhere if you’re going to try and claim that the Qur’an deals with Jews worshipping Ezra and Christians worshipping Jesus in anything like the same fashion.

It goes from “Fight those who do not believe in Allah” to “Jews and Christians don’t really follow Allah,” seems an odd sequence of verses if that’s not really what Mohammed meant.

The original claim was that 9:29 says to fight the People of the Book because the Jews are saying that Ezra is the son of God. It does not say the reason why Jews are rejecting God is because they believe Ezra is the son of God.

 

[dzheremi]

Too fine a distinction there, Kadaveri. The point is that the Qur’an is wrong here, demonstrably so, and all the after-the-fact hemming and hawing won’t make it right.

 

[Nine_Two]

It’s not a strawman at all. Are Cretans always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons? You can’t say (as is obviously true) that Paul didn’t literally mean this despite him saying ‘always’, and yet claim that the Qur’an 9:30 is speaking of all Jews when it doesn’t even say ‘always’ or ‘all’, such is a hypocritical position.

It very much is. The correctness of the bible is not the subject of this thread, the correctness of the koran is. Additionally you are taking that verse out of context, St. Paul is quoting someone else. Mohammed wasn’t.

It’s not an entirely different clause, and I’m not even talking about any adjectives or nouns, but verbs. 9:31 is just a continuation of 9:30, giving examples of the People of the Book’s blasphemy.

The punctuation in the English version of each of the translations provided indicates the two verses are distinct clauses. If you feel the translators were in error, by all means provide your evidence. However since they all agree I find it highly unlikely.

The present participle at the end expresses that the basic verbs are of an action ‘that is being done’. 9:31 is also describing the actions of the People of the Book whom Muhammad had dealings with in Medina, as assested to in Hadith literature.

A present participle modifies only the clause to which it is attached. If Arabic is different in this regard I’d like to see more proof.

A man named 'Adiy ibn Hatim who was a Christian before embracing Islam heard the Prophet reciting these verses and stopped him and said “But O Messenger of God, the People of the Book do not worship Priests and Rabbis as gods.” Muhammad then replied “Did they not forbid what God made permissible, and permit what God made forbidden, and the people obey them? That is how they worship them”.

I’ll wait for Byzantine Wolf to come and tell me whether this is considered a trustworthy hadith before I even think about answering it.

No they don’t use the same grammar. For instance 5:72-73 when countering Christians beliefs about Jesus uses “Laqad kafara allatheena qaloo”, the simple verb, and nowhere uses the present participle as 9:30-31 does.

I meant 9:30 uses the same grammar for both Jews and Christians. Are you suggesting it meant that only the Christians in Medina worshipped Jesus as God? The grammar of other verses regarding Christians is irrelevent.

You’re simply going nowhere if you’re going to try and claim that the Qur’an deals with Jews worshipping Ezra and Christians worshipping Jesus in anything like the same fashion.

In 9:30 it deals with both in the same fashion.

The original claim was that 9:29 says to fight the People of the Book because the Jews are saying that Ezra is the son of God. It does not say the reason why Jews are rejecting God is because they believe Ezra is the son of God.

Yes, and I’m backing up the original claim. 9:30 says the reason, 9:29 says fight them.

 

[Kadaveri]

It very much is. The correctness of the bible is not the subject of this thread, the correctness of the koran is. Additionally you are taking that verse out of context, St. Paul is quoting someone else. Mohammed wasn’t.

Well since St Paul follows this by saying “this testimony is true”, whether he was quoting someone else or not hardly matters.

The punctuation in the English version of each of the translations provided indicates the two verses are distinct clauses. If you feel the translators were in error, by all means provide your evidence. However since they all agree I find it highly unlikely.

A present participle modifies only the clause to which it is attached. If Arabic is different in this regard I’d like to see more proof.

I’m not bothered about the translations, and since there is no punctuation in Arabic I don’t see the point in arguing over the punctuation used in a translation. It can still be easily understood from the English translation that 9:31 is connected to the preceding verse, so I don’t see what your problem is.

I’ll wait for Byzantine Wolf to come and tell me whether this is considered a trustworthy hadith before I even think about answering it.

Sunan Al-Tirmidhi, Chapter of Tafsir, Hadith 3292. Graded Hasan.

I meant 9:30 uses the same grammar for both Jews and Christians. Are you suggesting it meant that only the Christians in Medina worshipped Jesus as God? The grammar of other verses regarding Christians is irrelevent.
In 9:30 it deals with both in the same fashion.

