Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

As promised, I decided to start a thread addressing the historical errors in the Koran.

I think the best way is to address one error at a time and move on to the next after the first error is confirmed as an error.

I'll go ahead and start with the Koran's claim that the Jews took Ezra as a god (I'll provide the context to the verse so I"m not accused of taking anything out of context):

9:29 - Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden -- such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book -- until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.

9:30 - 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!

9:31 - 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 --

9:32 - desiring to extinguish with their mouths God's light; and God refuses but to perfect His light, though the unbelievers be averse.

9:33 - It is He who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may uplift it above every religion, though the unbelievers be averse.

9:34 - 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,

9:35 - 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!'

And here are other translations of verse 9:30:

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!

And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

And the Jews say, `Ezra is the son of ALLAH,' and the Christians say, `the Messiah is the son of ALLAH;' that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. ALLAH's curse be on them! How they are turned away.

The Jews say Ezra is the son of God; and the Christians say that the Messiah is the son of God; that is what they say with their mouths, imitating the sayings of those who misbelieved before.- God fight them! how they lie!

The Jews say, "Ezra (Ozair) is a son of God"; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is a son of God." Such the sayings in their mouths! They resemble the saying of the Infidels of old! God do battle with them! How are they misguided!

The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God: And the Christians say Christ is the son of God. They say this (only) with their mouths: They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times. May God curse them (literally: fight against them)! How can they be so infatuated?

Pleasant.

The historical error in question here is the claim that the Jews have also worshiped Ezra alongside God.

A quick stroll through wikipedia shows that there is no historical evidence that the Jews ever worshiped Ezra.

Abraham Geiger remarked the following concerning the claim that Jews believed Ezra to be the son of God: “According to the assertion of Muhammad the Jews held Ezra to be the Son of God. This is certainly a mere misunderstanding which arose from the great esteem in which Ezra was undoubtedly held. This esteem is expressed in the following passage ‘Ezra would have been worthy to have made known the law if Moses had not come before him.’ Truly Muhammad sought to cast suspicion on the Jews’ faith in the unity of God, and thought he had here found a good opportunity of so doing.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzair#Jewi ... literature

Hopefully there won't be too much trouble with this clear error. Muhammad (or the author(s) of the Koran) misunderstood Judaism and Christianity to an extraordinary degree. In fact, the next historical error I plan on addressing will cover yet another theological mistake the Koran makes on Judaism.

First you have to convience me as to what will convience you if I start ?
Your general attitued as part of your paid job is that no matter what we say you will continue the same ol' bullshi!
So mate I am not going to bother unless you start paying me as well...Only than I would say there is justice in all efforts.

Plus, You do not take people to 5 th grade unless they succeed and pass exams in 1st grade!
Can you first convience me that by now you learned how to write and read?

Interesting.

This should be quite straightforward to prove on eh-oh's part - all he has to do is present a reference from Jews of Arabia (eg those resident in Medina) who challenged this statement of the Quran when it was revealed. Their other objections to Islam's Messenger, pbuh, are recorded in Muslim and Jewish chronicles - so we should find some clear corroboration that the Jews of the time did NOT consider Ezra to be son of God, as God states.

Alternatively, this could be just another 'johnny-come-lately' attempt at fudging history.

As for references for Jews of Arabia believing in this very fact, here's a handy link:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... /ezra.html

Cheers,
Shafique

all he has to do is present a reference from Jews of Arabia (eg those resident in Medina)

Which is it? Is it the Jews of Yemen that one Muslim source says worshiped Ezra or are the Jews from Medina the ones who worshiped Ezra?

who challenged this statement of the Quran when it was revealed.

Aww, if only it were that simple. I mean, all you have to do is present a Koran dating from the seventh century to prove the Koran was recorded at the time the hadiths say it was.

Maybe you can also present the preserved copy of Muhammad's will?

