My views about Islam and why it is so difficult to attain constructive dialogue about them

[Kirran]

As per Exodus Chapter 4:22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'So said the Lord, "My firstborn son is Israel." '

All Jews are sons of G-d.
Ezra was a Jew and a high status religious Jewish figure, and that makes him a son of G-d as per Torah. Right ?
Quran addresses the Jews living in Medina at that time and their religious concepts. They never raised a question at that time that it was a wrong allegation that they believed Ezra as son of G-d. Later they migrated from Medina and might have joined/merged with other denominations and changed or reformed their concepts.
Quran addresses altogether different issues in the context verses where Ezra/Jesus have been mentioned.
Right ?
Regards

If you were to take this line altogether out of context, that would make sense. But as it literally says, side by side, that Jews regard Ezra as the Son of God, and Christians regard Jesus as the Son of God, heavily implying that it means it in the same way.

This is further supported by the fact that it is saying Ezra specifically. Ezra wasn't being discussed in this part of the Qur'an, so why randomly pick some Jewish figure and say he is the Son of God, if it was referring to all Jews as being Son of God?

This is rather like me trying to say that Hindus worship many deities by saying 'Hindus worship Lord Murugan'. It wouldn't in any way get across what I was trying to do.

The most reasonable conclusion seems to be that whoever originated this part of the Qur'an made the mistake that Jews worshipped an individual as Son of God in the same way as the Christians. Or that they made this allegation to villify the Jews.

As for the Jews of Medina not objecting to this claim: how would you know? Would the Islamic scholars have recorded diligently the fact that a bunch of kufr had said their Holy Book was wrong?

I suppose one could postulate that the Jewish community in Medina at the time were of some sect which thought Ezra was the Son of God, strange as it would be for this idea to emerge again surrounding a different Messiah. But if you want to squeeze everything into the Qur'an, fair enough.

But of the three I put forth, I think Qur'an 23:14 is the most damning.

 

[paarsurrey]

As for the Jews of Medina not objecting to this claim: how would you know?

It is on the person who makes the objection to prove that the Jews of Medina did not believe in this concept as the Jews of Medina were addressed specifically in a part of the verse.
The discussion in the context is not Ezra but something else.
You may take help, if you like, from Jewish friends in the forum or from elsewhere with whom the issue concerns directly.
They should prove that Jews of Medina did never have this concept.
Jews were divided in sects and denominations; this trend continued. New sects/denominations emerge and the old ones vanish.
Quran is not a book of history. Quran deals ethical,moral and spiritual issues in a reasonable and pragmatic way.
Regards

 

[JFish123]

Does the Quran Prove that Christianity is True?

 

[paarsurrey]

Does the Quran Prove that Christianity is True?

Please start a new thread on any issue mentioned in the video ; just ONE issue of your choice. The topic should be open for everybody Theists or the Atheists.
So that the same is dealt with appropriately.
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Very interesting debate for anyone who cares to watch. Even the first 8+ mins are interesting

I would welcome some commentary from you. Please don't assume that other people will reach the same conclusions that you do. It rarely happens.

 

[LuisDantas]

There are 114 chapters of Quran, of which there are many that are not longer than a few sentences. Since every chapter is a whole unit in itself, you may read one such chapter at random, if a thing occurs to you that should be discussed, we could start our discussion from that, and so on an so forth.
Regards

Personally, I just don't see much in the way of clear meaning in the Quran. I suspect many people simply project things into it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did I say there was any problem?
None, whatsoever.
Your approach is not natural. Right?
Regards

What do you consider a natural approach, Paarsurrey?

I always felt that texts such as the Quran and the Bible just could not possibly be meant to be taken very seriously, nor would it be natural for people to actually believe in a creator God.

I assume you will not agree, but on what grounds? I just don't see how my reading could be any less natural than any other.

 

[paarsurrey]

What do you consider a natural approach, Paarsurrey?
I always felt that texts such as the Quran and the Bible just could not possibly be meant to be taken very seriously, nor would it be natural for people to actually believe in a creator God.
I assume you will not agree, but on what grounds? I just don't see how my reading could be any less natural than any other.

One should study/read scripture, of any religion whatever, or some important book of the Atheists*, from cover to cover, without jumping to conclusions or objections. In the second reading of the same one should note important points/questions, if the same are resolved while one proceeds further, one should delete such questions that have been resolved. At the end if there till remains some or many questions, one could discuss them with others. This is a natural question which has arisen while one was studying a book/scripture.

Other questions which one reads on the internet sites and asks such questions, these are the borrowed questions and are unnatural to be asked.
Regards

* Like "God is not Great" of Christopher Hitchens.

 

[LuisDantas]

One should study/read scripture, of any religion whatever, or some important book of the Atheists*, from cover to cover, without jumping to conclusions or objections.

I fear that is just not really possible, or even advisable. People have only so much time to spend, and there is a whole lot of things to read out there.

At some point we have to just accept that the parts we know are representative enough.

Also, one would expect that a book that is considered holy by one fifth of humanity - perhaps the most proselitist of all people at that - would have enough of an easy time remembering the good parts and spreading them. Yet what we do learn of is consistently conflicting with other parts, atheophobic, of unclear meaning or just plain cryptical.

