Jews, Ezra and Qur'an

[Limo]

Seeing as you are bringing up academic scholarship, there are quite a few scholars who have tried to solve these 'inconsistencies' between the Quran and Jewish & Christian tradition with recourse to attempts to identify specific sects that held heterodox beliefs that match the Quranic narrative. The above example appears to be one of these.

These however are not very convincing as they rely on the traditional Islamic narrative that the Hijaz was a pagan backwater isolated from the rest of the region and Muhammad came into contact with these heterodox groups who had fled to the periphery to escape persecution. More recent scholarship has focused on the clear evidence that the initial audience of Muhammad's teachings must have been reasonably well versed in the Abrahamic traditions, as the Quran is a critique of, and discourse on, these. It would not have made any sense to isolated pagans, as there is too high a degree of intertextuality

I'm not to familiar with the above example, or the Jewish narrative, but there are more famous ones regarding the passage "And when God said, 'O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, "Take me and my mother as gods, apart from God"?", where scholars sought to link this to a sect like the Kollyridians, who perhaps worshipped Mary as a god.

The Mary example can much more clearly be linked to a documented mainstream Christian polemic in the preceding centuries against the excessive veneration of saints, that finds its analogue in the Quran which is a rhetorical text.

Also, the text you quoted is 30 years old, and a lot has changed in scholarship since then, especially a move away from the uncritical acceptance of the Sirah history towards the view that it is more explanatory narrative to make sense of the Quran, rather than actual history. While there is no evidence that it does not refere to a heterodox sect, to suggest it does is purely speculative and has no real supporting evidence outside of simple convenience.

As to what else it could be, some people like to argue that it is a 'mistake' in the Quran, which I don't agree with as it is too theologically sophisticated a text to make basic errors. I do tend to think that the answer is to be found in more orthodox beliefs, rather than more heterodox ones though. Treating this passage as rhetorical rather than purely literal would be my personal opinion on the topic.

This would be similar to the Mary example, where others are being criticised for more 'technical' violations of the unity of God, rather than outright deification of others.

I don't know if Gordon Darnell Newby is one of scholars who are trying to solve conflicts between Islam, Judiasm, and Christinty. I don't know also if he concluded about the Jews who worshiped Ezra or Uzair in the context of reconciling or not but ....
but I see his statement is purely referring to Jewish resources only and no Quran in the context

Regarding Mariam as Goddess example. We can't assign a church in Christianity and call it the orthodox and others as heterodox.

 

[rosends]

A-I know Talmud is about speechs, but actually recorded in books.

B- I do believe racist Talmud verse is exist, this is the proof.

C- I do know that it's burned many times during the history , I do believe racism teaching of it was one of reasons (accusation).

http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-burning-of-the-talmud/

so A-, you don't know what it is
B you believe what you want. Study isn't the same as reading a summary of content
C you have no idea why it was burned.

so noted.

 

[Godobeyer]

so A-, you don't know what it is
B you believe what you want. Study isn't the same as reading a summary of content
C you have no idea why it was burned.

so noted.

It's not secrect .

A- I probably know, in general it's about explaination of earlie Rabbis to Torah.

B-The video shows Jews, these Jews were not in war speech or hatefull speech, to say they were provoked. they were smiling.
Here conference dispute about :

C:I know that, I just avoided to say that,(I thought the links were enough) Talmud burned by Church because it's contain insults to Jesus(pbuh), and I do believe because it's has racist teaching too.

 

[rosends]

It's not secrect .

A- I probably know, in general it's about explaination of earlie Rabbis to Torah.

OK, so you only sort of know in general. That's a start. Not a good one, but a start.

B-The video shows Jews, these Jews were not in war speech or hatefull speech, to say they were provoked. they were smiling.
Here conference dispute about :

I hope you realize that in that conference, they aren't talking about the talmud. So, umm, try again.

