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

[optimist]

Originally Posted by algebra

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.

Salam

Muhammed Asad who traslated the verse gave the following explanation for the 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 qiblah and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?") 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.

Wassalam

[algebra]

Originally Posted by optimist

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.

A most unfortunate exegesis (explanation of the Qur'an) - it does little to foster kindredship between islam and judaism.
Aside from grossly misrepresenting judaism's position.

But God knows best.

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

Howdy, sorry for the late reply.

Originally Posted by algebra

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.

You would need to elaborate, perhaps in a different thread, regarding the tradition and its authority and history. Since this is something which I don't think I would agree with, i.e. that there has been some ongoing tradition from the apostles.

Originally Posted by algebra

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

First of all we would need to discuss the time period of these fathers, second see their beliefs, thirdly see other people who claimed to be Christians and what they believed. Just because one party accepted something does not neccesitate that it's truly what Jesus taught.

With regards to finding it in scripture, one can find almost everything one looks for. Any passage quoted in support of the trinity is obscure and fits more in line with other beliefs.

Moreover we have to remember each book of the nt was in general wrote on its own, all the Gospels maybe with exception to Luke (hmm, maybe John). So we would expect something as fundamental as the tritnity to be in all these works, since they aspire to encapsulate the whole basis of Jesus' teachings.

Originally Posted by algebra

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

A Christian of your kind, if what you mean by Christian is a follower of Christ then one would need to establish what Christ taught in order to evaluate the claim.

Originally Posted by algebra

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.

I replied to the other part, with regards to the reference of Christians who believed in Jesus as son of God but that he was not God or even born of a virgin, look up on the Ebionites. Meztger writes in his work, The Text of the New Testament..p285.6

In these witnesses, Jesus is no longer said to be the son of Joseph. This kind of change makes sense in the context of early Christological controversies, where some Jewish-Christian groups and other Christians holding to "adoptionist" Christological views were claiming that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, the son of Joseph and Mary.

It then speaks about the words which God apparently spoke at the Baptism of Jesus, some variants occur, some say this is my son with whom i am well pleased and some say you are my Son today I have begotten you, metzger continious p.285-6

This latter form of the text, of course, could have proved useful to those holding to adoptionistic views, for it could be construed to say that it was at Jesus' baptism that he became God's son.

Because this book is not focusing on the groups in Christianity it doesn ot say much. But these Christians held that Jesus was adopted or became God's son at a certain period, thus the idea of being God's son did not in the minds of all people imply that Jesus is God or a Trinity.

Anyhow, the main reply has preceeeded.

And Almighty God knows best

Br.al-Habeshi

[al-boriqee]

I have one objection to Muhamamd Asad's assertion that I may have to clarify cuz I think it was overlooked

this is what he said

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)

That poses a problem because Uzayr, in our estimation, was a prophet of Allah, and as such, his legal decision is therefore WAHY i.e. revelation from God Himself. IN other words, Asad's statement is like saying that it would be shirk for people to think that Muhammad's words or verdicts are EQUAL with the law itself i.e. Allah.

That is a problem Islamically speaking because it is kufr NOT to regard ANY prophet's judgments (ahkaam) as EQUAL to the judgments of the Lawgiver.
Why? because we know that as a principle mentioned in the Qur'an, Whatever the Messenger says is as if Allah has said, and this is applied to all prophets, and it is not shirk to view their rulings to be on part with Allah's ruling because their rulings are not from their selves, their rulings are from Allah Himself. Actually it would be kufr not to view the level of the verdicts of the prophets in that light.

Of course Im not accusing Asad of kufr, but Im merely just noting here for reflection to others that Asad made an error in judgment on this, maybe because he was not to well grounded on some intricate aspects of the Islamic aqeedah or maybe he was simply caught up and overwhelmed with addressing this issue in the ayaah that he may have forgotton this aspect of the role of the prophets in Islam and Allah knows best and we ask Allah to pardon him, Ameen

[ummeesa]

Originally Posted by algebra

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.

Hello,

There is an interesting book on the topic, not do detract from the point of the thread, but I thought it is relevant to the discussion. Algebra, why don't you take a look through it.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by algebra

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.

as a former christian, could you ask me where this tradition of the apostles could be found. What denomination are you if I may ask?

Tradition overrides scripture because of the evolution of christian scripture.

could you expalin that to me in a much more detailed way

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

apparently, you have merely pierced the idea of sunnah with the point of a pin, but i will not ultimately claim that until you explain to me this tradition of yours. I wasn't really deep in catholicism, i have more knowledge of the protestant side of the aisle, in various denominations, not all, but quite a bit and I have never come across this tradition that you speak of.

It is an accepted teaching coming through the traditions of the early church fathers.

thats wonderful but the history that we are speaking of predates the Council of Nicea, hence, no existence of a papal heirchy yet.

It is also quite well nuanced in Scripture itself.

two things
1. not really
2. whatever handful of quotes that is found in these scriptures then
a. the earliest works written on the gospels, namely the four canons, were written after the time of these apostles existed, which only reveals that they were written by their students, and not the apostles them selves
b. because of the above fact, these writers wrote these writings in greek, a language that has an entirely morphological outlook that expresses realities differently than ancient phonetic languages, outside of the fact that Jesus alaihi salam never spoke greek, and to my knowledge the early disciples did not either, however their students did.

However, to come back to the point on the morphological outlook, when it was stated that because of this outlook, it expresses realities different than phonetically oriented phrases, then I will give one example of what Im talking about, actually, I will give two

1. When the phrases "son of God" or "lord" were used respectfully to human beings, in the ancient phonetic languages (like hebrew, aramaic, and arabic) these were forms of high respect to the one it was assigned to. When these terms were looked at in Greek glasses, they took on whole new meanings, meanings that would drastically change the future of Christiandom forever,, because the basis of all Christian based scripture is greek, thus they have been linguistically cut off from the actual source. From the Council of Nicea and onwards, the hierarchy needed that cut off in order to solidify the legitimacy of the trinity. This is how the commonb "lord" and "son of God" reverential clause morphed into a Divine outlook

2. another example. I remember in church one time how our paster was firing it up (religiously speaking) and he went all the way back to the book of Genesis in the first chapters in the beginning versus somewhere (I actually forgot). So the reason why he went to that chapter was to reinforce the trinity theory in the congregation. So then, he referred to one verse where it mentioned "And WE created the garden" or something like that. Anyways, after he quoted the verse, he was breaking down the meaning of that verse from a linguistic point of you, which was that the actual term "WE" was used to signify that it was God AND Jesus who were responsible for the creation of the world thereby giving legitimacy to the Jesus is Lord God concept.

However, in the original hebrew, which was the term אנחנו which is ANXNW transliterated, is equivalent to the english "we" which is correct. However, there is one problem
English, like Greek, does not have a dual aspect of we like hebrew and arabic have. Like hebrew, the arabic "nahnu" or نحن has two (dual) qualitative functions
1. Jama'a (plurality)
2. sharaf (majestic honor)

However, this knowledge is absent within the Christian spectrum accidentally, and from a hierarchal aspect, intentionally.

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

So you mean the dicsiples of Jesus were not Christian. Well, yet, your are right. The original followers of Jesus were not christians. Christians are the by-product and followers of Paul's theology, whereas Jesus's personal disciples were not Christians, they were Nazernes, hence "Nasaara" in arabic. The Qur'an does not even address or adopt the usage of the term "Christian", possibly as a silent blow to the one who altered the religion of the messiah, Paul.

On this aspect, have you ever read a medieval work by a sevent century Scholar. His name is Ibn Taymiyyah. His work was titled "The correct reply to those who altered the religion of the Messiah" which small portions of the entire monumental work can be found here. Actually, I cannot find it anywhere on the net, so I will upload it for you

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

I just wanna know what are these traditions and where can they be found and how you figured the amount to sunnah

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.

I kinda have he same sentiment in a way.

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.

In the Qur'anic verse, it stated that they "SAY" he is the son of God,and not that they say he was God.

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.

and your point would be fully noted had the Qur'an addressed that the ALL the jews believed that Ezra was the son of God WIth the meaning of divinity, but
1. it was only addressing the jews of arabia
2. it never claiming anything other than that they SAY

[algebra]

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

You would need to elaborate, perhaps in a different thread, regarding the tradition and its authority and history. Since this is something which I don't think I would agree with, i.e. that there has been some ongoing tradition from the apostles.