No. Because the basic argument used to say the Qur’an is mistaken in 9:30 is that it is saying Ezra has the same place in Jewish theology as Jesus has in Christian theology. If you want to understand the Qur’an you need to read the whole text, you can’t just look at one verse in isolation and interpret it however you want while ignoring the rest. So if we want to find out how the Qur’an depicts Ezra’s place in Judaism as compared to Jesus’ place in Christianity, we need to look at all the verses discussing each, and thus we get.

Ezra in Judaism:
Jews are saying that Ezra is the son of God, condemns them. Section discussing current events with Muhammad and People of the Book (9:30)

Jesus in Christianity:
Qur’an affirms that Jesus is human and was created by God, rejects Christian claims. Section discussing Jesus. (3:59)
Christians believe Jesus is a ‘part’ of God, son of God, calls on them to stop. Section discussing Christian theology. (4:171)
Christians say Jesus is the son of God, incarnation of God on Earth, argues how this cannot be true. Section discussing Christian theology. (5:17)
Christians say Jesus is God, rejects this. Section discussing Christian theology. (5:72)
Christians say God is one of three, rejects this, and mirrors the contradiction of the Trinity/Incarnation with its own. Section discussing Christian theology. (5:73)
Christians are saying that Jesus is the son of God, condemns them. Section discussing current events with Muhammad and People of the Book. (9:30)
Jesus is a servant of God. Section discussing Jesus. (19:30)
Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, this is rejected. Section discussing Jesus. (19:35)

And others…

So does the Qur’an deal with the two in the same or remotely similar fashion? No. It’s just atrocious scholarship to insist we can only understand the meaning of 9:30 by reading 9:30 only and ignoring everything else. Clearly the two are not considered to be the same thing. The explanation that since 9:30 is discussing current events with Muhammad and the People of the Book (not theology, Ezra or Jesus); and that the Jews in Medina did believe Ezra to be the son of God, and so the verse is talking about the Jews Muhammad was dealing with in this time; is a much simpler explanation than insisting that the verse is in fact saying that this is a fundamental tenet of Judaism; one that the Qur’an mysteriously never mentions when actually discussing Jewish theology, yet constantly mentions the Christian belief of Jesus being the Son of God whenever discussing Christian theology or even Jesus in general. That’s a strenuous explanation.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

*Yushrikoon *is a present participle and means an action that is being done now, and its use implies the action being temporal, and it has been established that the Jews in Medina did believe that Ezra was some kind of incarnation of God.

Yes, and I addressed this argumentation in my two-part OP. If S. 9:30 only refers to the Jews of Medina, why does it refer to the Jews and the Christians, and puts the beliefs of both Jews and Christians on equal bearing? Why also, in the sahih hadith sources, is Mohammad speaking of the future judgment and the Jews (generally speaking) being judged? He does not name Jewish tribes and he does not speak of the Jews in Medina, but only of “the Jews,” the exact same language found in S. 9:30. Why do the revered Muslim historians, who lived hundreds of years after the time of Mohammad when this belief in Ezra surely must have died out, speak (in relation to S. 9:30) of the Jews entire along with Christians entire and say “this is why Allah declared both groups [Jews and Christians] to be liars”? As I said in my OP (which I hope was read), many Muslims today argue that S. 9:30 is only speaking of the Jews of Medina…yet this seems to be popular only in recent decades of Muslim apologetics.

One must also wonder if S. 9:30 is only speaking of a small, select group of Jews in one city of the entire world, why is the Quran - which Muslims believe to be the literal words of God and an eternal word to study - speaking of something that was therefore very trivial and inconsequential to the larger scope of things? Why not launch into an attack against Nestorians, Arians, Docetists, Coptics, and other branches of Christianity at the time? Where are the Quranic verses addressing them? If the Quran is attacking only certain beliefs within a larger faith, why so small and trivial a belief that most Jewish and religious historians don’t even touch on? Why a belief that is only known because a handful of Jews confronted Mohammad about it, and only then it was revealed?

Therefore, some problems seem to arise that need to be addressed:

• If it is only speaking of some of the Jews in Medina, why is that never clarified in the Quranic, hadith sources and commentaries?
• If this was only a small belief, why did Allah waste time revealing scripture about it, given the larger scale of things within the Jewish community?

On a final note…

The original claim was that 9:29 says to fight the People of the Book because the Jews are saying that Ezra is the son of God. It does not say the reason why Jews are rejecting God is because they believe Ezra is the son of God.