But the deal breaker to me is that for all the virtues that the Quran is expected to teach, we end up seeing very little of it in practice.

The very insistence on reliance on the text itself is very worrisome. Much like a good son is expected to take the good lessons he learned to heart and make them his own, I am personally convinced that a religious person is expected to take responsibility to his or her scripture. I don't consider people who are not ready to make their own scripture and say outright when it is useful and when it is not very religious or very wise.

Devotion to God (or scripture) is by itself just far too little to sustain healthy religious practice. If there is a creator God, surely he expects us to make us of the potential for understanding and expression that he gave us. And if there ius none, then we have no better choice.

In the second reading of the same one should note important points/questions, if the same are resolved while one proceeds further, one should delete such questions that have been resolved. At the end if there till remains some or many questions, one could discuss them with others. This is a natural question which has arisen while one was studying a book/scripture.

Perhaps. But the truth of the matter is that it just does not work when I attempt to do that with the Quran. It does not suit me, simple as that.

Other questions which one reads on the internet sites and asks such questions, these are the borrowed questions and are unnatural to be asked.
Regards

You call it unnatural I call it living the Dharma. I call it true religious practice.

* Like "God is not Great" of Christopher Hitchens.

A good book. I approve of it. But I never needed it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I understand that we differ with one another. I don't have to convince one.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

If you were to take this line altogether out of context, that would make sense. But as it literally says, side by side, that Jews regard Ezra as the Son of God, and Christians regard Jesus as the Son of God, heavily implying that it means it in the same way.

I don't agree with you. The context of the verse of Quran is very clear.
The Jews were superstitious people and were susceptible and inclined to the thoughts and concepts of paganism in the time of Moses as well as Jesus in spite of Moses and Jesus being against such thoughts.
In the time of Moses the Jews made the Golden Calf disregarding the teachings of Moses; consequently as mentioned in Torah, Moses had to kill 3000 Jews as a punishment of the same.
Paul was a Jew, when Jesus came to India, in his absence, Paul founded the tenets of modern Christianity and made Jesus a son of G-d.
Jesus was a Jew and was a "son of G-d" in terms of the Torah/Exodus as was Ezra, the Hight Priest.
Quran's purpose is to reform Christianity and Judaism (whatever their sect/denomination) and bring them back to the teachings of Moses.
When the Jewish tribes who resided in Medina migrated from there and merged with other denominations and relinquished their concept of Ezra being a physical son of G-d, that is good and in line with the purpose of Quran. So should the Christians do.
This is what the context of the verse says.
Regards

 

[Kirran]

I don't agree with you. The context of the verse of Quran is very clear.
The Jews were superstitious people and were susceptible and inclined to the thoughts and concepts of paganism in the time of Moses as well as Jesus in spite of Moses and Jesus being against such thoughts.
In the time of Moses the Jews made the Golden Calf disregarding the teachings of Moses; consequently as mentioned in Torah, Moses had to kill 3000 Jews as a punishment of the same.
Paul was a Jew, when Jesus came to India, in his absence, Paul founded the tenets of modern Christianity and made Jesus a son of G-d.
Jesus was a Jew and was a "son of G-d" in terms of the Torah/Exodus as was Ezra, the Hight Priest.
Quran's purpose is to reform Christianity and Judaism (whatever their sect/denomination) and bring them back to the teachings of Moses.
When the Jewish tribes who resided in Medina migrated from there and merged with other denominations and relinquished their concept of Ezra being a physical son of G-d, that is good and in line with the purpose of Quran. So should the Christians do.
This is what the context of the verse says.
Regards

Firstly, Paul did not become Christian until after the death of Jesus.

Secondly, we have no evidence whatsoever that any Jews have ever venerated Ezra as the Son of God.

But no, we can't 100% know that the Jews of Medina weren't of some particular sect which thought Ezra was Son of God, uniquely. It would be bizarre, but technically possible.

But let's see you explain away 2:261 and 23:14.

 

[paarsurrey]

Firstly, Paul did not become Christian until after the death of Jesus.

But that happened before the advent of Islam.There were hardly any Christians in Mecca or Medina, if Quran is correct about the Christians, there is no doubt about that; then the Quran must be correct about the Jews of Medina.
Quote:

Unquote
https://books.google.ca/books?
THE MYSTERY & HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE: AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
By SAM OYSTEIN
Please note from the above that there existed some groups of the Jews who later became extinct.

Regards

 

[Shad]

But that happened before the advent of Islam.There were hardly any Christians in Mecca or Medina, if Quran is correct about the Christians, there is no doubt about that; then the Quran must be correct about the Jews of Medina.
Quote:

View attachment 10043​

Unquote
https://books.google.ca/books?
THE MYSTERY & HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE: AN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE
By SAM OYSTEIN
Please note from the above that there existed some groups of the Jews who later became extinct.

Regards

That is not evidence since you have failed to link a specific version of Judaism to Mecca. You are merely taking the idea that Judaism is varied but do not more research to draw a true corroboration between Mecca/Medina Jews and their version of Judaism

 

[Flankerl]

Firstly, Paul did not become Christian until after the death of Jesus.

Secondly, we have no evidence whatsoever that any Jews have ever venerated Ezra as the Son of God.

But no, we can't 100% know that the Jews of Medina weren't of some particular sect which thought Ezra was Son of God, uniquely. It would be bizarre, but technically possible.

It's even worse, even the Wikipedia article is grasping straws.

"In the Qur'an, the verses do not specify to particular groups. For example, when it speaks of the Christians worshiping Christ as the son of God, it doesn't specifically say Trinitarian Christians, instead just using the generic term Christian. Therefore, it obviously does not refer to all Christians, such as Unitarians, who call Christ a prophet rather than son of God. Therefore, this verse refers to those Jews who, according to the Qur'an, did or do call Ezra son of God, rather than the majority who revere him as a scribe.

s: Uzair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"

Which is all fine except for a minor detail: Unitarians didn't exist 1350 years ago. And thus the whole argument falls apart.

Interestingly there are quite a few apologist websites about it. The blatant nature of the lie probably hits a nerve.
Some say its a thing of Yemenite Jews, too bad that there is no such belief nor any evidence for the belief in previous times like when there were Jewish Kingdoms/states in Yemen before the emergence of Islam. There are only Muslim sources and Christian sources who are based on the Muslim sources.



Oh well.

 

[paarsurrey]

It's even worse, even the Wikipedia article is grasping straws.
"In the Qur'an, the verses do not specify to particular groups. For example, when it speaks of the Christians worshiping Christ as the son of God, it doesn't specifically say Trinitarian Christians, instead just using the generic term Christian. Therefore, it obviously does not refer to all Christians, such as Unitarians, who call Christ a prophet rather than son of God. Therefore, this verse refers to those Jews who, according to the Qur'an, did or do call Ezra son of God, rather than the majority who revere him as a scribe.
s: Uzair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"
Which is all fine except for a minor detail: Unitarians didn't exist 1350 years ago. And thus the whole argument falls apart.
Interestingly there are quite a few apologist websites about it. The blatant nature of the lie probably hits a nerve.
Some say its a thing of Yemenite Jews, too bad that there is no such belief nor any evidence for the belief in previous times like when there were Jewish Kingdoms/states in Yemen before the emergence of Islam. There are only Muslim sources and Christian sources who are based on the Muslim sources.
Oh well.

One is welcome to join the discussion even if one differs with me.
It is a good gesture from one. I really appreciate.
I also posted a comment on Jewish Encyclopaedia on June 25,2015 on the topic "EZRA THE SCRIBE (

)". This is just for information of my Jewish friends.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

That is not evidence since you have failed to link a specific version of Judaism to Mecca. You are merely taking the idea that Judaism is varied but do not more research to draw a true corroboration between Mecca/Medina Jews and their version of Judaism

Firstly :Except for the truthful Quran, there is no other source of the time of Muhammad, dateline Mecca/Medina.
Secondly: Ezra is nowhere in Quran an important Muslim figure.
Thirdly: He has been mentioned only as a passing comment in a part of the verse to highlight the point that Jews and Christians were under a great influence of the mythical pagans.
etc, etc

Regards

 

[Shad]

Firstly :Except for the truthful Quran, there is no other source of the time of Muhammad, dateline Mecca/Medina.

Begging the question, you are assume the Quran is correct without proof that it is. You previous citation contradicts this statement since you are trying to corroborate the statement about Ezra in the Quran. A corroboration is used in attempt to prove something is true. Your example is purely circular logic.

Just because it may be the only source does not mean the source is correct. Any Christian can flip this argument on your by using it with the Bible.

Secondly: Ezra is nowhere in Quran an important Muslim figure.

So what?

Thirdly: He has been mentioned only as a passing comment in a part of the verse to highlight the point that Jews and Christians were under a great influence of the mythical pagans.
etc, etc

Islamic rhetoric which is not proven, begging the question. See one.

 

[paarsurrey]

Begging the question, you are assume the Quran is correct without proof that it is. You previous citation contradicts this statement since you are trying to corroborate the statement about Ezra in the Quran. A corroboration is used in attempt to prove something is true. Your example is purely circular logic.
Just because it may be the only source does not mean the source is correct. Any Christian can flip this argument on your by using it with the Bible.
So what?
Islamic rhetoric which is not proven, begging the question. See one.

Please don't be angry. It is just a friendly discussion. Kirran, a friend here asked a question and insisted it should be answered, hence the discussion. One could stick to what one believes, I don't mind.
There is absolutely no other source than the truthful Quran of what Muhammad said or did in times of Muhammad. If there is one please inform us.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Please don't be angry. It is just a friendly discussion. Kirran, a friend here asked a question and insisted it should be answered, hence the discussion. One could stick to what one believes, I don't mind.
There is absolutely no other source than the truthful Quran of what Muhammad said or did in times of Muhammad. If there is one please inform us.
Regards

I am not angry.

Again one source does not make it true nor does your belief in the Quran make it's statements true. People have already told you the views of Judaism. It is your burden of proof to provide external sources for your claim, not mine. Kirran already told you this.