Which religion is closest to Islam?

[Jayda]

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

no it's patently false. at no time in the history of judaism have they considered ezra the son of God... it's not in the torah, talmud or mishrash nor anywhere in their history

 

[thirdwatch512]

Hold on, is Judaism really pure monotheism because in surah Atouba chapter 9 verse 30 it says that the Jews call Uzair the son of Allah. Is this true? and doesnt that make them on the same level as Christians??

Absolutely false. Nowhere in any Jewish texts, whether it be the 14 volume Mishnah Torah, or the 22 volume Talmud, or just the Tanach in general.. Nowhere is Ezra called the "Son of God." Maimonides never claimed such, Abraham ibn ezra never claimed such, Rashi never claimed such, Josephus never did.. It is absolutely absent in Jewish texts. The 7 volume "Legends of the Jews" does not say it.. Never is it mentioned! It is purely a Qu'ranic statement that any Jews will tell you is totally wrong.

 

[- Qatada -]

I responded to this issue in the thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/7668-questions-christian-friend.html

Again,

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/Quran/Contrad/External/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?". 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 '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.


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

 

[Jayda]

hola,

first off, he's a jewish convert. ergo we cannot trust him.

second, that's REALLY stretching...

que Dios te bendiga

 

[snakelegs]

there may have been a group of jews in madinah that said that, but it is not from mainstream judaism. ezra was very important figure, but never called "son of god".
as for the charges of shirk, a jew could look at islam and accuse muslims of worshipping the prophet because they follow his sunnah - would that make it true? no.
anyway, since this is in the qur'an, there is little to be done about it except to point out that it is not from judaism.
jews see themselves as fiercely monotheistic as muslims.

 

[- Qatada -]

hola,

first off, he's a jewish convert. ergo we cannot trust him.

second, that's REALLY stretching...

que Dios te bendiga

It's a history lesson. Imam Al-Tabari compiled a history book, it had narrations of the Jews who lived in the Arabian Peninsula. He did the research and found the answer. You'll find nowhere in the Qur'an where it's mentioned that the Jews said they believe that Ezra is the son of God, and this is what is mentioned in Al-Tabari's collection of narrations.

If you don't want to believe in it, then you don't have to. But we have a science of hadith as you may know of, so it's truthful.

 

[Jayda]

It's a history lesson. Imam Al-Tabari compiled a history book, it had narrations of the Jews who lived in the Arabian Peninsula. He did the research and found the answer. You'll find nowhere in the Qur'an where it's mentioned that the Jews said they believe that Ezra is the son of God, and this is what is mentioned in Al-Tabari's collection of narrations.

If you don't want to believe in it, then you don't have to. But we have a science of hadith as you may know of, so it's truthful.

again, from a muslim author, ergo it's not truthful.

 

[- Qatada -]

again, from a muslim author, ergo it's not truthful.

Sure, don't accept any muslim historian at all. I don't mind. That's upto you. Atleast our Islamic history is much more authentically documented than any other nations in the world.



Regards.

 

[Jayda]

Sure, don't accept any muslim historian at all. I don't mind. That's upto you. Atleast our Islamic history is much more authentically documented than any other nations in the world.



Regards.

well since you're not going to ask. i'm trying to demonstrate the futility of ipse dixit, relying on the person rather than the evidence as you did when you provided an islamic explanation from the mouth of a real, live, authentic Jew several minutes ago.

a jew 2000 years later telling me something tabari wrote in defense of his prophet is no different than tabari himself telling me and it's simply not evidence, it's restating an assertion.

nothing you've shown us above deviates from reliance on that simple logical fallacy... rather than providing evidence that the Jews ever considered Ezra the Son of God, you have simply restated the accusation and made vague references to how they may have committed blasphemy because some of them consider him a really important figure in judaism... and also maybe it was just the jews in mecca... so put it all together and it all makes sense! oh and by the way, i'm not saying this... my jewish friend over here is the one who said it.

where do you find the word's as in the quran 'Ezra is the Son of God' ? the connection is so self evident in Christianity it would be blasphemy for me to say 'the Messiah is not the Son of God' the quran is absolutely correct... it's evidence against the Jews and Ezra not even remotely so.

a healthy sense of islamic superiority is not going to convince anyone

que Dios te bendiga

 

[guyabano]

Sure, don't accept any muslim historian at all. I don't mind. That's upto you. Atleast our Islamic history is much more authentically documented than any other nations in the world.



