> And the Jews say: Ezra (Uzair) is the son of Allah... (9:30)

[Qatada]

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's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

(Qur'an Al-Tawba 9:30)




Refutation link:
http://www.islamicboard.com/304721-post23.html

[Qatada]

Muhammad Asad is a jew who converted to Islam and this is what he says about this verse:

This statement is connected with the preceding verse, which speaks of the erring followers of earlier revelation. The charge of shirk ("the ascribing of divinity [or "divine qualities"] to aught beside God") is levelled against both the Jews and the Christians in amplification, as it were, of the statement that they "do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them]".

As regards the belief attributed to the Jews that Ezra (or, in the Arabicized form of this name, `Uzayr) was "God's son", it is to be noted that almost all classical commentators of the Qur'an agree in that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused.

(According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn `Abbas - quoted by Tabari 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 giblah* and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?")

(*[Qiblah in arabic] when the Muslims changed the direction of worship i.e. from Bayt Al Maqdis [in Jerusalem] to Masjid Al-Haram in Makkah)



On the other hand, Ezra occupies a unique position in the esteem of all Jews, and has always been praised by them in the most extravagant terms. It was he who restored and codified the Torah after it had been lost during the Babylonian Exile, and "edited" it in more or less the form which it has today; and thus "he promoted the establishment of an exclusive, legalistic type of religion that became dominant in later Judaism" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1963, vol. IX, p. 15).

Ever since then he has been venerated to such a degree that his verdicts on the Law of Moses have come to be regarded by the Talmudists as being practically equivalent to the Law itself: which, in Qur'anic ideology, amounts to the unforgivable sin of shirk, inasmuch as it implies the elevation of a human being to the status of a quasi-divine law-giver and the blasphemous attribution to him - albeit metaphorically - of the quality of "sonship" in relation to God. Cf. in this connection Exodus iv, 22-23 ("Israel is My son") or Jeremiah xxxi, 9 ("I am a father to Israel"): expressions to which, because of their idolatrous implications, the Qur'an takes strong exception. (Asad, Message of the Qur'an)

More info here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...rnal/ezra.html

[Qatada]

...the quote that I gave from Muhammad Asad, a former Jew himself, who pointed out that, as mentioned in At-Tabari's tafsir, some Jews came to the Prophet Muhammad pbuh and said, "How can we follow you when you do not believe Uzayr is the son of God?".

Notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believe Uzayr is the son of God, but the Qur'an is very precise in saying that the Jews say Uzayr is the son of God. Thus, it cannot be a contradiction in any way since the Qur'an is only responding to the verbal proclamation of a group of Jews!



Also interesting is Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali's comments on this issue:

Of course there is no evidence in the extant Old Testament about it; but the Qur'an was not referring to what is written in the Old Testament about 'Uzayr but to the belief and assertion of some of the Jews of the time who regarded 'Uzayr as the son of God. In fact the 'ayah in question, 9:30, starts with the expression: "And the Jews say". The commentator Al-Baydawi, to whome Watt refers a number of times in his book, (fn. Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, 108, note 2 to Chapter 1 and notes 2 and 10 to Chapter III) makes it clear with reference to this 'ayah that because the Old Testament was given its present form by 'Uzayr, many of the Jews of the time considered him a "son of God" and that specifically at Madina there was a group of Jews who held that belief. Al-Baydawi futher points out that the 'ayah in question was read out and recited as usual but no Madinan Jew came forward with a contradiction (fn.Al-Baydawi, Tafsir, I, second Egyptian impression, 1968, p. 412). It is to be noted that this 'ayah is unanimously regarded as Madinan. Hence the silence of the Jews of the place on the matter is suggestive enough, particularly as they were avowed critics of the Prophet.
Not only Al-Baydawi but also other commentators mention that the 'ayah refers to the views of a particular group of the Jews. For instance, Al-Tabari bives a number of reports together with their chains of narrators specifically mentioning the leading Jews of Madina who considered Uzayr a son of God. The most prominent of those Jews were Finhas, Sullam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Awfa, Sha's ibn Qays and Malik ibn al-Sayf (fn. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, XIV, 201-204). Similarly, Al-Qurtubi mentions the same fact and the same names adding that the expression "the Jews" occuring at the beginning of the 'ayah means "some particular Jews", just as the expression "people told them" (qala lahum al-nas) means not all the people of the world but some particular people. He further says that the Jewish sect who held that 'Uzayr was God's son had become extinct by his (Al-Qurtubi's) time (fn. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, Pt. VIII, 116-117). (Muhammad Mohar Ali, The Qur'an and the Orientalists, Jam'iyat 'Ihya' Minhaj Al-Sunnah 2004, p. 66)

So as for what he quotes,

Notice the words "proposed" and "assumption". There are no records from any Jewish community that believed Ezra was the Son of God!