C:I know that, I just avoided to say that,(I thought the links were enough) Talmud burned by Church because it's contain insults to Jesus(pbuh), and I do believe because it's has racist teaching too.

First, if you studied it, you would know that Jesus isn't mentioned in it. Second, what you believe is not very persuasive. If I say "I believe it doesn't have racist teachings" you would dismiss my beliefs. The difference is, my "beliefs" are based in actual study and you are cutting and pasting from hate sites and have no actual knowledge.

 

[Sakeenah]

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.

I haven't read all 18 pages in this thread so I'm just replying to your OP it's possible other muslims in this thread mentioned it

This ayat is referring to a group of jewish people and not all jews.

Underneath is a copy and paste, if you want read the rest you can look it up in
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, the second part of his tafseer of Soorat al-Tawbah; Tafseer Ibn Jareer; Tafseer al-Qurtubi.


They said that ‘Uzayr is a son of Allaah, and the Christians said that the Messiah was a son of Allaah. ‘Uzayr was a righteous man from among the Children of Israel, who was venerated by the Jews. It was said that the reason why he was venerated was that he had memorized the Tawraat (Torah), so the Jews, or some of them, exaggerated about him and claimed that he was a son of Allaah. So Allaah condemned them for that and told them that by saying this they were doing the same as the polytheists who said that the angels were daughters of Allaah. The Christians also spoke ill of Allaah when they said that the Messiah was a son of Allaah; by doing so they resembled the Jews and mushrikeen. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!” [al-Tawbah 9:30]

 

[Godobeyer]

OK, so you only sort of know in general. That's a start. Not a good one, but a start.

Yeah good start

I

hope you realize that in that conference, they aren't talking about the talmud. So, umm, try again.

That's would be prejudging from me,I was not heard all conference to know.

First, if you studied it, you would know that Jesus isn't mentioned in it. Second, what you believe is not very persuasive. If I say "I believe it doesn't have racist teachings" you would dismiss my beliefs. The difference is, my "beliefs" are based in actual study and you are cutting and pasting from hate sites and have no actual knowledge.

That's not hate sites or videos I posted, I post even Jewish people speaking, and even Jewish websites about that burning Talmud during history.

 

[rosends]

That's would be prejudging from me,I was not heard all conference to know.

but you already prejudged and cited this video to prove your point about the talmud. Now that I have told you that it wasn't about the talmud are you going to rescind your claim ?

That's not hate sites or videos I posted, I post even Jewish people speaking, and even Jewish websites about that burning Talmud during history.

you aren't paying attention. you cited max blumenthal and not a site that has any actual knowledge.

 

[Godobeyer]

but you already prejudged and cited this video to prove your point about the talmud. Now that I have told you that it wasn't about the talmud are you going to rescind your claim ?

Video revealed racism in Torah and oral Torah( Talmud)

you aren't paying attention. you cited max blumenthal and not a site that has any actual knowledge.

I do paying attention, I posted Jewish source.
Jewish site list the burn of Talmud during history,video shows Jews discuss with smiles and joy racism teaching of Talmud.

 

[rosends]

Video revealed racism in Torah and oral Torah( Talmud)

I do paying attention, I posted Jewish source.
Jewish site list the burn of Talmud during history,video shows Jews discuss with smiles and joy racism teaching of Talmud.

Then it is clear that you don't at all understand the video or its source (or what it is about)

 

[Godobeyer]

Then it is clear that you don't at all understand the video or its source (or what it is about)

I do understand about discuss about Torah and Oral Torah teaching,there were disagreement between Jews,in conference, because some Jews reject the racism of oral Torah (talmud.)

this is the brief of conference:

Do you have other explaination ?

 

[rosends]

I do understand about discuss about Torah and Oral Torah teaching,there were disagreement between Jews,in conference, because some Jews reject the racism of oral Torah (talmud.)

this is the brief of conference:

Do you have other explaination ?

Yes, and since you have admitted not knowing what the conference is about (hint, "not the talmud") and yet you continue to post the video with the header "burn the talmud" you are parading your ignorance.