Their other objections to Islam's Messenger

That's only partially true. Other objections to Muhammad's distortion of Judaism are indeed recorded. Other objections are not mentioned and the objections are mostly alluded to in the Koran - such as Muhammad's conflation of the Oral Torah and the Written.

are recorded in Muslim and Jewish chronicles

Which Jewish chronicles from seventh century Arabia are there? Hope you actually thought that line of defense through.

As for references for Jews of Arabia believing in this very fact, here's a handy link:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/ ... /ezra.html

The first two quotes never claim that Jews took Ezra as a partner with God, they only say that Jews deeply revered Ezra. The next two quotes come from Muslims writing later that the Jews of the Hijaz (or Yemen) worshiped Ezra and the last quote is simply speculation based off of the last two later (as in several centuries) Muslim commentators. Not evidence that I would want to hang an argument on.

eh - well, do you have any quote from contemporary Jewish sources that support your theory?

God says in the Quran that the Jews took Ezra as a 'Son of God' - nothing about making Ezra equal to God etc. The Bible refers to a number of people as the 'son of God' - in fact, isn't there a reference in the OT to God's first-born?

But it is really quite simple - the Jews of Arabia would have heard the Quran when it was being revealed (I mean many Jews converted) - and therefore if God revealed something that was false (that Ezra was NOT taken for 'son of God') then it would have been mocked and raised as a clear lie/misunderstanding.

If there is no such reference, then perhaps the 20th century Islamophobes are the one that are mistaken?

Cheers,
Shafique

event horizon wrote:The first two quotes never claim that Jews took Ezra as a partner with God, they only say that Jews deeply revered Ezra. ... Not evidence that I would want to hang an argument on.

Oh, dear - another failure in comprehension.

Let's review.

God says in the Quran that the Jews took Ezra to be son of God. (Note, God doesn't say Jews had a Pauline Christian view of what 'son of God' meant - God just states that Ezra was considered a 'son of God').

So, let us see what Newby says:

..we can deduce that the inhabitants of Hijaz during Muhammad's time knew portions, at least, of 3 Enoch in association with the Jews. The angels over which Metatron becomes chief are identified in the Enoch traditions as the sons of God, the Bene Elohim, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causer of the flood. In 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the term Son of God can be applied to the Messiah, but most often it is applied to the righteous men, of whom Jewish tradition holds there to be no more righteous than the ones God elected to translate to heaven alive. It is easy, then, to imagine that among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.

G. D. Newby, A History Of The Jews Of Arabia, 1988, University Of South Carolina Press, p. 61


So, you rightly say that Newby says Ezra was 'revered' by the Jews. As highlighted above - 'son of God' was mostly used as a description for such people by the Jews of Arabia.

QED.

Cheers,
Shafique

God says in the Quran that the Jews took Ezra to be son of God. (Note, God doesn't say Jews had a Pauline Christian view of what 'son of God' meant - God just states that Ezra was considered a 'son of God').

That's an interesting revisionist belief - I guess you couldn't find any substantiation for the Koran's claim and found some arguments from google?

Ignoring that Muslims have not held this view - that Ezra's title as the the 'son of God' is only honorary, not literary, the context of the Koran simply does not support your belief:

The Jews say, Ezra is the son of God: And the Christians say Christ is the son of God. They say this (only) with their mouths: They imitate the saying of those who were unbelievers in former times. May God curse them (literally: fight against them)! How can they be so infatuated?

A) It's interesting that the Koranic verse conflates the Christian belief with the claim against the Jews - that they take Ezra as the son of God just as Christians take Jesus as the son of God.

B) The Koran claims that the Jews, in partnering Ezra with God, are committing shirk as unbelievers (pagans) have in former times.

Oh, dear - another failure in comprehension.

Oh dear, I see another comprehension failure on your part....

Let me highlight the crucial words of the quote:

..we can deduce that the inhabitants of Hijaz during Muhammad's time knew portions, at least, of 3 Enoch in association with the Jews. The angels over which Metatron becomes chief are identified in the Enoch traditions as the sons of God, the Bene Elohim, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causer of the flood. In 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the term Son of God can be applied to the Messiah, but most often it is applied to the righteous men, of whom Jewish tradition holds there to be no more righteous than the ones God elected to translate to heaven alive. It is easy, then, to imaginethat among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.

imagine ...........

could be termed[ .............

Well, I have to admit. I'm impressed. Your evidence boils down to 'maybes'.

So, I take it you couldn't find any record of contemporary Jews of Hijaz objecting to the statement in the Quran.

Cheers,
Shafique

I'm not aware of any extant records from Jewish writers dating back to seventh century Arabia.

If I am to use your logic, that must mean there were no Jews in the Hijaz, right (or maybe there were since the Koran mentions some)?

Some handy passages from Hadith:

"Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri: We said, "O Messenfer of God(Prophet Muhammed)! Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon when the sky is clear?" We said, "No." He said, "So you will have no difficulty in seeing your Lord on that Day as you have no difficulty in seeing the sun and the moon (in a clear sky)." The Prophet then said, "Somebody will then announce, 'Let every nation follow what they used to worship.' So the companions of the cross will go with their cross, and the idolators (will go) with their idols, and the companions of every god (false deities) (will go) with their god, till there remain those who used to worship God, both the obedient ones and the mischievous ones, and some of the people of the Scripture. Then Hell will be presented to them as if it were a mirage. Then it will be said to the Jews, "What did you use to worship?' They will reply, 'We used to worship ezra, the son of God.' It will be said to them, 'You are liars, for God has neither a wife nor a son. What do you want (now)?' They will reply, 'We want You to provide us with water.' Then it will be said to them 'Drink,' and they will fall down in Hell (instead).

Sahih Muslim(Book #001, Hadith #0352)
Sahih Bukhari(Book #001, Hadith #0352)
Sahih Bukhari(Book #93, Hadith #532s)

The last line, btw, totally corresponds to the harsh tone the Koran sets for Jews who take Ezra to be the son of God (commit shirk):

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

God destroy those who simply (supposedly) revere a prophet? Or God destroy those who commit shirk?

Perhaps Allah wants to destroy those Muslims who excessively revere prophet Muhammad (pbhu) also?

After all, many Jews tell me that Islam very often borders on polytheism with all that reverence for him:

"There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"

shafique wrote:So, I take it you couldn't find any record of contemporary Jews of Hijaz objecting to the statement in the Quran.

Cheers,
Shafique

He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: no son has He begotten, nor has He a partner in His dominion: it is He who created all things, and ordered them in due proportions.

Yet have they taken, besides him, gods that can create nothing but are themselves created; that have no control of hurt or good to themselves; nor can they control death nor life nor resurrection.

But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it." In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood.

Muhammad accuses the unbelievers of committing shirk by taking a son along with God. The Jews, (who else?), accuse Muhammad of lying and forgery.

Seems pretty clear to me. Who else would call Muhammad a liar and a forger for accusing them of a) giving a son to God - the Christians? The pagans? Think not. Or b) associating partners to God. Again, the Christians? The pagans? Unlikely.

For the most part, only the Jews would call Muhammad a liar and a forger for this charge against them.

QED.

A simple 'no I couldn't find a reference' would have sufficed.

The flaw in your argument above is that only Christians believe Allah has a +BEGOTTEN+ son, not Jews. Jews believe that righteous men are 'son of God' i.e. 'ben elohim'. Therefore it isn't a reference to Jews (unless you think Jews did think God had a begotten son, rather than 'ben elohim')?

You will recall that in the Beatitudes Jesus says that the peacemakers are 'children of God'.

Now, what did I tell you about reading what was posted - this was explained in the quotes I gave to you above!

Nice stretch of logic though - kudos, good to see how your imagination works.

That said, the NT does talk about a man who is son of God and born without mother and father:

For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the son of God, abideth a priest continually. HEBREW 7.1 & 3

Pretty sure that Jews did not believe Melchisedec is begotten son of God though (I'm assuming here) - but what do Christians think of this guy - was he the same as Jesus?? eh - genuine question, what is the Christian view of this person?


Cheers,
Shafique

I see that shafique is crawling through certain missionary websites again. (Yes, even the two passages shafique referenced in his last post are on there).

Shafique, if you need some help with learning about the Bible, just ask me. I'm not too proud to throw you a bone every once in a while when you make a mistake or can't answer a simple question regarding something about what the Bible says when you can't find an answer from google.

Which reminds me, what were the differences in theology between the followers of Stephen and Pharisaic Christians, again?

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/bi ... ter_4.html

The flaw in your argument above is that only Christians believe Allah has a +BEGOTTEN+ son, not Jews.

Well, actually the flaw in your argument is assuming the Koran understands the difference between the two that you are making. After all, the Koran claims Mary was a part of the Trinity.

Jews believe that righteous men are 'son of God' i.e. 'ben elohim'.

Is that why Allah wants the Jews destroyed? Then perhaps you can explain why the Koran conflates the Christian belief of Jesus being the son of God with the Jewish practice of some righteous men being labeled a son of God? Obviously, the two are not the same since Jews do not literally take a partner with God.

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Further, is it not odd that the Koran, a book for all times, singles Ezra out when the Jews
actually do use the title 'son of God' to refer to others in the Hebrew Bible?

Thanks for confirming that:
1. you can't find a reference that contemporary Jewish tribes of Arabia did NOT believe Ezra was a ben elohim
2. that your Quranic reference for 'begotten' son cannot be shown to apply to Jews

Ergo, your theory is one that isn't actually supported by any evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

No, I don't feel like proving a negative, especially when the question is so laughable considering that there is not any surviving Jewish writings from the time period and region in question.

It's also interesting that shafique has chosen to ignore the points brought up in previous posts, such as why the 'universal' koran would chastize the Jews for allegedly referring to Ezra as the son of God when the Hebrew Bible names others as sons of God or why would Allah want to destroy those Jews who simply used the term as a sign of respect, rather than shirk. Moreover, why does the Koran claim that *the* Jews consider Ezra to be the son of God when later Muslims, in light of the facts, claimed that only a minority of Jews in the Arabian peninsula held this belief?

Indeed, the punishment for Jews who refer to Ezra as the son of God is the same as Christians who consider Jesus as a member of the Godhead. Strange. To me, that seems like Jews today who follow the Hebrew Bible and Oral Torah are a people worthy of Allah's curse as the Jews who supposedly revered Ezra and Trinitarian Christians.

Perhaps, this claim from the Koran is similar to the one of Elvis having bone cancer - the people close to Elvis decided to fabricate this story and spread it during Elvis' funeral so that only the people who were not actually close to Elvis would repeat this to the media. Thus showing showing who was actually a confidant of Elvis and who was an impostor.

I would not put it past the ancient Jews to have done the same thing. Perhaps keeping relatively quiet about this incident was the best way to show to others that Muhammad was truly a false prophet. Additionally, it's simply ridiculous to expect that the editors/authors of the Koran would address every mistake it made that the Jews and Christians objected to. Especially when the Koran makes other theological errors that are also not addressed in the text of the Koran.

As I said, if your theory is correct and the Jews of Arabia did not consider Ezra as a ben elohim, you should be able to positively show this and also show that they raised this objection at the time the Quran was revealed or during the time Islam spread through Arabia.

In the absence of this proof, we have to weigh the evidence of the experts who have studied the Jews of Arabia - and, as I've shown, Newby says the Jews of Arabia probably DID consider Ezra a ben elohim.

We can then compare and contrast this scholarly view with your theory and decide which is more credible. I am, however, biased and believe God's words to be true and therefore agree with Newby - I would hazard a guess that you disagree. C'est la vie.

Cheers,
Shafique

What part of 'there are no surviving Jewish documents from that time period and region' do you not understand?

we have to weigh the evidence of the experts who have studied the Jews of Arabia - and, as I've shown, Newby says the Jews of Arabia probably DID consider Ezra a ben elohim.

The evidence was presented by one scholar, not 'scholars', and it was nothing more than a bunch of 'maybes' linked together. Shaky analysis indeed.

On the other hand, other scholars who have also studied Judaism and the Jews of Arabia have concluded that the Koran is at fault for making the claim that the Jews gave Ezra the honorary title of 'son of God' or worshiped Ezra - since the Koran doesn't exactly distinguish between the two.

In fact, the Koran conflates Jews who take Ezra to be the son of God with Christians who take Jesus as the son of God, indicating that the Koran does indeed claim that Jews are committing shirk.

Lastly, where exactly does the Koran say that only the Jews of Arabia are committing shirk? I thought the Koran was a complete book?

God says quite clearly in the Quran that Ezra was considered a 'ben elohim' or 'son of God' by Jews - you haven't shown that this was not the case.

You asked for a scholar who backs up this point, I quoted Newby.

You've presented your interpretation of God's words and are somehow reading 'worship' into the Quranic statement - I've presented evidence from a scholar to corroborate what God actually says (that Ezra was considered a ben elohim).

I can't see where you've disputed this evidence (if anything, you seem to agree that Newby gives evidence that Ezra was revered as a prophet/pious man - which is exactly what a ben elohim signifies in Judaism).

Therefore, unless you have new evidence, the choice of which interpretation to believe is up to the reader.

I'm personally with God being accurate and with Newby on his conclusions.

Cheers,
Shafique

You've presented your interpretation of God's words and are somehow reading 'worship' into the Quranic statement - I've presented evidence from a scholar to corroborate what God actually says (that Ezra was considered a ben elohim).

This has been explained to you numerous times already - if your interpretation is correct, then it is odd that the Koran would place Jewish reverence for Ezra side-by-side with Christian shirk for Jesus and call for the same punishment to inflicted against both groups even though the Jews only revere Ezra, not worship him.

And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

A simple reading of the Koranic text does not support your belief that the Jews only revered Ezra - for which there is no historical or archeological evidence.

if anything, you seem to agree that Newby gives evidence

Here is the definition of evidence:

ev⋅i⋅dence
  /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
Use evidence in a Sentence
See images of evidence
Search evidence on the Web
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
–verb (used with object)
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
—Idiom
6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.

Now, here is the passage from Newby:

...we can deduce that the inhabitants of Hijaz during Muhammad's time knew portions, at least, of 3 Enoch in association with the Jews. The angels over which Metatron becomes chief are identified in the Enoch traditions as the sons of God, the Bene Elohim, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causer of the flood. In 1 Enoch, and 4 Ezra, the term Son of God can be applied to the Messiah, but most often it is applied to the righteous men, of whom Jewish tradition holds there to be no more righteous than the ones God elected to translate to heaven alive. It is easy, then, to imagine that among the Jews of the Hijaz who were apparently involved in mystical speculations associated with the merkabah, Ezra, because of the traditions of his translation, because of his piety, and particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, could be termed one of the Bene Elohim. And, of course, he would fit the description of religious leader (one of the ahbar of the Qur'an 9:31) whom the Jews had exalted.[3]

Nope, don't see any evidence there.

I did see how Muslims read the Koranic passage regarding Jews who take Ezra as a partner with God, however:

Edward Henry Palmer states that “there is no Jewish tradition whatever in support of this accusation of Mohammed's, which probably was entirely due to his own invention or to misinformation.”[10] According to the Encyclopedia of the Quran, “Muhammad could have heard about Jewish or Judeo-Christian sects that venerated Ezra in the way other sects venerated Melchizedek.”[11] The problem with this conjecture is that the Hadith, in Sahih Muslim 1:352, Sahih Bukhari 6:60:105, Sahih Bukhari 9:93:532s associates belief that Ezra is the son of God with all of Jews and compares it with belief by Christians that Jesus is the son of the God, and says that both Jews and Christians are condemned to hell for belief that God has a partner. Furthermore in the context of the Quran and this Hadith it implies the prevalency of Jews believing Ezra is the son of God, is as prevalent as belief of Christians that Jesus is the son of God, which is nearly universal amongst Christians. Furthermore Sahih Bukhari 7:63:209, tells Muslims to not marry Jewish women, because Jews associate partners with God. Also in surah 3:67 it says, "Abraham was neither Jewish, nor Christian; he was a monotheist submitter. He never was an idol worshiper." and in surah 2:135 it reads "And they say, 'Be Jews or Christians and you shall be guided.' Say thou: 'Nay, rather the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith; he was no idolater.'" clearly implying the author(s) of the Quran believed that Jews in general associate either a partner or partners with God. Furthermore many believe claiming that the verse refers to a some group of Jews, Muslims are limiting Allah, so as to say the Quran, is the word of Allah.

and

The problem with saying that the verse refers to a small group of Jews is the Arabic used in the verse is spelled in such a manner as the part where it says The Christians say the messiah is the son of God, it spelled the same way as the part where it says The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, except the word alnnasara (The Christians) is replaced with the word alyahoodu (The Jews) and the word almaseehu (The messiah) is replaced with the word aauzayrun (Ezra).

The part of the verse that says "The Jews call 'Uzair the son of Allah, and the Christians call the Messiah the son of Allah." in transliterated Arabic is

"Waqalati alyahoodu aauzayrun ibnu Allahi

Waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi"[13]

The way that the Arabic uses the same formula, and doesn't differentiate when it says the Jews implies belief Ezra is the son of God, is as mainstream as belief that Jesus is the son of God amongst Christians. Furthermore to say The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, also has grammatical errors, it is like saying, The Muslims eat pork, it is true some Muslims eat pork, but it is not true Muslims in general eat pork.

and also, while not about the verse in question, shows how easily it was for disinformation to spread in Islam without the Jews being able to 'correct' this disinformation, as shafique has put forward for the reason why the Koranic verse must be correct, otherwise the Jews would have made fools of the Muslims:

Edward Palmer said, "The Moslem tradition is that Ezra, after being dead 100 years, was raised to life, and dictated from memory the whole of the Jewish Scriptures which had been lost during the captivity, and that the Jews said he could not have done this unless he had been the son of God. There is no Jewish tradition whatever in support of this accusation of Mohammed's, which probably was entirely due to his own invention or to misinformation".

Of course, those Sahih hadiths cited earlier in the quotes could be other examples of how this could just as easily spread without it being corrected.

So, to answer shafique's earlier question of why the Koran would contain an error when the Jews would point this out (that's ignoring the historical context of this verse - the Jews at this point, according to Montgomery Watt, dared not to speak out against Islam after what happened to the three largest Jewish tribes of Medina), the ahadith and tradition already mentioned blows shafique's argument out of the water that disinformation of Judaism in early Islam would not have spread. These hadiths demonstrate that it was not only possible, but it did indeed happen. So, why not the Koran?

and lastly, a quote addressing the issue of 'monotheism' in Islam:

This also lacks evidence, it in fact raises several problems, because in fact Judaism is more strict on its interpretation of monotheism than Islam. For example, the vast majority of Muslim theologians, believe two things are uncreated the Quran and God, while Jewish theology teaches that only one thing is uncreated, God.

In the eyes of many Jews, Muslims are borderline polytheists. Their extreme veneration of Muhammad, going so far as to include him in shahadda alongside Allah, and the Muslim belief that the Koran and Allah are both uncreated contrasts with what Judaism teaches that only God is uncreated. This puts Islam outside the fold of pure monotheism in Judaism and into the realm of polytheism.

To these Jews, Islam is correctly considered a polytheistic faith.

I had to read your long post twice and still couldn't find any evidence to support your theory.

Let me make this very simple for you:

1. God says Jews take Ezra for a 'ben elohim' - a 'son of God'.
2. God does not say Jews worship Ezra (don't know where you're getting this from)
3. Newby says ben elohim is a term used for pious Jewish men, including Ezra.

