if Muslims don't beleive in the same God as Christians, do Jews

  • Thread starter Thread starter rien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let’s pretend i declared myself a prophet and said :

Say : the Quran is not the mother of books! how can Allah’s word be a mother if it did not have a husband!

what will you do the first time you read this? you’ll laught at me for 5 hours! and you’ll ask me: now seriously, do you think the all-knowing God will ask this?

well this is our reaction when Allah asked how can Allah have a son if he has no wife.

It is a flawed human interpretation; the person who asked this question can by no means be above a human being, surely not the all-knowing God.
 
Valke2 said:
what way? If I understand the burning issue correctly:

“son fo God” in Judaism was an “honorific” bestowed upon certain exceptional Jews. It never implied or was taken by Jews to mean divinity. No worship or idolatry involved.

“Son of God” in Christanity denotes the divinity of Jesus, acknowledgeing that Jesus is God (I can’t believe I typed that). Since they are worshipping God a/k/a Jesus a/k/a Son of God, it isn’t idolatry

Muslims reject the whole “father” image when it comes to God, because it is a human condition and not applicable to God, in metaphor or otherwise. This is a valid concern, from a jewish perspective, and there is no shortage of commentary in Judaism criticizing Jews who held that physical descriptions of God (“hand of God”, “…walked with God” etc., were to be taken literally.

Rambam’s “Guide for the Perplexed” comes to mind.
Click to expand...
There is no disagreement . Muslims have no problem if the term is in metaphor or honorary. The reference to Uzair was made in respect of certain jews who rose Uzair to an inappropriate rank . Not all jews. Muslims dont use the term or even go near it to avoid falling into the errors of Chrirtians were the term became no longer honorary but literal.
 
by the way, the Bible says that the one who denies Jesus is the Son of God is an anti-Christ…the author of the Quran says Jesus is not the Son of God…i’ll let you make your conclusion.
 
inJESUS said:
Let’s pretend i declared myself a prophet and said :

Say : the Quran is not the mother of books! how can Allah’s word be a mother if it did not have a husband!

what will you do the first time you read this? you’ll laught at me for 5 hours! and you’ll ask me: now seriously, do you think the all-knowing God will ask this?

well this is our reaction when Allah asked how can Allah have a son if he has no wife.

It is a flawed human interpretation; the person who asked this question can by no means be above a human being, surely not the all-knowing God.
Click to expand...
You are making a wrong analogy.

The word ‘‘Mother of the Book’’ is taken as a metaphor in arab language. No sane arab thinks that there need to be a father of a book for a Mother to exist. But in your case you Dont take son of God in Metaphor !!! For you a son of God makes him devine and and a part of God and not just a good teacher or prophet ! Thats why it isnt a laughing matter!!
 
inJESUS said:
by the way, the Bible says that the one who denies Jesus is the Son of God is an anti-Christ…the author of the Quran says Jesus is not the Son of God…i’ll let you make your conclusion.
Click to expand...
Yes. The Bible is incorrect.
 
Valke2 said:
what way? If I understand the burning issue correctly:

“son fo God” in Judaism was an “honorific” bestowed upon certain exceptional Jews. It never implied or was taken by Jews to mean divinity. No worship or idolatry involved.

“Son of God” in Christanity denotes the divinity of Jesus, acknowledgeing that Jesus is God (I can’t believe I typed that). Since they are worshipping God a/k/a Jesus a/k/a Son of God, it isn’t idolatry

Muslims reject the whole “father” image when it comes to God, because it is a human condition and not applicable to God, in metaphor or otherwise. This is a valid concern, from a jewish perspective, and there is no shortage of commentary in Judaism criticizing Jews who held that physical descriptions of God (“hand of God”, “…walked with God” etc., were to be taken literally.

Rambam’s “Guide for the Perplexed” comes to mind.
Click to expand...
are you aware of any Jewish cult that believed Uzair is God?
 
inJESUS said:
this is a further proof that Muhammad had no idea of the Judeo-Christian title : Son of God. It started in OT, not with nasara.
Click to expand...
Yes, true, but in OT it meant righteous but with Nasara it tooks another meaning which allah (SWT) condemned. The “part” of the Jews who said Uzair is the son of God were also rebuked for giving to the term another meaning other than righteous.

