• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jews, Ezra and Qur'an

Rival

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Limo said:
Rules of the forum. Right ?
But If rules of the forum allow, would you delete it ?

What about your religion rules ?
Does it allow lie and connect wards to others that they didn't say ?

Regardless if you're Copt. or not. (You may be Lebanese or Iraqi or anything else).
Unfortunately, Most of Eastern Orthodox have no patience to debate. They just lose their temper quickly.
Click to expand...
I am British.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
A Greased Scotsman said:
So basically what you're saying is, since the Quran is insufficient historical evidence (despite multiple translations saying Uzair is Ezra), that the Quran can't be trusted as a historical source. Neat.

Any particular reason you know better than Islamic scholars as to who Uzair is or, rather, is not?
Click to expand...

No. Not so neat.

Quran says Uzair. We dont know who that is. Ezra is a speculation.
Any particular reason you believe in the scholars who thought Uzair was Ezra? Other than your blind belief that these scholars are right? Or are you just saying it for the sake of it?
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
Rival said:
Is there are Muslim explanation that doesn't include,

"The Jews deliberately changed it"?

Do you not think that maybe, your text is wrong and the Jewish text is right? Just because the Jewish Scriptures don't agree with yours it doesn't mean theirs has changed; it probably means yours is wrong.
Click to expand...

What do you mean Jewish scriptures? I mean where do you end? Just a question.
 
Rival

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
And we lose our patience because your arguments are so bad, so anti-Semitic, that they are painful.
 
The Emperor of Mankind

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
firedragon said:
No. Not so neat.

Quran says Uzair. We dont know who that is. Ezra is a speculation.
Any particular reason you believe in the scholars who thought Uzair was Ezra? Other than your blind belief that these scholars are right? Or are you just saying it for the sake of it?
Click to expand...

Multiple translations of the Quran say Uzair is Ezra in 9:30. Fully two thirds of the translations available on this website - 4 out of 6 - say Uzair is Ezra.

I'm going on the assumption that the scholars you contradict have put some actual time and effort into researching the scripture. Maybe they haven't.

9:30 isn't the only verse where Uzair is mentioned as Ezra either so it's not an isolated incident.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
A Greased Scotsman said:
Multiple translations of the Quran say Uzair is Ezra in 9:30. Fully two thirds of the translations available on this website - 4 out of 6 - say Uzair is Ezra.

I'm going on the assumption that the scholars you contradict have put some actual time and effort into researching the scripture. Maybe they haven't.

9:30 isn't the only verse where Uzair is mentioned as Ezra either so it's not an isolated incident.
Click to expand...

Uzair is mentioned only once in the Quran.

Other citing does not carry a name, some scholars think that is about the same character based on the biblical character Ezra. But thats a speculation.
 
Rival

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
So can any Muslims, from anywhere, provide me with any proof that The Jews worshipped Ezra, or Uzair, as per Qur'an?

The overwhelming answer to this seems to be 'No'.

You know what? That's okay. That's fine. I don't want to decapitate you over this. I was just curious.

Now I would just like to know where the author of the Qur'an got this idea from. However, this then creates a problem because,

A) Muslims believe Allah authored the Qur'an, so Allah knows best and we don't need to know where its material comes from.

But,

B) Non-Muslims don't believe Allah authored Qur'an and we would like to know where the idea of Jews worshipping Ezra originated.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
Tumah said:
I'll be happy to hear from @Augustus any other possibilities.
Click to expand...

There's not much to go on really.

As @firedragon mentioned there is no way of knowing if it Uzair actually was Ezra. Consensus on many issues wasn't reached until many centuries later on many things, even fundamental ones like whether it was Ishmael of Isaac who was to be sacrificed. Medieval scholars basically guessed many things:

a figure mentioned enigmatically in Ḳurʾān, IX, 30, as being called by the Jews “the son of Allāh” and usually identified by Muslim commentators with Ezra, or sometimes with the man who slept for a hundred years (II, 259). Modern scholars have suggested identifications also with the Biblical Enoch (Newby), Azazel (Casanova) and, fantastically, Osiris (Mad̲j̲di Bey).

Later Muslim authors who heard from Jews or Christians (see e.g. al-D̲j̲āḥiẓ, al-Radd ʿalā ’l-Naṣārā, ed. J. Finkel, 27, 33) that this accusation of sonship had no basis, explained that only one Jew (Finḥāṣ) said this about ʿUzayr (al-Ṭabarī); only a small group of Jews worshipped ʿUzayr in some past period (Ibn Ḥazm); or that the verse—like v. 31—refers to the extreme admiration of Jews for their doctors of law (ʿAbd al-D̲j̲abbār, al-Ḳurṭubī, etc.). (Encylopedia of Islam 2)

In my opinion, the Quran should be read as a work of rhetoric and there are numerous incidences of rhetorical hyperbole regarding 'association' of others with God. Anything that is 'not quite monotheist enough' is exaggerated for rhetorical purposes. Taken like this, rather than purely literally, it seems to make sense.

