Why does the Qur'an say that Jews claim Ezra is the son of God?

[stevecanuck]

The Qur'an mentions this in Surah At-Tawbah (9:30), highlighting incorrect beliefs attributed to Jews and Christians. It serves as a reminder of the importance of monotheism, emphasizing that God does not have children and is uniquely one.

How does that change the fact that the Qur’an is simply wrong in its claim about the Jews belief?

 

[stevecanuck]

It goes back to this verse:

"They have taken their rabbis and monks as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, as lords besides Allah, even though they were commanded to worship none but One God. There is no god ˹worthy of worship˺ except Him. Glorified is He above what they associate ˹with Him˺!
9:31

So, I propose, Uzair was a Jewish Scholar living at the time of Muhammad.
The Jews have taken him as God, not in a sense that, they believed he is the creator.
In a sense that, they were obedient to him, as if he is God, and has been following him, and putting their trust in him and serving him. Muhammad meant to say to them, they are supposed to listen to the revelations of Allah, instead of being follwers of their Scholars.

The above is a perfect description of how Muslims follow every utterance by Mohamed. If anything, they are much more devout in that regard than are Jews and Christians. MUCH more.

 

[stevecanuck]

Salam

I don't know if it will do a difference for you, but the translation is off slightly. It says "The Jews said..." as in past tense. "Yaqaloon" would the translation you have there. This maybe referring to a time and place where they said this in history, not referring to totality of Jews of the present to future or even of that local place and present moment.

Indeed most of the Quran doesn't address Jews as if polytheists, but addresses them from the angle they are monotheists but that they were disobedient and didn't honor and follow all the Prophets sent to them. This can be seen that at a point of history, Jews said this about Uzair but most of the Quran doesn't address this like it does with Jesus (a) and Christians. We can conclude that it's a comment at a point of time in history.

I would always check the original Arabic, sometimes, the difference in translation might be slight, but can change the perspective completely.

Nope.

Read ALL of 9:30, and you’ll see the same wording applied to Christian belief.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Just keep reading 9:30. It’s said in exactly the same way that Christians are said to believe in “the messiah” as the son of Allah. All of the above ‘maybes’ are diversions.

Well sure, I know what it says in the verse. You said there were no jews that believed Ezra to be the son of god. And I am asking you how does the Jews define that phrase.
How can we discuss your thread if you don’t wanna define the words you are using?

 

[stevecanuck]

Well sure, I know what it says in the verse. You said there were no jews that believed Ezra to be the son of god. And I am asking you how does the Jews define that phrase.
How can we discuss your thread if you don’t wanna define the words you are using?

Never in my 75 years have I heard so much as one instance in which Jews are said to believe as claimed in that verse. It’s impossible to prove a negative.

 

[Augustus]

Never in my 75 years have I heard so much as one instance in which Jews are said to believe as claimed in that verse

You must have a heard a lot of sectarian polemics though, and the Quran was written in a time and a place full of such things between Jews and Jews, Jews and Christians, Christians and Christians and eventually Muslims and Jews/Christians.

On Jewish/Jewish polemic:

Steven Wasserstrom has demonstrated that post-Islamic Karaite attacks on Rabbinite Judaism depict the Rabbinite Jews as both anthropomorphizing and worshiping an angel that functions as the substitute creator of the universe. That angel is usually identified with Metatron. Enoch was frequently equated with Metatron and regarded as a "lesser lord," an angel-creator.

When we look to later authors who write about varieties of Jews, we find both anthropomorphizing and the belief in the creator-angel to be an essential definition of Rabbinite Judaism in the early Islamic period. The Karaite heresiographer, al-Qirqisani, for example, defends Jews generally against the charges of anthropomorphism, but as a Karaite, he does criticize the Rabbinite Jews for that very practice.

G Newby - A history of the Jews of Arabia

How does that change the fact that the Qur’an is simply wrong in its claim about the Jews belief?

Unless someone wants to hold the somewhat incongruous beliefs that the author of the Quran was both relatively well informed of the sectarian and religious disputes of the Late Antique Middle East, and also so ignorant that he naively thought Jews in general worship Ezra as the son of god, the only logical conclusion is that it is not "simply wrong" and there is some other reason for the text.

Is your opinion that it is simply a naive error or that the best explanation is something other than this?

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Never in my 75 years have I heard so much as one instance in which Jews are said to believe as claimed in that verse. It’s impossible to prove a negative

Yes you already mention that you never heard of Jews claiming that Ezra is the son of god.

But before we get to that why aren’t you willing to define the terms you are using?

