Ezra son of God - Error

format_quote Originally Posted by Guest

Where and when did I state that I was a "Christian"? Do you mind showing me where I said this? I simply stated what Christians believe, you made the assumption that since I disagreed with the Islamic belief that I am a Christian.

Lol right here bro

format_quote Originally Posted by Guest

Christians do not speak of Jesus in the Past tense, but we say that Jesus is the Son of God. .

I responded to this issue in the thread:
Questions from a Christian friend

Again,

format_quote Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl

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?") 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'dn takes strong exception. (Asad, Message of the Qur'an)

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

...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?". Noice 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 'Ihyaa' Minhaaj 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.

:w

Guest wrote:

Take a look at the context, if that Sura says that Jews at "ONE POINT" believed that Ezra was the Son of God, then Christians at "ONE POINT" believed that Jesus was the Son of God.

Yes, it does not speak about the beliefs of anyone - it says the Jews SAY, i.e. it was responding to a verbal statement made by the Jews of Madinah.

edit

Edit

Please read here ---

NO ANTI-ISLAMIC LINKS!

Brother Abdullah4ever that website is anti-Islam and here's the website dedicated to exposing their lies:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/ac.htm

Ops sorry rong address im sorry mods

salam alaikum

what i find exteremely funny is that since people cannot "attack the Quran" in the scientific context they always try and use the historic prespective from 1000's of years before and what happend then.

Wheras the fact about history can be summed up in this little story:

"General Custer - The Great Hero of Yester-years - now exposed to be the villan and instigator through Archeology" - This was rejected by the US and they refused to change their history books stating that historians and archeologists can be wrong.

So basically Archeologists and Historians can "guess" or even make "fairly accurate" guesses at what was going on back 1000's of years ago but they cannot 100% accurately say "this is what happend"

But I find it hilarious when people come attacking the Quran suddenly the word of historians and archeologists becomes "fact"

lol

where is guest? has she/he left the forum or something?
may Allah guide him/her, ameen!

Deuteronomy 14:1 - You are the SONS OF GOD. You shall not cut yourselves, or make any baldness on your head on account of the Dead.

Actually it is:

"Ye are the children of the L-RD your G-d: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead."

And the Hebrew for that part is, בָּנִים אַתֶּם which is "baneem attem"

This is G-d explaining that he does not want his children express their grief by mutilating themselves, since we are all G-d's creation and in an essence G-d's children.

The "son of G-d" that Christians refer to, cannot be supported in Jewish text. I cannot speak for their own text however, but I do believe them to be false.

MODERATOR'S COMMENT: 16. No attacks against Islam in any form will be tolerated on this discussion board. This includes, but is not limited to attacks on the Qur'an, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), his family and COMPANIONS, or any other prophets in Islam, or Islamic scholars, past or present.

format_quote Originally Posted by Link

Salam

It is refering to some jews who did say that. Not all.

If you say that's not possible to mean that, I say go learn something about arabic first, then make that assertion.

Is this not 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!"

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللّهِ وَقَالَتْ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللّهِ ذَلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِؤُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللّهُ أَنَّى يُؤْفَكُونَ

Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi thalika qawluhum bi-afwahihim yudahi-oona qawla allatheena kafaroo min qablu qatalahumu Allahu anna yu/fakoona

Why would G-d not say "Some Jews"?