The traditions of the Church are well documented in the remaining five churches that retain apostolic succession.

Apostolic succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While I cannot vouch for the wikipedia article. I believe it gives a general idea of the authenticity of these lines of teachers going back to Jesus.

First of all we would need to discuss the time period of these fathers, second see their beliefs, thirdly see other people who claimed to be Christians and what they believed. Just because one party accepted something does not neccesitate that it's truly what Jesus taught.

Apostolic succession goes back to the apostles. There were other groups, however they did not have a direct connection to Jesus.

With regards to finding it in scripture, one can find almost everything one looks for. Any passage quoted in support of the trinity is obscure and fits more in line with other beliefs.

Jesus taught us the Trinity, this teaching comes directly from the source to us through apostolic succession.

Moreover we have to remember each book of the nt was in general wrote on its own, all the Gospels maybe with exception to Luke (hmm, maybe John). So we would expect something as fundamental as the tritnity to be in all these works, since they aspire to encapsulate the whole basis of Jesus' teachings.

It is - Jesus calls Himself the Son, and calls God the Father, and the Holy Spirit is referred to in both Hebrew Scripture and Christian texts.
This is essentially the Trinity.

We can discuss Jesus claims to divinity, however let us do it in a different thread.

The fundamental teaching is that Jesus died for our sins.

A Christian of your kind, if what you mean by Christian is a follower of Christ then one would need to establish what Christ taught in order to evaluate the claim.

A christian is a person who can trace their teachings back to Jesus through the apostles.

Even muslims claim to follow Jesus. By your definition that would make muslims christians.

However we do not hold this to be true.

I replied to the other part, with regards to the reference of Christians who believed in Jesus as son of God but that he was not God or even born of a virgin, look up on the Ebionites. Meztger writes in his work, The Text of the New Testament..p285.6

In these witnesses, Jesus is no longer said to be the son of Joseph. This kind of change makes sense in the context of early Christological controversies, where some Jewish-Christian groups and other Christians holding to "adoptionist" Christological views were claiming that Jesus was a full flesh-and-blood human, the son of Joseph and Mary.

It then speaks about the words which God apparently spoke at the Baptism of Jesus, some variants occur, some say this is my son with whom i am well pleased and some say you are my Son today I have begotten you, metzger continious p.285-6

This latter form of the text, of course, could have proved useful to those holding to adoptionistic views, for it could be construed to say that it was at Jesus' baptism that he became God's son.

Because this book is not focusing on the groups in Christianity it doesn ot say much. But these Christians held that Jesus was adopted or became God's son at a certain period, thus the idea of being God's son did not in the minds of all people imply that Jesus is God or a Trinity.

Anyhow, the main reply has preceeeded.

And Almighty God knows best

Br.al-Habeshi

What connection did these groups have to Jesus through apostolic succession?

As i stated even muslims could claim that they are following Jesus.

But they as the ebionites do not have apostolic succession and hence are not following true teachings of Jesus.

---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 AM ----------

Originally Posted by al-boriqee

as a former christian, could you ask me where this tradition of the apostles could be found. What denomination are you if I may ask?

Apostolic succession is only retained in the CC and EO. The traditions are retained in the teachings of the Churchs and the catechisms like the didache.

[Yusuf Noor]

BismiAllah ir-Rahman ir-Raheem,



much is made of 9;30, without putting in it's proper context, that is along with 9:31. let's take a look, shall we:

9:30

sahih International
The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

9:31

Sahih International
They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

the 1st thing to point out that Bani Israel has evolved into the Jews. the Qur'an is ABSOLUTELY correct in this. PRIOR to the time of Ezra, the Jews themselves didn't use the term. you will see many Jewish and Christian scholars refer to Jews as far back as the Exodus, which is in error.
secondly, Ezra is only mention ONCE in the entire Qur'an in regards to the statement of the Jews of Medinah, whereas the Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam in mentioned again in the VERY NEXT ayat! this signifies that the erroneous belief about Jesus is a belief of FAR greater proportions than the statement about Ezra.
yet the exegesis for 9:31 DOES imply MORE about Ezra! to wit:

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and the Messiah, son of Maryam) [9:31]. Imam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a Hadith via several chains of narration, from `Adi bin Hatim, may Allah be pleased with him, who became Christian during the time of Jahiliyyah. When the call of the Messenger of Allah reached his area, `Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were captured. The Messenger of Allah freed his sister and gave her gifts. So she went to her brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allah . `Adi, who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai') and whose father, Hatim At-Ta'i, was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah. When the people announced his arrival, `Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck. The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah;
(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah). `Adi commented, "I said, `They did not worship them.''' The Prophet said,
(Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.)

this begs the question, do the Jews obey God, or Ezra?

the evidence, from the Jewish site, Ask Moses:

Is it a Mitzvah (commandment) to pray? - mitzvot prayer about

Thus, to fulfill the Biblical commandment of prayer, one need not say certain words at certain times, but rather, at some point every day – or many times a day if one wishes – to turn to G-d and connect to Him on a personal level. That is the Mitzvah of prayer.And so it was in ancient times – from the days of Moses through the First Temple Era – Jews would fulfill the Biblical commandment of prayer in exactly this way. However, after the Jews were exiled to Babylon, the general population lost the art of arranging meaningful prayers on their own. Their once pure Hebrew with which they could describe the loftiest of holy concepts became muddied and the common Jew was no longer able to compose eloquent praises or supplications.

we see in this part. that although the Jews claim that theyn never lost the Torah OR the Oral torah, they somehow lost: the art of arranging meaningful prayers on their own. Their once pure Hebrew with which they could describe the loftiest of holy concepts became muddied and the common Jew was no longer able to compose eloquent praises or supplication! astounding indeed!

how did they correct this:

Thus, Ezra the Scribe and his court composed a standard text for every Jew. By using this script which includes in it general references to all matters one might wish to discuss with G-d, everyone would be sure to address G-d as articulately as possible. Each Jew’s personal signature, so to speak, would be in the feelings aroused in the heart during prayer.

Ezra is now directing the religion. anything else?

Ezra and his court also enacted that Jews should pray at set times. Today one prays three times every day -- morning, afternoon and evening -- and four times on Shabbat, Biblical Holidays and Rosh Chodesh. Nevertheless, if one feels like speaking to G-d at any other time, one may and should do so as well. Indeed, that is the actual mitzvah from the Torah; that’s what it means to serve G-d with the heart.

WOW, we have Ezra not only composing prayer but dictationg WHEN Jews should pray!

they must think alot of Ezra!

Who were the "Anshei Knesset Hagedolah"; "Men of the Great Assembly"? - history the holy temples temple personalities

They were a group of 120 sages, amongst them several prophets, headed by Ezra the Scribe. Among the more prominent among them were: Mordechai of the Purim story, and Daniel, as in Daniel in the lion’s den. (Others included Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Zerubavel, Nehemiah son of Chachalayah, Chananiah, Mishael and Azaryah.) Shimon Hatzadik was the last of the Great Assembly.

Ezra appears to be the head of the Anshei Knesset Hagedolah. what did they do, i wonder?

They instituted such many basic Jewish practices as the recitation of Kiddush on the Sabbath, Havdalah after the Sabbath, prayer three times a day, the Amidah prayer, and recitation of blessings before eating.

that seems like alot of stuff that they did. do they still do these things?

It is said that this “assembly” lasted about 200 years but their structuring of Jewish life is still intact to this very day.

i guess so. what again was Ezra's role in this?

Ezra established this Great Assembly in Israel shortly after the beginning of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (which began with the completion of the Second Temple in 349 BCE).

so, to recap, Ezra was not only the head, but the founder of of the "Great Assembly" that set up religious practices that are "intact to this VERY day!"

so, in other words, ALL JEWS have "worshipped Ezra by obeying him instead of God!

i bet none of the non-Muslims here truly understood this! i have spelled it out for you in order to clear any misunderstandings.

as for when the Jews "became" Jews:

http://www.askmoses.com/article.html?h=174&o=2440

Where does the word "Jew" come from?
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
1. The majority of "Jews" today are descended from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin -- the two tribes who comprised the "Kingdom of Judea."1 The other ten tribes, the "Northern Kingdom," were lost (see Mystery of the Ten Lost Tribes) In Hebrew; the word "Jew" (Yehudi) is a clear derivative of the word Judah ("Yehudah").
2. As mentioned, the name "Jew" comes from the Hebrew word "Yehudi."
The Talmud (Megillah 13a) says that the name Yehudi applies to anyone who rejects idolatry and accepts the one true G-d. (The word "Hoda'ah," which is the root of the word Yehudi (and Yehudah), means to acknowledge). That's why Mordechai, a descendant of the tribe of Benjamin, was called a Yehudi (Esther 2:5).
All Jews, no matter their ancestry, are called "Yehudim" (Jews), because every Jew possesses a G-dly soul, which is characterized by an unwavering belief in G-d.
For a deeper explanation of the "Jew" phenomenon, go to Purim: The Holiday When We Became Jewish.