Regards.

errmmm, pardon me, but chinese History is more than 5000 years old, so far, Taoism and Buddhism are much more older than Islam. :uhwhat

 

[- Qatada -]

errmmm, pardon me, but chinese History is more than 5000 years old, so far, Taoism and Buddhism are much more older than Islam. :uhwhat

Erm, i said authentically documented. Look into its sciences.

 

[Jayda]

Erm, i said authentically documented. Look into its sciences.

...do you have any idea how subjective that is?

 

[- Qatada -]

well since you're not going to ask. i'm trying to demonstrate the futility of ipse dixit, relying on the person rather than the evidence as you did when you provided an islamic explanation from the mouth of a real, live, authentic Jew several minutes ago.

a jew 2000 years later telling me something tabari wrote in defense of his prophet is no different than tabari himself telling me and it's simply not evidence, it's restating an assertion.

nothing you've shown us above deviates from reliance on that simple logical fallacy... rather than providing evidence that the Jews ever considered Ezra the Son of God, you have simply restated the accusation and made vague references to how they may have committed blasphemy because some of them consider him a really important figure in judaism... and also maybe it was just the jews in mecca... so put it all together and it all makes sense! oh and by the way, i'm not saying this... my jewish friend over here is the one who said it.

where do you find the word's as in the quran 'Ezra is the Son of God' ? the connection is so self evident in Christianity it would be blasphemy for me to say 'the Messiah is not the Son of God' the quran is absolutely correct... it's evidence against the Jews and Ezra not even remotely so.

a healthy sense of islamic superiority is not going to convince anyone

que Dios te bendiga

Jayda, this is when i'll explain to you what the Islamic history sciences are. Their not like the basic history books which have a mention of how the author views history. Guyabano, this might come in useful for you too.


What happens is this;

There is one man, for example - Tom.


Tom is living in the presence of some people. He knows the customs of the people living in his town.

Tom tells his student (Jerry) that the people in his town used to say "Hooray" whenever they got happy.


Tom - Jerry [are in the chain.]


Jerry records this information and tells his students (including a student called Bob) in his religious talks that he heard from Tom (his teacher) that the people said hooray whenever they were happy.



Tom - Jerry - Bob [are in the chain.]


Bob tells his student (William) in a religious talk the same story.


Tom - Jerry - Bob - William.



Rob is a historian. He doesn't write history himself, he merely records it. He hears from William that this is what he heard from William, and he mentions all the people in the chain all the way uptill Tom.



Then the narrators in the chain are studied for their trustworthiness, the strength of their memory, and whether they had lied or decieved others in their lives [during their lives, there would be biographers who would record the lives of the narrators.]


If the chain is authentic, with all the narrators trustworthy - it's like Rob heard it directly off Tom. So it is an authentic narration.
​

This is exactly how Imam Al-Tabari collected history. Our Islamic history is recorded this way, since over 1400years ago. Imam Al Tabari didn't live too long ago after the Prophet, so maybe about 7 people might have been in his chains of narrations in his history collection.





Regards.

 

[Jayda]

Jayda, this is when i'll explain to you what the Islamic history sciences are. Their not like the basic history books which have a mention of how the author views history. Guyabano, this might come in useful for you too.


What happens is this;

There is one man, for example - Tom.


Tom is living in the presence of some people. He knows the customs of the people living in his town.

Tom tells his student (Jerry) that the people in his town used to say "Hooray" whenever they got happy.


Tom - Jerry [are in the chain.]


Jerry records this information and tells his students (including a student called Bob) in his religious talks that he heard from Tom (his teacher) that the people said hooray whenever they were happy.



Tom - Jerry - Bob [are in the chain.]


Bob tells his student (William) in a religious talk the same story.


Tom - Jerry - Bob - William.