First of all, this is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium which we can refute with the expression, "absence of proof is not proof of absence". In other words, just because we don't have Judaic records that shows that Jews believed this, does not prove that no Jews ever believed this!


Secondly, as was previously mentioned, there are specific historical narrations related by Qur'anic commentators like Al-Baydawi and At-Tabari which state the names of specific Jewish leaders who came forward to the Muslims and said "We cannot believe you since you do not accept Uzayr as the son of God". And notice that the Qur'an doesn't say that the Jews believed Uzayr was the son of God, it says quite clearly that they said he was the son of God. So, the Qur'an was responding to an explicit proclamation of the Jews. Either the Jews were intentionally lying, or they actually believed what they said - but in any event the Qur'an can't be wrong since the Jews of Madinah actually said this.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


Was 'Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God?

[algebra]

Originally Posted by Qatada

asalaam alaikum


Was 'Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God?

Actually this would be inaccurate - from another perspective.

Quite a few jewish patriarchs are called sons of God.

Indeed David is called a son of God in the Bible.

So there is nothing astonishing or unique about Ezra.

What makes it shocking is that the comparison is to Christians claiming that Jesus is the son of God.

This could not be further from the Truth - whilst many jews may have claimed Ezra David and a whole host of patriarchs are "sons" of God. Indeed we are all "children" of God - NO jew would ever liken this "sonship" to the "sonship" claimed by Jesus.

[salman]

^do Christians not claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) is son of God? If so then what is shocking about the comparison?

[algebra]

Originally Posted by salman

^do Christians not claim that Jesus (peace be upon him) is son of God? If so then what is shocking about the comparison?

They do indeed claim that Jesus is the Son of the Father. And that the Son is divine too and is therefore God.

It seems quite clear that when Christians, indeed all Christians from the very beginning, claimed that Jesus is the Son they were referring to the Trinity.

It is also quite clear that jews have always rejected the Trinity, whilst claiming that they were, indeed we all are, the children of God.

As you can see, one group uses the word Son to mean a divine person, the other uses the word son to describe a closeness with God.

So when a jew says - Ezra - son of God - they mean Ezra- a man who is devoted in everyway to God.

When a christian says - Jesus - The Son - He is speaking about the incarnation of the Trinity.

Ergo any comparison of the jewish claim and the christian claim is false.

This is true even if both the jewish and christian claims themselves are false.

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,
In the Name of Almighty God the Most Merciful the Bestower of Mercy I begin;[/B]

Howdy.

Originally Posted by algebra

They do indeed claim that Jesus is the Son of the Father. And that the Son is divine too and is therefore God.

It seems quite clear that when Christians, indeed all Christians from the very beginning, claimed that Jesus is the Son they were referring to the Trinity.

It is also quite clear that jews have always rejected the Trinity, whilst claiming that they were, indeed we all are, the children of God.

As you can see, one group uses the word Son to mean a divine person, the other uses the word son to describe a closeness with God.

So when a jew says - Ezra - son of God - they mean Ezra- a man who is devoted in everyway to God.

When a christian says - Jesus - The Son - He is speaking about the incarnation of the Trinity.

Ergo any comparison of the jewish claim and the christian claim is false.

This is true even if both the jewish and christian claims themselves are false.

Just a point regarding the information you have provided, it is flawed. Regarding the statement;

It seems quite clear that when Christians, indeed all Christians from the very beginning, claimed that Jesus is the Son they were referring to the Trinity.

Three points;

a) We do not know what the belief of the earliest Christians in totally was, I don't mean every single Christian I mean even the top guys. We do not have, from History, accounts which we can very confidently claim are from the disciples of Jesus. Thus we cannot be sure what they exactly believed or claimed. We do have some Christian's writing but then again this is not always representative of all, to say they all believed the same thing requires some evidence or logical reasoning for it.

b) It does not seem clear that when Christians said Jesus is son of God they spoke of the trinity. Rather it seems quite contrary to this, both in the Gospels and in the History of Christian writers. Many are called sons of God yet are not considered a God, thus son of God does not refer to a trinity, in and of itself.

c) From what we know of Christians, there were Christians who for examples claimed Jesus was the son of God but that he was not God, nor that he was born of a virgin, of course we do not have their own words, but the words of those who refuted them from which we can try to decipher what they believed.

If there is a need I can elaborate or provide references for the above, God willing.

A question from myself, if what is being objected to in the Qur'an is the phrasing or wording son of God, then does it matter what this phrase means, whether it means a metaphorical son or a biological son? I do not hold it does. It would mean regardless of whether you believe in a spiritual 'son' of God or a biological son of God - do not say son of God!

Regards,

Br.al-Habeshi

[algebra]

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

a) We do not know what the belief of the earliest Christians in totally was, I don't mean every single Christian I mean even the top guys. We do not have, from History, accounts which we can very confidently claim are from the disciples of Jesus. Thus we cannot be sure what they exactly believed or claimed. We do have some Christian's writing but then again this is not always representative of all, to say they all believed the same thing requires some evidence or logical reasoning for it.

Well there are two sources of authority in Christianity, First comes the traditions of the apostles, the second is Christian scripture, what they call the new testament.

Tradition overrides scripture because of the evolution of christian scripture.

Tradition is the equivalent of sunnah, but a lot more complex.

b) It does not seem clear that when Christians said Jesus is son of God they spoke of the trinity. Rather it seems quite contrary to this, both in the Gospels and in the History of Christian writers. Many are called sons of God yet are not considered a God, thus son of God does not refer to a trinity, in and of itself.

It is an accepted teaching coming through the traditions of the early church fathers.
It is also quite well nuanced in Scripture itself.

I would posit that a christian that rejects the Trinity is no christian at all.

c) From what we know of Christians, there were Christians who for examples claimed Jesus was the son of God but that he was not God, nor that he was born of a virgin, of course we do not have their own words, but the words of those who refuted them from which we can try to decipher what they believed.

If there is a need I can elaborate or provide references for the above, God willing.
i

It might be best to present the references you speak of.

I myself am still a student of christianity it would be very enlightening to me.

Being a jew this topic interests me both as a jew and as a christian.

My original assertion is that even is jews called ezra the son of God, and christians called jesus the son of God, the two meanings to the two groups are so different that they do not belong in the same sentence.

The Tanakh calls many many people sons of God - most notably david, elijah and the coming messiah in the psalms.

To accuse jews of calling ezra the son of God simply makes no sense from a jewish or christian perspective, The Tanakh itself calls many people the sons of God.

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

Howdy

This is not an explanation of the verses this is just a possible view point you could consider.

Tis Friday and I am in a rush, thus I cannot sit and provide a full answer. Just to touch on the main point ( I hope to be able to provide some references for what you have asked by Sunday or on Sunday, God willing).

Even if I grant that the understanding behind the phrases may not be the same, I would put it like this - formulating my previous thoughts in different words;

If I were to speaking against boasting/praising then I could easily state: 'And Group so and so say we are kings, and group so and so say such is a king'

Now, the type of boasting is totally different, one is self praise, i.e. including ourselves as kings, the other is a group praising one king. If I was speaking against boasting then I could speak against both these two in the same way because both come under the action which I am speaking against.

If it is as you say, i.e. that the Jews and Christians meant totally different things, then all that shows is that both these two different things are condemned, and in showing the two different examples the author has shown that it is not only the Christian Trinity condemned but also the mere statement of someone being son of God, whether metaphorically or not.

Which in that case would show an eloquence of speech, for if the author had mentioned only one style the other party may have (wrongly) assumed their style to be allowed.

I hope that sheds light on how I'm thinking. I reitirate this is not an explanation of the verses this is just a possible view point you could consider.

Regards
Br.al-Habeshi