Purim: The Holiday When We Became Jewish - holidays purim about
Purim: The Holiday When We Became Jewish
by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg
One of the questions I frequently receive is regarding the name “Jew”. The word Jew is a derivative of the name Judah, Jacob’s fourth son; hence calling someone by this name would seemingly imply that the person is a descendant of that particular tribe. However, as is well known, Jacob bore twelve sons, all of whom are the antecedents of our great nation. Why, then, is the entire Israelite nation known as “Jews”?1
Perhaps this question can be cleared up by analyzing the very first individual to be dubbed Jew: “There was a Jewish man in Shushan the capital, whose name was Mordechai the son of Yair... a Benjaminite” (Esther 2:5). Yes, the first “Jew” was actually from the tribe of Benjamin!
An objective study of the Purim story reveals that the whole frightening episode was plainly avoidable. The entire incident was a result of Mordechai’s obstinate adherence to a code of behavior, which was clearly outdated and inappropriate for the times. Mordechai was an elderly rabbi who yet recalled days – more than half a century beforehand – when the Holy Temple stood in Jerusalem and Torah Law was supreme. His snubbing of Haman might have been condign during that generation—but how dare he put his entire nation in danger of extinction by slighting the king’s favorite minister? Apparently someone neglected to inform this sage that the ability to conform is the trick to survival!

The entire incident was a result of Mordechai’s obstinate adherence to a code of behavior, which was clearly outdated and inappropriate for the times

Mordechai, however, thought otherwise; and he had a famous precedent supporting his “foolish” actions. Many years earlier, a powerful Egyptian ruler wished to take his ancestor, Benjamin, as a slave. Benjamin’s brother Judah wouldn’t hear of such a possibility. In what would be his proudest and most defining moment, Judah completely ignored all royal protocol, angrily approached the powerful ruler – who, unbeknownst to him, was actually their brother Joseph – and threateningly demanded Benjamin’s release.
Judah is the embodiment of the exiled Israelite who must walk a thin tightrope: While he must live at peace with his neighbors, follow the law and customs of the land, and “pray for the peace of the regime,” he has the courage of his convictions to stand up against all the powers that be in order to defend his ideals. “Only our bodies were sent into exile; not our souls!”
Mordechai “the Jew” was a proud student of his great-uncle Judah. He knew that Torah law forbids a Jew from bowing to Haman (and the statuette which dangled from a chain around his neck), and for him that was the final word. Indeed Judah’s and Mordechai’s actions were vindicated as events unfolded—no harm came to either of them as a result of their brave conduct.
Leading by example, Mordechai succeeded in implanting this sense of pride in the hearts of the masses. When Haman issued his decree of annihilation, not one Israelite even considered abandoning his religion in order to be spared death. At that moment, we all became “Jews”. Accordingly, the Megillah is the first place where our nation as a whole is referred to as Jews.

The grand story of history concludes in similar fashion as the Purim story: we are here to tell the tale and they aren’t...

The name stuck. Because the next 2500 years would repeatedly test our “Jewishness”. Under countless regimes – both friendly and, as was usually the case, hostile – we struggled against friends and enemies who wished to impose their will upon us at the expense of our relationship with G-d. Again and again we proved ourselves true to G-d, earning the name Jew through oceans of blood and tears.
The grand story of history concludes in similar fashion as the Purim story: we are here to tell the tale and they aren’t… The joy of Purim is greater than any other holiday because it tells the story of the nation who never allowed its soul to be shackled—the story of the Jew.2

the Mordechai of the Purim story sat with Ezra in the Great Assembly, making Ezra contemporaneous to the Jews "becoming" Jews!