 

[Tumah]

Don't you think that professor Gordon Darnell Newby knows this ?

Is that your argument? That this scholar must have known this when he said what he said? I hope not.

No Problem

If there is something in Talmoud about "a Jew" who has taken Metatron as a god, it means there were Jews who has taken Metatron, Calf,,, Uzair as God or Son God
It means not all Jews were perfect and also these groups don't exist anymore like Jews who has taken Uzair as a prophet

Except the context doesn't imply that.

 

[Tumah]

EDITED TO correct and add:


I remember that you insist that "verse" is run in present tense, then I proved to you it's about past tense, so I think I taught you how it's works.

I agree that the word is in past tense. But the ayat of the context are in present tense. This changes the understanding of this word.

it's not prophet, as you claimed before.

You misunderstood me. I didn't say that you were waiting for a prophet. I said you were waiting for the Mahdi just like we are waiting for the Messiah.

Because some Jews claim, God is ONLY for them.
they are His childern lol

No Jews claim that G-d is only for them.
No Jews claim that only Jews are G-d's children.

Actuatly the verse mention to all Jews sinned (not part of them).it's could be part of them were.
Ony God knows.

Which verse is that?

Do you mean this ?



Most of them sent to nation related/root to people Jews! these are BEFORE Moses(pbuh).

I asked if there is prophets sent after Moses(pbuh). OR Jacob (pbuh), mentionned in Torah , to other nations (non-Jews) ?

Its hard to know what you ask sometimes. None of those prophets were sent to the Jewish people. In some cases, there were no Jewish people at the time.
There were no prophets send to non-Jews are Moses time, because at that time period G-d stopped sending prophets to the non-Jews.

I notice you mistake to quote my reply, anyway I read it, this is my respond:

Since Jews still waiting for Messiah(pbuh) , I think it's not wise come FROM YOU to say the prophecy is stopped .

I'm not sure which reply you're talking about.
Of course we believe that prophecy will return with the coming of the Messiah. But until he comes, there is no more prophecy.

Where is in Torah said God stop sent prophet to non-Jews ?

In the Midrash Tanchumah Balak 1.
And also by, you know, the lack of mention of any non-Jewish prophets after him in the Tanach.

 

[Limo]

Is that your argument? That this scholar must have known this when he said what he said? I hope not.

What about your argument that the Jews should have the Talmud as an argument not taking Uzair as a God Son. The scholar you're criticizing his knowledge is a professor of Abrahamic religions

Mosa was alive and Haron was among the Jews himself when Jews have taken a calf as a God. Right ??

Except the context doesn't imply that.

May be

 

[Tumah]

I haven't read all 18 pages in this thread so I'm just replying to your OP it's possible other muslims in this thread mentioned it

This ayat is referring to a group of jewish people and not all jews.

Underneath is a copy and paste, if you want read the rest you can look it up in
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, the second part of his tafseer of Soorat al-Tawbah; Tafseer Ibn Jareer; Tafseer al-Qurtubi.


They said that ‘Uzayr is a son of Allaah, and the Christians said that the Messiah was a son of Allaah. ‘Uzayr was a righteous man from among the Children of Israel, who was venerated by the Jews. It was said that the reason why he was venerated was that he had memorized the Tawraat (Torah), so the Jews, or some of them, exaggerated about him and claimed that he was a son of Allaah. So Allaah condemned them for that and told them that by saying this they were doing the same as the polytheists who said that the angels were daughters of Allaah. The Christians also spoke ill of Allaah when they said that the Messiah was a son of Allaah; by doing so they resembled the Jews and mushrikeen. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!” [al-Tawbah 9:30]

In the context of comparing them to Christians - all or most of whom believe that Jesus is the son of god, the ayah indicates that all or most Jews does this as well. Just to give you an example, imagine the following statement:

Muslims want to kill all the people of the West and the Christians believe that Jesus is a god.