Rob is a historian. He doesn't write history himself, he merely records it. He hears from William that this is what he heard from William, and he mentions all the people in the chain all the way uptill Tom.



Then the narrators in the chain are studied for their trustworthiness, the strength of their memory, and whether they had lied or decieved others in their lives [during their lives, there would be biographers who would record the lives of the narrators.]


If the chain is authentic, with all the narrators trustworthy - it's like Rob heard it directly off Tom. So it is an authentic narration.
​

This is exactly how Imam Al-Tabari collected history. Our Islamic history is recorded this way, since over 1400years ago. Imam Al Tabari didn't live too long ago, so maybe about 7 people might have been in his chains of narrations in his history collection





Regards.

si,

and that is a lovely explanation of isnad. the problem is 2000 years later when better more empiracle sciences strongly contradict tribal methods of recording information we are confronted with questions. "who was Tom?" "can anyone proove Tom and his 'friends' existed?" "how do we know what Tom said matches what was reported, what was reported, what was reported, what was reported Tom said 80 years after?"

and when you start to ask those questions alongside the undeniable fact that our modern, more sophistocated techniques totally contradict what Tom theoretically said... then our questions (above) turn into explanations. "well maybe they don't match up because Tom didn't exist, lets see if we can independently verify this guy's existance" "maybe they don't match because people warped what Tom said each time they presented it"

either way... at the end of this, my accusation of bad evidence is against Tom himself. in this case Tom is a devout muslim who tells us that Jewish people were approaching His prophet and doing something that substantiates an accusation in his holy book that runs contrary to everything Jews believe. and since Tom doesn't have any friends to corroborate this it makes it the word of one, heavily biased man living over 1000 years ago against the entire documented history of a 5000 year old religion.

that's why it's not convincing.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[- Qatada -]

Muhammad Asad never made up any narrations, he simply used a narration from Imam Al Tabari's history collection.

Imam Al Tabari's history book is used by many people, even by anti islamic people. Therefore, if you reject it - again, that's upto you.



That's the end of our conversation.




Peace.

 

[Jayda]

and perhaps that may be, but it's not the end of the conversation.

the fact remains outside of the testimony of one highly prejudiced man who may have existed about 1300 years ago, there is no indication the jews ever considered ezra the son of God, and there is every indication they would have considered such a thing blasphemy. such a blasphemy, in fact, they are on record crucifying a man for designating himself the Son of God.

que Dios te bendiga

 

[thirdwatch512]

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

But the Jews do not say Ezra is the Son of God!

Islam has this belief in Tahweed, the oneness and uniqueness of God that no one can comprehend. Well, Judaism holds the same in a sense. Go all throughout the Tanach, and you see verses saying that God is all powerful and no one can comprehend is perfection, etc etc.

Jews look down upon people who call others the "son of god" jsut as much as you Muslims do.

The Rambam(one of the greatest Jewish scholars who lived in Morocco) called Muslims out on it many times, saying that Muhammad was a "meshugga" who lied about the Jews. "Meshugga" is Hebrew for madman, and at the time was one of the worse things you could call a man. This shows how much the Rambam was against Muhammad.

 

[The_Prince]

But the Jews do not say Ezra is the Son of God!

Islam has this belief in Tahweed, the oneness and uniqueness of God that no one can comprehend. Well, Judaism holds the same in a sense. Go all throughout the Tanach, and you see verses saying that God is all powerful and no one can comprehend is perfection, etc etc.

Jews look down upon people who call others the "son of god" jsut as much as you Muslims do.

The Rambam(one of the greatest Jewish scholars who lived in Morocco) called Muslims out on it many times, saying that Muhammad was a "meshugga" who lied about the Jews. "Meshugga" is Hebrew for madman, and at the time was one of the worse things you could call a man. This shows how much the Rambam was against Muhammad.

well it would be good if this jew could actually say what the prophet Muhammad lied about...............

if its reffering to Uzayr well this site responds to the claim:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

 

[KelleyD]

I voted other. I think' Islam has alot of similarities with Baha'is. Unity under one God seems to be the common thread running through both.

 

[BlackMamba]

Some Jews at the time did see Uzair as son of god. This site is where I learned that from:
http://answering-christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm