Jews, Ezra and Qur'an

[Tumah]

That's why It's required for non-Arabic Muslims to learn Arabic to understand the Quran more.

You can't reach the meaning of sentence language "word by word".
it's does not work like Google translation.

You will find many stories in same Surah,it's not big deal.

My friend. Arabic is a Semitic language. I understand two Semitic languages. Let's leave the red herrings out of it.

Unless you have some proof that there is a grammatical difference between
وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ
and
وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ

I think you should reconsider what your argument is.

 

[Tumah]

Doesn't the Qur'an translate?

Moshe - Musa
Gabriel - Jibril
Noah - Nuh
Yeshua - Isa

etc.

And completely loses the meaning of many Hebrew names?

To me it looks like only slight spelling changes from the language transfer and mostly differences in letter pronunciations.
M-SH-H becomes M-U-S-A.

The /H/ to /A/ transfer is found in Aramaic as well. And the extra /U/ can be explained by the vowel point on the M in Hebrew which makes an invisible /U/.​

G-B-R-I-A-L becomes J-B-R-I-L. Almost identical. The /G/ and /J/ are the same letter in Hebrew and grammar is what decides which way to pronounce it (eg. Deut. 33:20, the first time it says Gad's name it should be pronounced Jad and the second time Gad).
N-Ḥ becomes N-U-Ḥ. And again the vowel point on the Hebrew /N/ indicates an invisible /U/.

I don't have an explanation for how Y-SH-U-3 became 3-Y-S-A. From the looks of it, I'd say through Greek rather than through Hebrew or Aramaic.

But for Ezra:
3-Z-R-A becomes 3-Z-Y-R. They're not really so different. Especially with the root 3ZR is present in both (the letter Y can be stuck in the middle of a root without changing it). It seems to me like it would be a tough argument to say that its not the same person, barring any other more closely resembling figure.

 

[Tumah]

But the verse says wakaalathi. They said. Its in the past.

Yes. But it compares it to the Christians where it also says waqalati.
Either the Christian belief is also "in the past", and by the time of Muhammad, they no longer believed the Jesus was the son of god. Or the Jews still believed in the time of Muhammad that Ezra was the son of god. But you can't take the same word with the same tense and that it means two different things, unless you have some other grammatical points to prove it.

 

[firedragon]

People on here often confuse me for a male. I'm used to it. I had 'female' on my profile for the longest time, too, and people still called me 'he'. Such is life.

Well. I dont think as a debate I would have a problem. But in terms of addressing someone, I would.

I am very sorry. I have been brought up to believe in equality.

Also I have only learned to be more respective towards women more than men. If that is some kind of inequality I cant help it.

 

[Limo]

Why do you use Jesus???

Why dont you ask all those countries who use Jesu??

Nevertheless, whats your point?

I use Jesus when I'm referring to the character attributed by Nicaea creed
I use El-mesiah to refer to the true character of the human prophet
Im note aware about countries uses Jesu
My point, there is a big difference between the true human prophet and the fictitious character figured in Nicaea

 

[Limo]

Mate. Even Arabic is a language born of Syriac, debated but evident. Every language in the world is born of another.

Why do we say "Theology"? Its Greek Theos.

Most scientific studies are named such after Greek mainly. Anthropology is after anthropos. Thats Greek for man. THe bible, the septuagint says anthropos for man first and then names him Adam later in the Genesis.

This is how language works.

Who said Arabic is born from Syriac?

 

[firedragon]

I would give in to al

I use Jesus when I'm referring to the character attributed by Nicaea creed
I use El-mesiah to refer to the true character of the human prophet
Im note aware about countries uses Jesu
My point, there is a big difference between the true human prophet and the fictitious character figured in Nicaea

I agree that the true person and the depicted person are two different characters. Same goes with the prophet Muhammed.

But I would like to know what your idea of the Nicean creed is.

And why do you say El Mesiah? What language is that?

Mate. There are more people calling him Jesu than Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Who said Arabic is born from Syriac?

Hmmm. Alright. You think Arabic is an ever-living language that existed since time immemorial??

Brother. May I beg you to not question like this? When you ask questions like who said this who said that it sounds so idiotic. There is so much scholarly work that its embarrassing to answer a question "Who said this" as if its a rumour narrated by a neighbour.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. But it compares it to the Christians where it also says waqalati.
Either the Christian belief is also "in the past", and by the time of Muhammad, they no longer believed the Jesus was the son of god. Or the Jews still believed in the time of Muhammad that Ezra was the son of god. But you can't take the same word with the same tense and that it means two different things, unless you have some other grammatical points to prove it.

Yes. Both are in the past.

That does not mean it cannot exist anymore.

 

[firedragon]

My friend. Arabic is a Semitic language. I understand two Semitic languages. Let's leave the red herrings out of it.

Unless you have some proof that there is a grammatical difference between
وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ
and
وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ

I think you should reconsider what your argument is.

The two have different references. Differences are Yahudi, Nasaarah, Uzair and Masih.

Both statements are in the past tense.

It does not say 'Jesus was', in fact it says 'they said the messiah is'. Same with Uzair. The reference is in the past tense as in something that already happened.

 

[Tumah]

Yes. Both are in the past.

That does not mean it cannot exist anymore.

If it still exists, then its not called the past, is it? If it meant to say that they still say it, it should say waqaloo.

And if was speaking about too completely different things, then it shouldn't be comparing them to each other in the ayah.

And if it meant something the Jews no longer do, then there is no reason to add the phrase at the end 'All-h should kill them", since its a 'sin' that they aren't doing anymore. Also look at the ayat before and after this one. They are all talking about the present.

There's either a mistake in the language or a mistake in the context. Because you can't just lift the first five words of the ayah out of its context and say its talking about something totally unrelated to anything before or after it.

 

[Tumah]

The two have different references. Differences are Yahudi, Nasaarah, Uzair and Masih.

Both statements are in the past tense.

It does not say 'Jesus was', in fact it says 'they said the messiah is'. Same with Uzair. The reference is in the past tense as in something that already happened.

Or the references are to something they just recently said.
"He said he was going to the store now".
"[When we were talking to them last week] they said they believe Ezra is the son of god"

The time of the conversation took place in the past, but the author of the Qur'an is clearly indicating that this is a belief that they currently maintain.

 

[firedragon]

To me it looks like only slight spelling changes from the language transfer and mostly differences in letter pronunciations.
M-SH-H becomes M-U-S-A.

The /H/ to /A/ transfer is found in Aramaic as well. And the extra /U/ can be explained by the vowel point on the M in Hebrew which makes an invisible /U/.​

G-B-R-I-A-L becomes J-B-R-I-L. Almost identical. The /G/ and /J/ are the same letter in Hebrew and grammar is what decides which way to pronounce it (eg. Deut. 33:20, the first time it says Gad's name it should be pronounced Jad and the second time Gad).
N-Ḥ becomes N-U-Ḥ. And again the vowel point on the Hebrew /N/ indicates an invisible /U/.

I don't have an explanation for how Y-SH-U-3 became 3-Y-S-A. From the looks of it, I'd say through Greek rather than through Hebrew or Aramaic.

But for Ezra:
3-Z-R-A becomes 3-Z-Y-R. They're not really so different. Especially with the root 3ZR is present in both (the letter Y can be stuck in the middle of a root without changing it). It seems to me like it would be a tough argument to say that its not the same person, barring any other more closely resembling figure.

I respect your knowledge and aptitude Tumah.

But please allow me. Musa and Mosheh is not pronunciation. Its seen and sheen. Two different letters.

The most prominent difference between Arabic and Hebrew is the E and A. I dont know how to explain in English. There is no E pronunciation in Arabic. Like the word enter. But in this case its two different letters.

The word Uzair in Arabic will mean in its root help. Even in Hebrew as I understand it Azar means help. Yes it is tough to say its not the same person when you think of it from the biblical point of view, but its also tough to say it is. Many people assert that Hamaan in Quran is the character depicted in the book of esther, but the context shows that its simply impossible.

Just because the name is similar or the meaning is the same it may not be the same person. Well, with the same spoon, it could be also.

Thus, we must give it the benefit of doubt unless we have clear evidence to claim something.

Also, we cannot look at an older theological scripture and a newer one and claim that one is not historically accurate.

The OT cites Muhammadim. The Quran cites Muhammed. Muslims claim its the same person. Christians say Muhammadim should be translated into altogether beautiful. Maybe perpetual.

If one argues that Ezra of the bible, the scholar or editor is the same Uzair in the Quran and that the Quran had misunderstood his position, then the Quran got another name Muhammed which is cited in the OT. Should we assert that is also the same person? In that case the bible would have predicted a future person?

You decide!

Cheers though. I am traveling and the weather is as bright as an Indian summer.

 

[firedragon]

If it still exists, then its not called the past, is it? If it meant to say that they still say it, it should say waqaloo.