Actually I’m not using “atrocious scholarship” - I am only going by what classical Muslim commentaries say.

[In relation to S. 9:29] Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. [Continuing to S. 9:30] As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious. This is why Allah declared both groups to be liars [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, tafsir.com”]source]

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m curious what the other Muslim forum members think. Surely one of you must have a good explanation.

 

[aspirant]

it has been established that the Jews in Medina did believe that Ezra was some kind of incarnation of God.

I would very much like to see evidence for this from non-Muslim sources, e.g. Jewish artifacts, etc. Where can I find this?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I would very much like to see evidence for this from non-Muslim sources, e.g. Jewish artifacts, etc. Where can I find this?

Perhaps some Muslims know. Hence why I am giving this a bump.

 

[A_Lion_Of_Islam]

(Part 2/2)

I’m curious if any Muslims on this forum can respond to all this and perhaps explain it better for us.

Hello Byazantine_Wolf,

I sort of skimmed through your posts (due to time limitation)… I came across this article some time ago which addresses your exact question. If this isnt what you wanted, do let me know

islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

Peace

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Hello Byazantine_Wolf,

I sort of skimmed through your posts (due to time limitation)… I came across this article some time ago which addresses your exact question. If this isnt what you wanted, do let me know

islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

Peace

I’m afraid it’s not, because I’ve stated (this is my third time saying this now ) that I have knowledge of the Muslim argument that it was only a select group of Jews the Quran referred to, and I addressed that using classical Muslim commentary and sahih hadith sources and posed questions regarding it.

I appreciate the response, however.

 

[seraphime2008]

Ach…I can only come to a conclusion that :

1. Allah seems to acknowledge something only through the eyes of Muhammad, so if Muhammad found that there were some Jewis referring to Ezra as the son of Allah, it seems that this curious Allah cannot make a better judgement to see the matter clearly.
2. Muhammad couldn’t bring the Jew to believe in him as the messenger of God so he of course had to make another legitimate reason to fight the Jew or even invent a new religion.
3. And even if those Jews were referring to Ezra as the son of God, it is not as the same belief as what Christian believe of Jesus. They didn’t regard him as having the same substance of God. Son of God perhaps was only attributed as the admiration for storing the Judaiism at the time. So did Allah have a reason to say that Jewis was idolator or performing shirk because of it? Apparantly it only went in Muhammad’s head.

The fact is Muslims and Koran say that Jesus was coming to preach the Jews to embrace the religion of God that was believing in one God. So by connecting this to the above matter, it seems that the accusation of Jews being idolatrous and performing shirk was meant to address all Jews. Strange isn’t it?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

1. And even if those Jews were referring to Ezra as the son of God, it is not as the same belief as what Christian believe of Jesus. They didn’t regard him as having the same substance of God. Son of God perhaps was only attributed as the admiration for storing the Judaiism at the time. So did Allah have a reason to say that Jewis was idolator or performing shirk because of it? Apparantly it only went in Muhammad’s head.

I have heard that argument as well: that the passage refers to the veneration of Jews and therefore a glorified title “Son of God” rather than the literal term “Son of God,” as Christians believe with Christ.

The problem with this explanation is most Muslims I’ve spoken to don’t have a problem with the term “Son of God,” at least as it is applied in the Old Testament, and sometimes they try to use that as an argument that when Jesus calls Himself the Son of God He means it in a metaphorical sense - therefore, Allah is hating Jews for something Muslims have no problem with.

A further problem is that if the Jews merely venerated Ezra, there shouldn’t be an issue, and Allah shouldn’t be comparing it to the Christian idea of Christ being the Son of God. Allah is therefore comparing apples with oranges. He either does not understand what the Jews meant in their veneration, or He is clueless of what it means - given that Allah does not seem to understand what the Trinity is, it would not surprise me.

 

[seraphime2008]

I have heard that argument as well: that the passage refers to the veneration of Jews and therefore a glorified title “Son of God” rather than the literal term “Son of God,” as Christians believe with Christ.

The problem with this explanation is most Muslims I’ve spoken to don’t have a problem with the term “Son of God,” at least as it is applied in the Old Testament, and sometimes they try to use that as an argument that when Jesus calls Himself the Son of God He means it in a metaphorical sense - therefore, Allah is hating Jews for something Muslims have no problem with.

A further problem is that if the Jews merely venerated Ezra, there shouldn’t be an issue, and Allah shouldn’t be comparing it to the Christian idea of Christ being the Son of God. Allah is therefore comparing apples with oranges. He either does not understand what the Jews meant in their veneration, or He is clueless of what it means - given that Allah does not seem to understand what the Trinity is, it would not surprise me.

:sad_yes:…but then again …:yup: it only shows how many contradictions that islam has, no matter how much energy u put to defend lies, it will only makes the snowball effect to me at least…

 

[A_Lion_Of_Islam]

I’m afraid it’s not, because I’ve stated (this is my third time saying this now ) that I have knowledge of the Muslim argument that it was only a select group of Jews the Quran referred to, and I addressed that using classical Muslim commentary and sahih hadith sources and posed questions regarding it.

I appreciate the response, however.

Hi Byzantine,

apologies for the delay in responding to you… as for your question, I am no master of Arabic literature… therefore, I am unable to comment on the further on the actual verse from the Holy Qur’an. However, I welcome you to ask my brothers/ sisters in Islam who are much more enlightened in regards to answering your question.

please go to www.ummah.com/forum and post your question in the comparative religion section and I am sure that someone will provide you what you are looking for.

Peace

 

[elwill]

Yes, and I addressed this argumentation in my two-part OP. If S. 9:30 only refers to the Jews of Medina, why does it refer to the Jews and the Christians, and puts the beliefs of both Jews and Christians on equal bearing? Why also, in the sahih hadith sources, is Mohammad speaking of the future judgment and the Jews (generally speaking) being judged?

BW , where in the quran it mentions the names of sects or the name of tribs with regards to jews or christians . the massage of islam not come to condemn specific tribs or sects rather it comes to condemn the acts itself , wherever you can find such acts even if within muslims ( as for some sects of muslims worships scholars as shi3ah sect , and worship dosn’t neccessery mean divine ), so it’s wrong
in verse 9:30 God puts the acts which some of jews and some of christians do , as for not all christians either believe that jesus is the son of God

God said in another verse
“Strongest among men in enmity to the believers [Muslims] wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, ‘We are Christians’: ***because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. ***(The Noble Quran, 5:82)”

in this verse for example he didn’t refere to part of christians or sect of christians nor does it refere to specific sect of jews , actually the verse is deal exactly in the context with same mannar , it dosn’t say some of jews are strongest in enemity nor does it say that some of christians are nearst in love
but with deep insight in the verses you will find that everything is related to acts and behaviours , the christians who are nearst to muslims are those ones who devoted to learning and those ones who have renounced the world and those ones who are not arrogant

exactly in our verse , when God mentions the jews and christians aside in 9:30 actually it refere to the act and the deeds not refering to the entire community of jews or christians
and it dosn’t say that all jews saying that uzair is the son of God

actually in another verse God says
"Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. (The Noble Quran, 3:113-114)

One must also wonder if S. 9:30 is only speaking of a small, select group of Jews in one city of the entire world, why is the Quran - which Muslims believe to be the literal words of God and an eternal word to study - speaking of something that was therefore very trivial and inconsequential to the larger scope of things?

i wonder if you know the larger scope of massage of quran !
1/3 of quran are emphasize on monotheism , proclaiming that God have son isn’t trivial in islam

the verse is talking about every one says uzair or jesus sons of God in any place and in any time and within any sect , the emphasize is in the behaviour itself whither they were liitle who believed in that within jews or much within christians , afterall the massage is for all

(quote]
Why not launch into an attack against Nestorians, Arians, Docetists, Coptics, and other branches of Christianity at the time? Where are the Quranic verses addressing them? If the Quran is attacking only certain beliefs within a larger faith, why so small and trivial a belief that most Jewish and religious historians don’t even touch on? Why a belief that is only known because a handful of Jews confronted Mohammad about it, and only then it was revealed?

critera of attaking not based on beliefs or sects
8-Allah does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against you on account of (your) religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely Allah loves the doers of justice.
9 Allah only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

Therefore, some problems seem to arise that need to be addressed:

• If it is only speaking of some of the Jews in Medina, why is that never clarified in the Quranic, hadith sources and commentaries?

clarification isn’t important as for as a mattar of fact it wasn’t ever disputed issue between muslims nor arabs , any sane person will realize that the verse is talking about the jews who says the Uzair the son of God and the christians who says that jesus the son of God ( why the names of sects is important to you , the essence is most important than the names of sects )

• If this was only a small belief, why did Allah waste time revealing scripture about it, given the larger scale of things within the Jewish community?

because God is just when he send a universal massage .

and where is the waste of time . we are talking about one verse and only one in entire quran which talking about this sect !