"Part of The Jews called 'Uzair a son of Allah, and part of the Nasara called Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth! [009.030] They imitated the pagans to whom the term son of God had the meaning of true sonship, with God having a partner and so on.
How can Allah have a son if he has no WIFE?? that’s how much Muhammad understood.
Click to expand...
Where in the Quran Allah (SWT) says wife?

Salaam.
J.A
 
meedo said:
Yes. The Bible is incorrect.
Click to expand...
yes because Muhammad said so? why not believe in Ghulam Ahmad since he said he is a prophet?

the belief in Jesus as Son of God was spread in the first century churches everywhere established by Jesus’ apostles. Do i believe all these eyewitnesses or a man who came 600 years laters and did not even understand what Son of God means?

furthermore, God said He preserves His Word. I don’t know about you, but i don’t believe God lies.
 
inJESUS said:
are you aware of any Jewish cult that believed Uzair is God?
Click to expand...
No historical evidence can be shown to prove that any Jewish sect, however heterodox, ever subscribed to such a tenet. What grounds were there for the accusation? Was it a figment of Mohammed’s own imagination? Rodwell frankly believes it was. Goldziher accepts it as “a malevolent metaphor for the great respect which was paid by the Jews to the memory of Ezra as the restorer of the Law and from which Ezra legends of apocryphal literature (II. Esdra, XXXIV, 37-49) originated.”

The Jewish post-biblical writings do not seem to yield any possible solution for this erroneous statement. The quotation from the Talmud (Sanhedrim, 21, 2) given by Geiger to the effect that Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Law had Moses not preceded him, does not assist us in unraveling the puzzle. There is one scholar who sets forth the possibility of a Jewish sect in Arabia venerating Ezra to such a degree as to deify him; thus casting shame on their orthodox brethren.

All these views are held on the supposition that the text of the Koranic passage is reliable.

Mohammed was either misinformed, or he purposely invented this odd dogma. Certainly among the Jews, Ezra the Scribe, the second Moses, as leader of the men of the Great Synagogue played a most important part in the editing of the Jewish Scriptures and the re-establishment of Judaism in Zion after the Captivity, but so far as is known, no Jewish sect ever held such an extreme doctrine as is herein imputed to them by Mohammed.

If the idea did not germinate in Mohammed’s own mind, and since it is quite alien to Judaism, it is obviously a slanderous accusation made against the Jews by their protagonists. A suggestion has been made that the libelers were none other than their old enemies the Samaritans, who hated Ezra above all because he changed the sacred Law and its holy script. We do not readily associate the Samaritans with matters Islamic Dr. Gaster has demonstrated that Mohammed seems to have made several borrowing from Samaritan sources. This might be one of them.

(taken and edited (slightly) from: answering-islam.org/Books/MW/uzair.htm
 
Joseph_Alison said:
Yes, true, but in OT it meant righteous but with Nasara it tooks another meaning which allah (SWT) condemned.

you mean with Christians because nasara are not Christians. Christians do not say Jesus is God because he has the title “son of God”…Christians know that son of God is a spiritual title, not a literal one.
The “part” of the Jews who said Uzair is the son of God were also rebuked for giving to the term another meaning other than righteous.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Valke2 said:
No historical evidence can be shown to prove that any Jewish sect, however heterodox, ever subscribed to such a tenet. What grounds were there for the accusation? Was it a figment of Mohammed’s own imagination? Rodwell frankly believes it was. Goldziher accepts it as “a malevolent metaphor for the great respect which was paid by the Jews to the memory of Ezra as the restorer of the Law and from which Ezra legends of apocryphal literature (II. Esdra, XXXIV, 37-49) originated.”