 

[stevecanuck]

You must have a heard a lot of sectarian polemics though, and the Quran was written in a time and a place full of such things between Jews and Jews, Jews and Christians, Christians and Christians and eventually Muslims and Jews/Christians.

On Jewish/Jewish polemic:

Steven Wasserstrom has demonstrated that post-Islamic Karaite attacks on Rabbinite Judaism depict the Rabbinite Jews as both anthropomorphizing and worshiping an angel that functions as the substitute creator of the universe. That angel is usually identified with Metatron. Enoch was frequently equated with Metatron and regarded as a "lesser lord," an angel-creator.

When we look to later authors who write about varieties of Jews, we find both anthropomorphizing and the belief in the creator-angel to be an essential definition of Rabbinite Judaism in the early Islamic period. The Karaite heresiographer, al-Qirqisani, for example, defends Jews generally against the charges of anthropomorphism, but as a Karaite, he does criticize the Rabbinite Jews for that very practice.

G Newby - A history of the Jews of Arabia




Unless someone wants to hold the somewhat incongruous beliefs that the author of the Quran was both relatively well informed of the sectarian and religious disputes of the Late Antique Middle East, and also so ignorant that he naively thought Jews in general worship Ezra as the son of god, the only logical conclusion is that it is not "simply wrong" and there is some other reason for the text.

Is your opinion that it is simply a naive error or that the best explanation is something other than this?

I need to know what you mean by "the author of the Qur'an". Are you referring to someone other than Mohamed? I don't remember your posting history well enough to recall.

 

[stevecanuck]

Yes you already mention that you never heard of Jews claiming that Ezra is the son of god.

But before we get to that why aren’t you willing to define the terms you are using?

In verse 9:30 it's used in exactly the same way that "son of God" is used to describe Jesus. I don't really know what you want if that doesn't tell you.

 

[Augustus]

I need to know what you mean by "the author of the Qur'an". Are you referring to someone other than Mohamed? I don't remember your posting history well enough to recall.

Whichever author or authors wrote it. It doesn't really make any difference who wrote it as to whether or not they were relatively well informed about the sectarian issues of their day.

My view is that at least most of it is from Muhammad, but I am agnostic as to whether it is entirely the work of a single author. I'm happy to work on the assumption that it was all from Muhammad though.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

In verse 9:30 it's used in exactly the same way that "son of God" is used to describe Jesus. I don't really know what you want if that doesn't tell you.

Strange you are not willing to define the words you are using, that’s seems to me you aren’t sincere in having a discussion or you are afraid of something.

Good day

 

[stevecanuck]

Out of curiosity. When Jewish scripture refer someone as son of god what does this mean?

To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as Jewish scripture that refers to "someone as son of god". If there is, please provide it.

So, minus further input from you, you are repeatedly complaining that I refuse to define something that nobody in Judaism is saying.

 

[Link]

To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as Jewish scripture that refers to "someone as son of god". If there is, please provide it.

So, minus further input from you, you are repeatedly complaining that I refuse to define something that nobody in Judaism is saying.

They see close Angels and others as sons of God. He saying perhaps, the verse is saying Christians said Jesus is son of God and Jews said Uzair is son of God (but from different perspectives that are both exaggerations and beneath God's exalted status to attribute him to).

 

[stevecanuck]

They see close Angels and others as sons of God.

Proof?

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

To the best of my knowledge, there's no such thing as Jewish scripture that refers to "someone as son of god". If there is, please provide it.

So, minus further input from you, you are repeatedly complaining that I refuse to define something that nobody in Judaism is saying.

And that is your issue. Just because Jews don’t use that language now, doesn’t mean they didn’t in the past.
And as @Link said angels and people that were close to god or send by god were sometimes referred as son of god in the tanach. And even in some cases people were even called God.
Here is a explanation

 

[stevecanuck]

And that is your issue. Just because Jews don’t use that language now, doesn’t mean they didn’t in the past.
And as @Link said angels and people that were close to god or send by god were sometimes referred as son of god in the tanach. And even in some cases people were even called God.
Here is a explanation

Okay, it seems it was used more as a figure of speech as opposed to literally. Christian are very literal about their belief that Jesus is the son of God. The rabbi also explained that even judges were referred to as God. Clearly that is not part of Judaism. If you look at the wording of 9:30, you'll see the same description applied to Jewish belief and Christian belief. That implies that Jews belief Ezra was a product of virgin birth as was Jesus. Even if you go back to the past, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that Jews held the literal belief that Christians hold.

