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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byzantine_Wolf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
spn82756 said:
JC…now that the schism has been healed…I must suggest a mis-spelling of yours. I believe that we must in all fairness to English we have to put a “u” between the q and the o. So…while we are in agreement…we should refer to mohammad as a squoat (pbuh). Thereby keeping faithful to the proper English AND also contributing the “u” from squirrel to the name. This also adds symmetry with 3 letters from squirrel and three letters from goat. I believe this also satisfies the perfectness of the koran. 😃
Click to expand...
But can the squoat only be properly understood in English or the squoatian language?😃
 
Jay53 said:
But can the squoat only be properly understood in English or the squoatian language?😃
Click to expand...
I just checked with my Chinese next door neighbor and was astonished to learn that the Chinese refer to mohammad as a squoat (pbuh) also. This has got to be universal! I’m going to ask my neighbors from Fiji how they feel. I believe we may have brought an old concept old back into the light!!! 😃
 
spn82756 said:
I just checked with my Chinese next door neighbor and was astonished to learn that the Chinese refer to mohammad as a squoat (pbuh) also. This has got to be universal! I’m going to ask my neighbors from Fiji how they feel. I believe we may have brought an old concept old back into the light!!! 😃
Click to expand...
And still no denial from any Muslims! This is truly a sign of their acceptance!!
 
friendship said:
Realy? If I show some one else in Bible is son of god do you accept your blief is wrong?
Click to expand...
We are all sons and daughters of God. Jesus is the only one in the Bible that has a legitimate claim to the Godhead. No one else of that came as fully human and fully God.
 
spn82756 said:
We are all sons and daughters of God. Jesus is the only one in the Bible that has a legitimate claim to the Godhead. No one else of that came as fully human and fully God.
Click to expand...
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.

In fact jews of Yasreb claim that Ezra was son of god and they had a debate about him with prophet Muhammad, whitch you can read that in Alehtejajat Tabarsi book. We don’t know why they emphasis on Ezra, But as Bible says all jews are sons of God(Psalm 2:7) and Ezra was his son too.
 
friendship said:
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.

In fact jews of Yasreb claim that Ezra was son of god and they had a debate about him with prophet Muhammad, whitch you can read that in Alehtejajat Tabarsi book. We don’t know why they emphasis on Ezra, But as Bible says all jews are sons of God(Psalm 2:7) and Ezra was his son too.
Click to expand...
But not God. Not to be worshiped as the muslims on the thread have claimed.
 
Byzantine_Wolf said:
(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.
Click to expand...
Quran never says the worship Ezra. Quran says:
وَ قالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَ قالَتِ النَّصارى‏ الْمَسيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ذلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ بِأَفْواهِهِمْ يُضاهِؤُنَ قَوْلَ الَّذينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ قاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ
(Quran9:30)​

The verse just says that “Jews said Ezra was son of God”. after this sentence the verse talks about christians.

That cult of jews who lived in Yasreb. They emphasis that Ezra was son of God. They ever had a debate with prophet Muhammad about him. About these hadithes you qoute, these hadithes quote from jews and not from prophet Muhammad. hadith books contain some wrong hadithes and even have some wrong quotes from prophet Muhammad. I don’t know the worship for Ezra or not but what impotant for muslims, is the Quran and Quran doesn’t say that worship him.
 
That cult of jews who lived in Yasreb. They emphasis that Ezra was son of God. They ever had a debate with prophet Muhammad about him.
 
No my friend. We must have enough reasons for accept a hadith. But what came in Quran is a certain bilief of Islam. Quran doesn’t say the worship for Ezra. And hadithes qoutes from the jews that they worship for Ezra.

In the debate between Jews of Yasreb and prophet Muhammad, whitch I read in al-ehtejajat, they didn’t say any thing about worshiping Ezra and just talk about theire belief that he is son of god.
 
What do mean hamba?

science of hadith is a logical sience. No one authors of hadith book looked prophet and ever lived in first centery. They lived more than 1 centery after him. So what they quote from him is not certain. if they said who quote them this hadith and who said for that one, it will better if not the hadith is a rumor whitch author heared and got it in his book. If we know who was the ones who bring hadith to author, we must search in rajal books and see that are all of them trustworthy and if yes, then we can accept that the hadith may be true. But only if many trustworthy ones quote that hadith, we can certainly say that hadith is true.

I don’t have problem, my friend. In the conditions of a shiah, I can just say “These are sunnis’ books, Do shiee books have such hadithes?” and just after that talk about hadith.
 
friendship said:
What do mean hamba?

science of hadith is a logical sience. No one authors of hadith book looked prophet and ever lived in first centery. They lived more than 1 centery after him. So what they quote from him is not certain. if they said who quote them this hadith and who said for that one, it will better if not the hadith is a rumor whitch author heared and got it in his book. If we know who was the ones who bring hadith to author, we must search in rajal books and see that are all of them trustworthy and if yes, then we can accept that the hadith may be true. But only if many trustworthy ones quote that hadith, we can certainly say that hadith is true.

I don’t have problem, my friend. In the conditions of a shiah, I can just say “These are sunnis’ books, Do shiee books have such hadithes?” and just after that talk about hadith.
Click to expand...
Ouch!!! :mad: This post gave me a migrane! :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top