The Jewish post-biblical writings do not seem to yield any possible solution for this erroneous statement. The quotation from the Talmud (Sanhedrim, 21, 2) given by Geiger to the effect that Ezra would have been worthy of receiving the Law had Moses not preceded him, does not assist us in unraveling the puzzle. There is one scholar who sets forth the possibility of a Jewish sect in Arabia venerating Ezra to such a degree as to deify him; thus casting shame on their orthodox brethren.

All these views are held on the supposition that the text of the Koranic passage is reliable.

Mohammed was either misinformed, or he purposely invented this odd dogma. Certainly among the Jews, Ezra the Scribe, the second Moses, as leader of the men of the Great Synagogue played a most important part in the editing of the Jewish Scriptures and the re-establishment of Judaism in Zion after the Captivity, but so far as is known, no Jewish sect ever held such an extreme doctrine as is herein imputed to them by Mohammed.

If the idea did not germinate in Mohammed’s own mind, and since it is quite alien to Judaism, it is obviously a slanderous accusation made against the Jews by their protagonists. A suggestion has been made that the libelers were none other than their old enemies the Samaritans, who hated Ezra above all because he changed the sacred Law and its holy script. We do not readily associate the Samaritans with matters Islamic Dr. Gaster has demonstrated that Mohammed seems to have made several borrowing from Samaritan sources. This might be one of them.

(taken and edited (slightly) from: answering-islam.org/Books/MW/uzair.htm
Click to expand...
👍 thx

Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. 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 God.” It will be said to them, “You are liars, for God has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?” They will reply, “We want You to provide us with water.” Then it will be said to them “Drink”, and they will fall down in Hell (instead).

smells of flawed human interpretation .
 
40.png
Valke2:
No historical evidence can be shown to prove that any Jewish sect, however heterodox, ever subscribed to such a tenet. What grounds were there for the accusation?
Click to expand...
inJESUS should correct you. His question was:" are you aware of any Jewish cult that believed Uzair is God? Probably he meant
“any Jewish cult that believed Uzair is **son **of God”

J.A
 
Joseph_Alison said:
inJESUS should correct you. His question was:" are you aware of any Jewish cult that believed Uzair is God? Probably he meant
“any Jewish cult that believed Uzair is **son **of God”

J.A
Click to expand...
no not “son” of God.

you equated the Christian son of God with divinity (which is not the case), so i equated the same Quranic passage with Ezra’s divinity. If some Christians believed Jesus is God, then some Jews believed Ezra is God.
 
inJESUS said:
👍 thx

Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. 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 God.” It will be said to them, “You are liars, for God has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?” They will reply, “We want You to provide us with water.” Then it will be said to them “Drink”, and they will fall down in Hell (instead).

smells of flawed human interpretation .
Click to expand...
they should just edit that out and move on. That quote is so odd for so many reasons. Imagine going to pray every day and reciting the “Shema” – " Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One" == expressing the core belief and declaration that there is only One God. And then going home to worship Ezra.

On Passover, when we celebrate the redemption of the Jews from Egypt, we read from the Hagada. If you didn’ know any better, you would assume Moses was hardly involved at all. His name only appears once in the whole text, and then only as an aside. This is because we want to make sure that we don’t focus on Moses. It is not his story. It is our story and God’s.

If we take such pains to ensure that we don’t worship anything but God, I can not imagine that we ever worshipped Ezra.
 
All in all, it is clear that no matter how one interprets this verse, it is wrong. Muhammad did not understand the title Son of God and that’s why he made a salad out of it. Putting Jews and Christians on the same level is wrong in itself because Christians who believed Jesus is the Son of God is a majority (as seen today) whereas Jews who believe Ezra to be the Son of God (if existed)were such a mirority that no one heard of and who disappeared.

This entire Sura was “revealed” at Medina at a time when the Muslims had conquered much of Arabia and were preparing to attack neighboring lands. The Qur’an commentator Syed Maududi tells us that : "In this portion the Muslims have been urged to fight in the Way of Allah with the mushrik Arabs, the Jews and the Christians, who were duly warned of the consequences of their mischievous and inimical behavior. (Sura 9:13-37) So Maybe Muhammad wanted to hit 2 birds with one stone but Alas his comparison is flawed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top