And if was speaking about too completely different things, then it shouldn't be comparing them to each other in the ayah.

And if it meant something the Jews no longer do, then there is no reason to add the phrase at the end 'All-h should kill them", since its a 'sin' that they aren't doing anymore. Also look at the ayat before and after this one. They are all talking about the present.

There's either a mistake in the language or a mistake in the context. Because you can't just lift the first five words of the ayah out of its context and say its talking about something totally unrelated to anything before or after it.

Mate. This is language.

I dont think you got it.
But cool.

 

[DawudTalut]

We read in surah 9 ayah 30:

"The Jews call Uzair [Ezra] the son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (in this) they imitate what the unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth."

Whilst the Christians preach Jesus is the Divine Son, I have never heard or read of any Jews, past or present, call Ezra the son of G-d. As far as I'm aware, this would be blasphemy and has never happened.

So here are my questions:

1) Is there any historical proof of this outside of the Qur'an?

2) Where do RF's Jewish members think this idea came from?

Blessings

Edit: bad translation fixed.

Peace be on all .
The 2nd page of the commentary of above verse:
Please see on left upper paragraph:

https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=924&region=E1&CR=EN,E2


If It was not the the case when Quran was sent, people would have objected.

======================================

Another way to look the matter:
Holy Quran acknowledges the pious people of Books [Jews Christians...]
[3:114] They are not all alike. Among the People of the Book there is a party who stand by their covenant; they recite the word of Allah in the hours of night and prostrate themselves before Him.

[3:115] They believe in Allah and the Last Day, and enjoin what is good and forbid evil, and hasten, vying with one another, in good works. And these are among the righteous.

==

[3:200] And surely among the People of the Book there are some who believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to you and in what was sent down to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They barter not the Signs of Allah for a paltry price. It is these who shall have their reward with their Lord. Surely, Allah is swift to take account.

==

[28:53] Those to whom We gave the Book before it — they believe in it;

[28:54] And when it is recited unto them, they say, ‘We believe in it. Verily, it is the truth from our Lord. Indeed, even before it we had submitted ourselves to God.’

[28:55] These will be given their reward twice, for they have been steadfast and they repel evil with good, and spend out of what We have given them.

[28:56] And when they hear vain talk, they turn away from it and say, ‘Unto us our works and unto you your works. Peace be to you. We seek not the ignorant.’

==

[7:160] And of the people of Moses there is a party that exhorts people to truth and does justice therewith.

==
VERSE 163 @

https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=586&region=E1&CR=EN,E2&CR=EN,E2


Now please read in this context

https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=923&region=E1&CR=EN,E2

=====
So it is clear Holy Quran talks about various types of people within a group ; those who practice their religions and those who do not.

 

[Tumah]

Mate. This is language.

I dont think you got it.
But cool.

That's not a refutation. Either explain why I'm wrong or move on. Don't tell me I'm wrong 'because I am'. I know Hebrew (Biblical, Mishnaic and Modern) as well as Aramaic/Syriac (they're almost identical), both Semitic languages. Using both of those, I can parse Arabic to some extent. Even in this ayah besides for three or four words, I can understand almost the whole thing, using the Semitic or Aramaic roots of the words. So unless you have a solid answer, don't give me this.

 

[rosends]

The OT cites Muhammadim.

No, it doesn't. There is the word machmadim but it isn't a name, but a form of the root ch-m-d. Unless it is valid to say that any time the text uses the root tz-d it is a name and a reference to a Muslim named Sayeed, it is silly to say that the Tanach text makes any reference to someone named Mohammed. In fact, if they are at all related (itself arguable), the closest one could come to any reasonable statement would be to say "years after the Tanach was written, someone named his child a name which developed out of a root used in biblical Hebrew."

 

[Godobeyer]

My friend. Arabic is a Semitic language. I understand two Semitic languages. Let's leave the red herrings out of it.

Unless you have some proof that there is a grammatical difference between
وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ
and
وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ

I think you should reconsider what your argument is.

I explain it many times brother.

Jews "said" Uzair son of God, does not mean forcelly they still saying.
that event happened, it's not about continous and stop events, about an event happened.


to extend my opinion about this issue, I do believe God sent many messangers to Jews for the reason Jews in past were rebellion, not because they were Chosen people.

Choosen people was about they accepted God message with no problem.but then they edit it later and refuse to preach it to the world, and being rebellion with every messanger. so God resent anothor messanger, they being rebellion again ...so go on .

 

[Tumah]

I respect your knowledge and aptitude Tumah.

But please allow me. Musa and Mosheh is not pronunciation. Its seen and sheen. Two different letters.

And in Hebrew we also call them Sin and Shin. But the relationship between the letters is reflected in their appearance. They are exactly the same in Arabic, just one has dots on it and one doesn't. And in Hebrew they are exactly the same as well, just one has a dot on the left and one has a dot on the right.

The most prominent difference between Arabic and Hebrew is the E and A. I dont know how to explain in English. There is no E pronunciation in Arabic. Like the word enter. But in this case its two different letters.

That's irrelevant here. The Alif at the end of the M-SH/S that happens when the word moved from one language to next, would have changed that vowel sound anyway.

The word Uzair in Arabic will mean in its root help. Even in Hebrew as I understand it Azar means help. Yes it is tough to say its not the same person when you think of it from the biblical point of view, but its also tough to say it is. Many people assert that Hamaan in Quran is the character depicted in the book of esther, but the context shows that its simply impossible.

Just because the name is similar or the meaning is the same it may not be the same person. Well, with the same spoon, it could be also.

Thus, we must give it the benefit of doubt unless we have clear evidence to claim something.

You arrived at the wrong conclusion. The problem with putting Haman with Pharaoh means that either the Qur'an messed up, or that it was talking about another well known Middle Eastern myth that the Qru'anic authors were spinning into the Biblical narrative.

But to say that it was talking about some unknown Ezra that the Jews worshiped in some unknown time. That's just grasping at straws. And it doesn't even begin to address the contextual problem that causes.

Also, we cannot look at an older theological scripture and a newer one and claim that one is not historically accurate.

I don't see any mention of any other scriptures besides the Qur'an here...

The OT cites Muhammadim. The Quran cites Muhammed. Muslims claim its the same person. Christians say Muhammadim should be translated into altogether beautiful. Maybe perpetual.

It doesn't say "Muhammadim". It says "mahamudim". Ma is the prefix that does some grammatical thing. ḤaMuD is the root meaning something desired. IM is the suffix that denotes plural.

Sticking Muhammad into there makes no sense with the context whatsoever. Although if you actually believe in this argument, I can understand that context is not something you understand how to use. In which case I can understand why you also think it makes sense to argue that the Ezra story was talking about some past case.

If one argues that Ezra of the bible, the scholar or editor is the same Uzair in the Quran and that the Quran had misunderstood his position, then the Quran got another name Muhammed which is cited in the OT. Should we assert that is also the same person? In that case the bible would have predicted a future person?

You decide!

Does this actually make sense to you?
The word "mahamudim" is not a name. It wouldn't make sense in the context to make it into a name. Its Muslims that are taking the word out of the context to make it into something that it is not, in a place that it shouldn't be. Its not a prediction, its a song about G-d.
(after a bunch of other prosaic metaphors for G-d)
חכו - his palate
ממתקים - [is] sweet things
וכלו - and all of him
מחמדים - [are] desired things [is Muhammad???]
זה - this [is]
דודי - my beloved
וזה - and this [is]
רעי - my friend
בנות - [O] daughters
ירושלם - [of] Jerusalem

You see the parallel between the second and fourth word? Sticking Muhammad in here doesn't fit the flow of the poem. Nor does it make for a intelligent statement. "His palate is sweet and all of him is Muhammad." That doesn't make any sense. You're arguing for something that makes less sense than the obvious translation.

So what you're arguing is:

If the Qur'an made a mistake about Ezra, then Muslims are also making a mistake about the word 'mahamudim'.

And the answer is, correct to both of them.

Cheers though. I am traveling and the weather is as bright as an Indian summer.

Enjoy.

 

[Tumah]

I explain it many times brother.

Jews "said" Uzair son of God, does not mean forcelly they still saying.
that event happened, it's not about continous and stop events, about an event happened.


to extend my opinion about this issue, I do believe God sent many messangers to Jews for the reason Jews in past were rebellion, not because they were Chosen people.

Choosen people was about they accepted God message with no problem.but then they edit it later and refuse to preach it to the world, and being rebellion with every messanger. so God resent anothor messanger, they being rebellion again ...so go on .

Please study this word very well.
CONTEXT.

The context is speaking about NOW. The next subject (Christians believing in Jesus as son of god) is also going on NOW (and also written in past tense). The end of the ayah wants All-h to kill them NOW for their sin. You aren't addressing any of that.