 

[stevecanuck]

And that is your issue. Just because Jews don’t use that language now, doesn’t mean they didn’t in the past.
And as @Link said angels and people that were close to god or send by god were sometimes referred as son of god in the tanach. And even in some cases people were even called God.
Here is a explanation

Another way to think of the message of 9:30 (because of the way it is worded), that Ezra is to Judaism as Jesus is to Christianity. That has simply never been to case.

 

[Augustus]

If you look at the wording of 9:30, you'll see the same description applied to Jewish belief and Christian belief. That implies that Jews belief Ezra was a product of virgin birth as was Jesus. Even if you go back to the past, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that Jews held the literal belief that Christians hold.

There is no reason to assume that from the text. That’s just you projecting your preference rather than something that is intrinsic to the text.

Another way to think of the message of 9:30 (because of the way it is worded), that Ezra is to Judaism as Jesus is to Christianity. That has simply never been to case

But it has been the case that one sect of Jews has accused another sect of Jews that they were lapsing into polytheism.

For your reading to be true, we would have to believe that Muhammad who, based on the Quran, was reasonably well versed in religious and sectarian affairs, naively thought that Jews in general saw Ezra as the exact analogue of Jesus. Basically it would require he had close to zero knowledge of Judaism.

Why would that be more plausible to you than the idea it is a rhetorical flourish that forms part of a broader sectarian polemic?

It’s the kind of thing people claimed in the 19th c when they uncritically believed the Islamic mythology about Arabia being a pagan backwater. This led them to assume Muhammad had simply heard a few things in his travels but made basic errors due to his rudimentary understanding.

Modern evidence has made this untenable and Arabia had been largely monotheistic for a century or 2 before Muhammad, and the text shows engagement with a wide variety of theological issues if the day from a diverse range of sources.

The idea he was fooling some pagan rubes who were only slightly less ignorant than him no longer makes much sense.

 

[MayPeaceBeUpOnYou]

Okay, it seems it was used more as a figure of speech as opposed to literally. Christian are very literal about their belief that Jesus is the son of God. The rabbi also explained that even judges were referred to as God. Clearly that is not part of Judaism. If you look at the wording of 9:30, you'll see the same description applied to Jewish belief and Christian belief. That implies that Jews belief Ezra was a product of virgin birth as was Jesus. Even if you go back to the past, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that Jews held the literal belief that Christians hold

Well does that matter tho, if it was literal or not?

As I understand there were Christian’s that believed it in a figurative way.

Your claim was that Jews never used that phrase, I have showed you that they did .


No you are wrong that wasn’t the position of the rabbi, his position was that if you don’t know scriptures in its original language you might have problems with understanding of the phrases being used.

‘If you look at the wording of 9:30, you'll see the same description applied to Jewish belief and Christian belief’

Well now you are interpreting the Quran .

Virgin birth?

Now you are getting desperate.

The question you should ask yourself, obviously if you are sincere . Is it possible that there were Jews in the past that said Ezra is the son of god?

The answer should be yes,
did they mean literal or figurative? We don’t know.
Just because it’s says Jews doesn’t mean all of the Jews and I think you should take that in consideration.

 

[stevecanuck]

There is no reason to assume that from the text. That’s just you projecting your preference rather than something that is intrinsic to the text.

Of course there's a reason. For a person to be the literal son of God (the Qur'an's description), it would have to be either a virgin birth or some sort of divine sexual act. Which of those makes more sense?

But it has been the case that one sect of Jews has accused another sect of Jews that they were lapsing into polytheism.

For your reading to be true, we would have to believe that Muhammad who, based on the Quran, was reasonably well versed in religious and sectarian affairs, naively thought that Jews in general saw Ezra as the exact analogue of Jesus. Basically it would require he had close to zero knowledge of Judaism.

Okay. I'm good with believing Mohamed just made **** up. After all, he made up the other 6,235 verses, so why not this one too?

Why would that be more plausible to you than the idea it is a rhetorical flourish that forms part of a broader sectarian polemic?

It’s the kind of thing people claimed in the 19th c when they uncritically believed the Islamic mythology about Arabia being a pagan backwater. This led them to assume Muhammad had simply heard a few things in his travels but made basic errors due to his rudimentary understanding.

Modern evidence has made this untenable and Arabia had been largely monotheistic for a century or 2 before Muhammad, and the text shows engagement with a wide variety of theological issues if the day from a diverse range of sources.

The idea he was fooling some pagan rubes who were only slightly less ignorant than him no longer makes much sense.

Yet, there it sits. A clear error in the Qur'an. And isn't that the main point?

Btw, Muslims would consider this whole discussion moot, because it assumes that Mohamed authored the Qur'an rather than Allah simply speaking through Mohamed.