QED

I understand you need to construct a strawman that God says Jews worshipped Ezra, committing idolatory - and I totally agree with you that there is no evidence for this. However, this is not what God says in the Quran.

Better luck next time.

Cheers,
Shafique

1. God says Jews take Ezra for a 'ben elohim' - a 'son of God'.

a) The Koran says Waqalati alyahoodu aauzayrun ibnu Allahi. Which is identical to what it says of Christians who believe Jesus is the son of God, Waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi.

b) Also identical is the punishment meted out to Jews who call Ezra the son of God as it is for Christians who commit shirk. c) Further, the Koran says Jews take this practice from the pagans before them.

Now, am I to assume that the Pagans revered holy men the same way the Jews did, by taking them for a ben elohim or simply that the Pagans attributed divinity to humans? What do you consider is the likely reading of this verse when points a), b), and c) are considered?

2. God does not say Jews worship Ezra (don't know where you're getting this from)

I thought you were reading posts twice now? Maybe three times the charm?

There were numerous hadith provided, in addition to tradition, that the Jews attributed divinity to Ezra. If you go click on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzair#In_Islamic_tradition you will notice that there is evidence, not only in verse 9:30, but in other verses which imply that the Jews reverted to polytheism and that the Muslims are the only true Monotheists.

Great, we agree that God does not say that the Jews worshipped Ezra, but considered him a 'son of god' or 'ben elohim' in Hebrew.

I understand you wish to construct a strawman - but according to this thread's title, you are arguing that there are innaccuracies in the Quran.

God saying Jews considered Ezra to be a 'ben elohim' is not a factual innaccuracy according to Newby. Ergo, your belief that it is - is just an alternative interpretation.

We therefore have to consider the evidence and choose which interpretation is correct.

Cheers,
Shafique

a) The Koran says Waqalati alyahoodu aauzayrun ibnu Allahi. Which is identical to what it says of Christians who believe Jesus is the son of God, Waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi.

b) Also identical is the punishment meted out to Jews who call Ezra the son of God as it is for Christians who commit shirk. c) Further, the Koran says Jews take this practice from the pagans before them.

Now, am I to assume that the Pagans revered holy men the same way the Jews did, by taking them for a ben elohim or simply that the Pagans attributed divinity to humans? What do you consider is the likely reading of this verse when points a), b), and c) are considered?

^^^
Care to address the above? Why does Allah want to curse/destroy the Jews, then? Did the pagans have a concept of 'ben elohim' equivalent to the Jews? Do you want to guess why the Koran conflates the Christian belief regarding Jesus to the alleged Jewish veneration of Ezra?

It's also interesting that there is no evidence, anywhere, that the Jews considered Ezra to be a 'ben elohim'.

Thanks - what God says in the Quran is quite clear, i.e. that Jews took Ezra for a Ben Elohim.

Nothing there says Jews worshipped Ezra.

As I said, it appears that it is your logic and not God's words which are at fault - and at the end of the day, Newby agrees that Ezra would have been considered a 'ben elohim', you are merely demolishing your strawman and not what God actually said.

Re-read what God says in the Quran - in what way is it not factual?

Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks - what God says in the Quran is quite clear, i.e. that Jews took Ezra for a Ben Elohim.

Agreed - it is clear that Allah compares this alleged belief of the Jews with Christian shirk and Allah further states his desire to 'destroy' Jews who believe this, along with Christians.

What is not clear, however, is a single shred of evidence showing that Jews took Ezra for a ben elohim. There must be thousands of surviving documents from or about the ancient and medieval Jews - both theological and historical, yet not one says or implies, except the Koran, that Jews believed that Ezra was the son of God. Actually, that is quite clear, my bad.

Nothing there says Jews worshipped Ezra.

Cool - so Allah curses the Jews because they highly revere a prophet and curses the Christians because they commit shirk - the ultimate, and only unforgivable sin for Allah. Makes sense.

I can definitely see how conflating the two does not imply that the Koran believes Jews are committing shirk. But, what do you think? Care to provide a quaint explanation?

