Jews, Ezra and Qur'an

[mojtaba]

What you would like it to say, it does not say. In fact, the contrast that is present in the ayah - that the vast majority of Christians believe that Jesus is the son of god, indicates the exact opposite.

"The" Jews not, "Some" Jews. It doesn't say 'some' of alyahoodu.

@Tuma and @Rival,

There is not any historical evidence that after revelation of that verse, Jews complained from Prophet Muhammad(sawaws). So, it can be proven that the people of the time of Prophet Muhammad and specially Jews did not understand the verse like you.

 

[Godobeyer]

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.

I adresse to that maybe you didn't notice that, in early posts
Wednesday at 7:37 PM#33

I already checked Tafsir; the meaning is close to wondering and warning message.

Like as you say " DAMN THEM" in English language.
IF you focus on that you will understand the context,it's blaming question.

 

[Augustus]

There is not any historical evidence that after revelation of that verse, Jews complained from Prophet Muhammad(sawaws). So, it can be proven that the people of the time of Prophet Muhammad and specially Jews did not understand the verse like you.

There's precious little historical evidence for anything that happened around this time, especially evidence (or lack thereof) that 'proves' something.

 

[Tumah]

@Tuma and @Rival,

There is not any historical evidence that after revelation of that verse, Jews complained from Prophet Muhammad(sawaws). So, it can be proven that the people of the time of Prophet Muhammad and specially Jews did not understand the verse like you.

Are you serious?

 

[Tumah]

I adresse to that maybe you didn't notice that, in early posts
Wednesday at 7:37 PM#33

I already checked Tafsir; the meaning is close to wondering and warning message.

Like as you say " DAMN THEM" in English language.
IF you focus on that you will understand the context,it's blaming question.

I don't mean that I have a problem that it says قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ. I mean that why would he use this phrase about the Jews, about a complaint that doesn't was in the past. Instead he should say "الحمدللة they no longer do that!"

The reason why, is because he thinks they still do (or wants other people to thinks so), just like he knows the Christians do.

 

[Britedream]

This may answer the OP question:

 

[firedragon]

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.

Mate. You are not willing to take an answer.

When the Quran says "They said" it is in the past. But what they said could last till now, or could have ended some time ago.

I cant explain it because you are not ready to accept it based on a language.

 

[firedragon]

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."

Its NOT machmadim like a lot of people say out of stupid arrogance.

But if you insist, so be it.

 

[firedragon]

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.

However, it is seen and sheen, thus its not the same pronunciation. It is not just the pronunciation, it is two different letters. Thats the point.

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.

Yeah I know. Heard this a lot.

The word "mahamudim" is not a name.

This statement is such a joke. A person who doesnt know a damn thing about the language will say such a thing. Sorry mate, I cant be a part of that type of discussion. Dont take me wrong.

im, hum.

 

[rosends]

Its machmadim like a lot of people say out of stupid arrogance.

But if you insist, so be it.

You are correct -- my mistake:
"Machamadim"
Thank you for having me look more carefully and seeing the chataf patach under the chet.

 

[firedragon]

You are correct -- my mistake:
"Machamadim"
Thank you for having me look more carefully and seeing the chataf patach under the chet.

Oh good god.

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't mean that I have a problem that it says قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ. I mean that why would he use this phrase about the Jews, about a complaint that doesn't was in the past. Instead he should say "الحمدللة they no longer do that!"

The reason why, is because he thinks they still do (or wants other people to thinks so), just like he knows the Christians do.

It's means "damn to them".

Ah,you meant Jews no longer doing that.

Jews now rejected Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh), and stop preaching God message to world,and considering opinions of Rabbis (Talmud) as equal to God message, thats may remain the serious risk with God, in Judgement day.


* just to avoid to enter to other discuss , I mean Jesus(pbuh) ,the original message one , not edited/faked one by Paul and four authors

 

[rosends]

Oh good god.

So I take it you can't read Hebrew. So noted.
מַחֲמַדִּים

 

[Tumah]

Mate. You are not willing to take an answer.

When the Quran says "They said" it is in the past. But what they said could last till now, or could have ended some time ago.

I cant explain it because you are not ready to accept it based on a language.

Because you are not willing to give a reasonable one. So far all you guys have been telling me, is that this is what it says because there is no other explanation for why it would be there. Basically, because you believe the Qur'an must be true, you have to twist the ayah to make it say something it doesn't say.

But look, the context - as I keep repeating - is talking about how to deal with people in the present. The whole surah is speaking about different kufar. It starts off with the mushrikeen. Speaks about a treaty that happened in the past, but is still ongoing. Then it tells the reader to always be against the mushrikeen and the reward for doing so. And speaks out against anyone who isn't more afraid of All-h then they are of whatever it is they do. Then it moves on to the Jews and Christians.

29: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

30: The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians said, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?

31: They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him.

32: They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.

This whole passage is speaking about what the Jews and Christians do. Yes, ayah 30 says "they said", but in context it means "they say", which is why quran.com is translating it that way. Its talking about what they currently do and All-h feels about it. If as you and your friends keep saying, the Jews no longer believe this Ezra to be the son of a god, then there is no reason for Jews to be mentioned in this context. Why is the Qur'an cursing the Jews in ayah 30 for something they did in the past but no longer do? Why doesn't it say "they took" in ayah 31? Why are they consistently compared to the Christians who at the time of the writing still maintained their belief in Jesus as the son of god. Why does ayah 32 make it sound like this act of believing that Ezra is the son of god means that Jews still want to extinguish the light of All-h? It makes perfect sense if you say that the Qur'an mistakenly thought that this is what Jews believe, or wanted other people to think so, even though it wasn't true.

 

[Tumah]

It's means "damn to them".

Ah,you meant Jews no longer doing that.

Jews now rejected Jesus (pbuh) and Muhammad (pbuh), and stop preaching God message to world,and considering opinions of Rabbis (Talmud) as equal to God message, thats may remain the serious risk with God, in Judgement day.


* just to avoid to enter to other discuss , I mean Jesus(pbuh) ,the original message one , not edited/faked one by Paul and four authors

I don't care which Jesus you mean.
What you are saying is not what the ayah is saying. The ayah doesn't complain that the Jews stopped preaching God message to world, its complaining that they say Ezra is the son of god.

 

[Tumah]

However, it is seen and sheen, thus its not the same pronunciation. It is not just the pronunciation, it is two different letters. Thats the point.

I didn't say that it was the same pronunciation. I said it was the same letter. Its the same letter with two different diacritics to indicate the two different pronunciations. Without diacritic س - sin. With diacritic ش - shin. Same letter. One with three dots on top, one without.

This statement is such a joke. A person who doesnt know a damn thing about the language will say such a thing. Sorry mate, I cant be a part of that type of discussion. Dont take me wrong.

im, hum.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I know quite a bit of Biblical Hebrew.
Here's the word straight out of the book. I switched it to a more clear font so that you can distinguish the diacritics:
מַחֲמַדִּים
MḤMDIM <--These are the letters (م-ح-م-د-ي-م).
The three lines under the first three letters make the sound of an alif. Think of them like أَلِف خَنْجَرِيَّة, except under the letters.
The dot under the fourth letter makes the sound of an kasrah. In fact that's a kasrah followed by a yah (the /I/).
So you get MaḤaMaDIM (maḥamadeem - ماحامادِيم).

 

[Godobeyer]

I don't care which Jesus you mean.
What you are saying is not what the ayah is saying. The ayah doesn't complain that the Jews stopped preaching God message to world, its complaining that they say Ezra is the son of god.

For that reason God sent many messangers to Jews,one of messanger or Rabbis (I don't know) , considered by Jews in past a son of God.

I mean there is no doubt that Jews in past were being rebellion, that's only reason that God sent many .
No every event registered in Jewish history.


There is much verse in Torah (corrupted Torah of course) mentioned that Jews are sons of God, and some prophets are sons of God.

So It's really doubtful that there were NOT Jews claimed that.

 

[Limo]

I would give in to al


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.

The diversity between true human prophet character and Jesus Christ is huge to the level that we can say it's two different characters
El-Mesiah is in Arabic and Hebrew as well means the annotated one his full name is El-Mesiah Isa ibn (sun of) Mariam
Nicaea is a council managed by pagan at the time of council empire who welcomed the idea of Jesus to be the Son God. It's said that he influenced in the voting to the 2 persons God.

 

[firedragon]

So I take it you can't read Hebrew. So noted.
מַחֲמַדִּים

You are right.

 

[firedragon]

The diversity between true human prophet character and Jesus Christ is huge to the level that we can say it's two different characters
El-Mesiah is in Arabic and Hebrew as well means the annotated one his full name is El-Mesiah Isa ibn (sun of) Mariam
Nicaea is a council managed by pagan at the time of council empire who welcomed the idea of Jesus to be the Son God. It's said that he influenced in the voting to the 2 persons God.

Seriously mate, you are deluded. Apologies for saying that but Im not so sorry.