Does it sound like I am saying "some Muslims" want to kill all the people of the West? Or would you say that since it doesn't say "some" and since I put the statement together with a statement known to be true about most Christians, that I am probably saying that most Muslims want to kill all the people of the West?

 

[Tumah]

What about your argument that the Jews should have the Talmud as an argument not taking Uzair as a God Son. The scholar you're criticizing his knowledge is a professor of Abrahamic religions

So what?

Mosa was alive and Haron was among the Jews himself when Jews have taken a calf as a God. Right ??

Moses was up the mountain, not in the area. But otherwise, yes. So what?

May be

A solid argument.

 

[Limo]

So what?

Moses was up the mountain, not in the area. But otherwise, yes. So what?


A solid argument.

You want solid argument, following are three :

• If Jews has taken calf as god while Mosa is alive (on the mountain) and prophet Harun his brother (you didn't mention in your response) was among them . Why do you think a small statement in Talmud would stop some other Jews from taking Uzair or Metatron as God Son ?
• Also there is no assurance that the statement in Talmud about Metatron which you said it's a small reference was there in Talmud before some Jews has taken Uzair
• May the small statement about Metatron was added to Talmoud to address the issue of some Jews have taken Metatron and/or Uzir as Son God

Regards

 

[rosends]

are you referring to Elisha Ben Avuyah's mistaken belief that Metatron was equal to God because he sat in God's presence?

If not, please let me know to what you refer. Elisha Ben Avuyah was a single person who had other issues to contend with (and did not represent Jewry in any way in this thinking) and did not confuse Metatron with God. He felt that there were 2 separate and equal powers (no "Son of anything"). Chagigah 15a.

 

[Tumah]

You want solid argument, following are three :

• If Jews has taken calf as god while Mosa is alive (on the mountain) and prophet Harun his brother (you didn't mention in your response) was among them . Why do you think a small statement in Talmud would stop some other Jews from taking Uzair or Metatron as God Son ?
• Also there is no assurance that the statement in Talmud about Metatron which you said it's a small reference was there in Talmud before some Jews has taken Uzair
• May the small statement about Metatron was added to Talmoud to address the issue of some Jews have taken Metatron and/or Uzir as Son God

Regards

Your third "argument" is just the conclusion of your second argument.
What does Aaron being around the Jews who made the calf have to do with Jews believing Ezra to be the son of a god?

The Talmud was already sealed before Muhammad's time. The main centers of Judaism were not in Hijazz, so who is going to add this to the Talmud without anyone realizing it?

The Talmudic story makes clear that there is no one else besides G-d. If you understood the argument that your scholar was making, you would understand that the Talmudic story directly disputes the possibility of Jews mistaking Ezra for a son of a god.

In fact, taking another look at your scholars argument, he isn't saying that the Jews of Hijazz believed Ezra to be a son of a god. He's saying that the Jews of Hijazz conflated Ezra with Enoch who was known to have become an angel. One of the types of categories of angels are called Bene Elohim. So what he's actually saying is that the Jews of Hijazz believed that Ezra was an angel, not an actual son of a god. He's reinterpreting what the Qur'an says.

 

[Tumah]

are you referring to Elisha Ben Avuyah's mistaken belief that Metatron was equal to God because he sat in God's presence?

If not, please let me know to what you refer. Elisha Ben Avuyah was a single person who had other issues to contend with (and did not represent Jewry in any way in this thinking) and did not confuse Metatron with God. He felt that there were 2 separate and equal powers (no "Son of anything"). Chagigah 15a.

Yeah, I am. I was the one that brought it up. When I first read the argument he originally brought, it looked that he was making an argument that the Jews of Hijazz thought Ezra was Met-tron who who they thought was a god. So the Talmudic passage would have directly contradicted that possibility.
Now I looked at it again and I realized that he was saying that the Jews of Hijazz thought Ezra became an angel like Enoch. Still baseless, but at least more sensible.