Re-read what God says in the Quran - in what way is it not factual?

How is it factual?

I see you haven't presented any new evidence - and you don't disagree that God only says Jews considered Ezra a 'ben elohim' (so your strawman of 'committing shirk' is another one of your quaint interpretations).

Let me know if you do find a historical inaccuracy in the Quran, rather than constructing a strawman concerning Jews worshipping Ezra.

Cheers,
Shafique

What is not clear, however, is a single shred of evidence showing that Jews took Ezra for a ben elohim.

Is there a single evidence that the pope sitting in his temple in vatican is the son of God?
Ask him if he can provide you any evidence while he is living beside us today?

This is what quran also says:
9.31. The Jews take their rabbis (teachers of law), and the Christians take their monks, as well as the Messiah, son of Mary, for Lords besides God (by holding as lawful or unlawful what the teachers of law and monks decree to be lawful or unlawful, as against God's decree), whereas they were commanded to worship none but the One God. There is no deity8 but He. All-Glorified He is in that He is absolutely above their association of partners with Him.

8. Being the Lord means creating, bringing up, sustaining, and giving each creature a structure and nature according to its duty in creation. It also includes the authority to determine what is (religiously) lawful and unlawful in human life. Being divine (deity), or possessing divinity, means having the exclusive right to be worshipped. By mentioning divinity (being a deity) and being the Lord together, this verse explains that only One who is God can be Lord, and that the One Who is the Lord is also God; therefore, belief in God as One God requires confessing that He is both Lord and God.

I'm just saying that the references from Wikipedia show that :

1) Numerous ahadith demonstrate the Muslim belief held by Muslims that Jews are polytheists.
2) The Koran uses the same phrase for Christians who literally consider Jesus to be the son of God as it does for Jews who supposedly believe Ezra is the son of God.
3) Allah curses both Christians and Jews even though their 'crimes' are vastly different - with the Jews only revering a prophet but Christians actually worshiping one - committing shirk.
4) The Koran claims that Jews have taken this belief from the pagans before them - strongly implying that the charge against them is indeed polytheism.
5) There are other verses in the Koran which imply that Jews currently are not monotheists but that their ancient prophets and Muslims today are.

All the facts above are summed up in the quotes provided from the Wikipedia article on Uzair, where the scholars cited in the article (quite rightly) arrive at the conclusion that the Koran is mistaken by saying that the Jews have taken Ezra as their son of God - either literally or figuratively (with the former belief clearly implied in the Koran and how most people understand this verse to mean).

Ahh, I see, therein lies the problem.

I'm referring to what God says in the Quran (and you have quoted the verse), and there God is saying that Ezra was considered a ben elohim by the Jews. Newby agrees. You don't.

As to the strawman about Jews worshipping Ezra - as this is not in the Quran, I'm not sure what this strawman is doing in this thread (hold on, can't lie - I do know - it's the only way you can make your argument work).

Cheers,
Shafique

The evidence has been provided and the argument provided from shafique's link has been discredited in my view - Newby never lays any concrete evidence that the Jews considered Ezra as the son of God - let alone that 'the son of God' was only a title.

Indeed, a reading of the Koran and hadiths implies and says otherwise. That would also be ignoring why the book 'for all times' chooses to accuse Jews of taking Ezra as the son of God when other figures are actually given the title of 'son of God' in Judaism, including in the Hebrew Bible.

It's also interesting that shafique has regurgitated what one scholar guesses at, but ignores what numerous other scholars, including Muslim scholars, have said.

Oh well, I spose only one person can explain why they choose to heavily rely on one person, but ignore the consensus of scholars.

In any event, I'm happy to move onto the next Koranic inaccuracy. Here, the Koran says that the Jews believe that only Jews will enter 'Paradise'. I am not aware of any such belief in the Judaism, so this should, yet again, be regarded as a simple error.

2:111 - And they say, 'None shall enter Paradise except that they be Jews or Christians.' Such are their fancies. Say: 'Produce your proof, if you speak truly.'