The verse in a bit more context:

The Jews say, 'Ezra is the Son of God'; the Christians say, 'The Messiah is the Son of God.' That is the utterance of their mouths, conforming with the unbelievers before them. God assail them! How they are perverted! (30) They have taken their rabbis and their monks as lords apart from God, and the Messiah, Mary's son -- and they were commanded to serve but One God; there is no god but He; glory be to Him, above that they associate... O believers, many of the rabbis and monks indeed consume the goods of the people in vanity and bar from God's way. Those who treasure up gold and silver, and do not expend them in the way of God -- give them the good tidings of a painful chastisement, (34) the day they shall be heated in the fire of Gehenna and therewith their foreheads and their sides and their backs shall be branded: 'This is the thing you have treasured up for yourselves; therefore taste you now what you were treasuring!'

Something else that might be relevant as regards this:

It is clear, at least in light of the Greek word pais found in Ezra 4, that some scriptures
and religious circles in the late antique Near East made little or no distinction
between “servants” or “sons” of God.73 This is not the case with the Qur’ān. One
explicit example of dogmatic re-articulation is found in the Qur’ān’s rejection of
the phrase “sons of God” (bnūhī d-alāhā), which originates in the Israelite mythology
of Genesis 6:2–4, but was taken up by the beautitudic language of Matthew
5:9, and subsequent Christological formulations of Paul (Romans 8:14, 19; Galatians
3:26). Thus it states, The Jews (al-yahūd) and the Christians (al-nas.ārā) say, “we are the sons of
God (abnā’ allāh) and his beloved ones (ah. ibbā’ih)74.” Say then, “why does
he punish you for your sins? To the contrary, you are human beings whom He
created. He forgives whomever He wills and punishes whomever He wills”
. . .
(Q 5:18: cf. in relation 9:30)
The Qur’ān takes offense at the kinds of mythological and Christological
descriptions that portray God’s creatures somehow as divine (cf. in relation
Q 37:149–154). Therefore, the closeness of God and mankind embodied in the
epithet “sons of God” (Aramaic bnūhī d-alāhā; Arabic abnā’ allāh), which is a
staple of Christian scripture and theology but unacceptable for a stricter standard
of monotheism, is re-articulated in qur’ānic terms, placing a huge gulf between
God and mankind. Thus, the “servants of God,” or ‘ibād allāh also join the ranks
of the Qur’ān’s righteous entourage (Q 44:18; 76:6; 37:40, 74, 128, 160, 169; cf.
Q 25:63). The servants of God, similar to “fulfillers of their covenants” (al-mūfūn
bi al-‘ahd) cited earlier in Q 2:177, are said to “fulfill their vows (yūfūn bi alnadhr),
and fear a day whose evil will be widespread” (Q 76:6). This is because
the apocalyptic impulse—whose most salient manifestation is the Day of Judgment—
is a critical feature of prophetic teachings and ethics. (Quran and the Aramaic Gospel tradition)
 
Limo

Limo

Active Member
A Greased Scotsman said:
Multiple translations of the Quran say Uzair is Ezra in 9:30. Fully two thirds of the translations available on this website - 4 out of 6 - say Uzair is Ezra.

I'm going on the assumption that the scholars you contradict have put some actual time and effort into researching the scripture. Maybe they haven't.

9:30 isn't the only verse where Uzair is mentioned as Ezra either so it's not an isolated incident.
Click to expand...
In Arabic it's Uzair. عزير
It's wrong to translate especially names.
 
Rival

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Augustus said:
How does the repetition of this word fit into the rhyme/metre of the surrounding verses?
Click to expand...
This is based on a misunderstanding. I originally wrote the ayat as 'a son' for the Jews and 'the son for Christians, later to find out it was 'the' for both and corrected my typo. George responded before I did the fix.
 
The Emperor of Mankind

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
Limo said:
In Arabic it's Uzair. عزير
It's wrong to translate especially names.
Click to expand...

Then how are non-Arabic-speaking audiences supposed to understand who the Quran is referring to? The Quran itself assumes both familiarity with Judeo-Christian mythos, and an understanding of Arabic. If the Quran or those who study it don't translate Isa as Jesus, Jibril as Gabriel etc how is anyone supposed to pick up on that? If they don't translate then people won't recognise Islam's claims to be the completion of the Abrahamic religions.

Further, the Quran did exactly this when it translated names originally written in Hebrew like Moses into Arabic ones so double-standards much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top