Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Shari'a, errancies, miracles and science
frankie
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by frankie »

kaimana1 wrote:Hi frankie and manfred- I noticed that you use yusuf alis translation of 9 :30

The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
However if you compare that to the actual arabic you will get this

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ذَٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن قَبْلُ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ
Waqalati alyahoodu AAuzayrun ibnu Allahi waqalati alnnasara almaseehu ibnu Allahi thalika qawluhum bi-afwahihim yudahi-oona qawla allatheena kafaroo min qablu qatalahumu Allahu anna yu/fakoona
These two colored sentences are paralel to a tee there is no "a" for uzair being son of god it is the son of god.

anyways theres two explanations for the verse ; one is in arabic ibnou sounds similar to the hebrew banou meaning messenger- so mo probably heard some jews in his medina days refer to ezra as the banou and he thought it was same as son of or ibnu

the second theory and most likely- is that mo deliberately put the jews in the same circle as the christians. after all it was amongst the last slew of verses that was revealed to muhammad according to the ijma of the ulema- he had his eyes on tabuk which was populated by christian arabs- with that being said muhammad and his merry band had just destroyed and pillaged the last jewish stonghold at khaybar in the hijaz - a couple of years prior to this revelation. He was equating the jews with the christians to give his new converts the same zeal to go after the christians. After all, the verse goes on to say may allah kill them (or destroy them)
Kaimana:
Many thanks for your pointing to the truth of the matter even further.I applaud your investigations.
User avatar
kaimana1
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by kaimana1 »

I would also like to point out that If the quran was clear and pristine it would have said something along the lines of a PARTY OF JEWS believed uzair is the son of god- the quran does this in 2:75-77 refering to some jews changing mos message.

Also, it could have used the phrase "allatheena hadoo" those who became jews the quran uses that phrase alot when referring to local jews of arabia medina specifically- but 9:30 says YEHOOD another damaging proof of an error.
User avatar
kaimana1
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by kaimana1 »

Thanks frankie
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:Earlier you agreed with that, now it seems not...
Are you sure
manfred wrote:So do tell us which Jews is the Qur'an speaking of?
All those it was addressing
manfred wrote:And why did it not explain it?
It did, go back to the first post on the issue
manfred wrote:Maybe the Qur'an needs another prophet to explain it better, like you?
It explains itself quite clearly to the non-prejudiced mind but when it come to your kind, it doesnt matter how many prophets are sent in succession and how well each one's explanation is they will remain drowned in their bitterness, so as Jesus said, better keep them in it "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed...lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them"
manfred wrote:The Jews call Ezra the son of allah, the Qur'an claims. The Jews in general. Son of "allah" ... ALLAH??? :lotpot:
Are you mocking your Jewish and Christian Arab brothers who bow and praise Allah in their synagogues and churches
manfred wrote:Can you point at even ONE such Jew?

And you want people to take such an idiotic book not only seriously, but you claim that it has divine authorship.
Not at all, like Jesus, i delight in seeing your kind deeply repulsed by it.
truthanvil.blogspot.com
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Eagle »

kaimana1 wrote:in arabic ibnou sounds similar to the hebrew banou meaning messenger
Nice joke
kaimana1 wrote:the second theory and most likely- is that mo deliberately put the jews in the same circle as the christians. after all it was amongst the last slew of verses that was revealed to muhammad according to the ijma of the ulema- he had his eyes on tabuk which was populated by christian arabs- with that being said muhammad and his merry band had just destroyed and pillaged the last jewish stonghold at khaybar in the hijaz - a couple of years prior to this revelation. He was equating the jews with the christians to give his new converts the same zeal to go after the christians. After all, the verse goes on to say may allah kill them (or destroy them)
Christians are condemned for their deviations in many Meccan and Medinan verses prior to this, the Jews even more so, there was no need to re-state this condemnation to oppose the Muslims further against them if that was the purpose of 9:30 as you say. Its also funny how you state the verse came after Khaybar where its revelation would have been more appropriate according to your theory since that battle concerned the Jews, but yet it was revealed before Tabuk (without getting into details about your claim of Muhammad "putting an eye" on it) which you say was a campaign against Christians

As for "may Allah destroy them", there is no "may" and the Arabic literally reads "Allah happened to fight them" and can be understood, amongst other things, as "Allah cursed them/distanced them from his mercy or planned for their bad ending in this life and the next". The Arabic is actually in the past, and in the Quran's language this conveys the idea of the inevitability of a thing.
truthanvil.blogspot.com
frankie
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by frankie »

Thanks to all contributors on this topic,which we can presume will now be closed.

Eagle has shown by his digression and lack of evidence, it is not possible to justify the Quranic claim that Uzair was said to be a son of Allah by the Jews,as to do so would be (from Jewish sources) heresay,demanding execution.

This is just one of many simple errors, that shows the Quran cannot be from any divine source.

Muslims, your "holy book" has been shown to have made a mistake,giving you firm evidence its originator cannot be a true god.

It's time for you to re-consider your position,do you want to remain part of this deceit,or break free from it.

Better to leave this counterfeit religion, than to remain part of it, which will in turn lead you to become men and women of violence,following the example of your self serving false prophet,who was himself a man of violence.
User avatar
kaimana1
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:46 am

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by kaimana1 »

Christians are condemned for their deviations in many Meccan and Medinan verses prior to this, the Jews even more so, there was no need to re-state this condemnation to oppose the Muslims further against them if that was the purpose of 9:30 as you say. Its also funny how you state the verse came after Khaybar where its revelation would have been more appropriate according to your theory since that battle concerned the Jews, but yet it was revealed before Tabuk (without getting into details about your claim of Muhammad "putting an eye" on it) which you say was a campaign against Christians

Yes i never said it was revealed during tabuk incident- the reason mo put that in there was to equate christians with jews. by claiming the jews say uzair is the son of god reminds mos band of looting rapists that the christians are the same as the jews.
As for "may Allah destroy them", there is no "may" and the Arabic literally reads "Allah happened to fight them" and can be understood, amongst other things, as "Allah cursed them/distanced them from his mercy or planned for their bad ending in this life and the next". The Arabic is actually in the past, and in the Quran's language this conveys the idea of the inevitability of a thing
No "may" isnt in the text neither is
Allah cursed them/distanced them from his mercy or planned for their bad ending in this life and the next
" and yes amongst other things like" allah kill them "

If anything the quraan and the apologists of the quraan never fail to prove how 41;3 in quraan is nonsensical
Nosubmission
Posts: 685
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:03 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Nosubmission »

We should also remember that the incompetent writer of the Qur'an borrowed a Jewish legend concerning the bodily resurrection of a man while devising Surah 2:259. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/jftl/jftl19.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Islamic tradition identifies this person as Ezra. For instance:

Or, did you see, such as he, Ezra (‘Uzayr), who (the kāf of ka’lladhī, ‘such as he who’, is extra) passed by a city, namely, the Holy House [sc. Jerusalem], riding on an ass and carrying with him a basket of figs and a cup of juice, [a city] that was fallen down, collapsed, upon its turrets, its roof tops: after Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed it; he said, ‘How (annā means kayfa, ‘how’) shall God give life to this now that it is dead?’, challenging the power of the exalted One, so God made him die, and remain dead for, a hundred years, then he raised him up, brought him back to life to show him how this could be done. http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo ... nguageId=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Or (bethink thee) the like of him who, passing by a township) He says: do you not know about 'Uzayr Ibn Shurahya who passed by the township of Dayr Hiraql (which had fallen into utter ruin, exclaimed: How shall Allah give this township life after its death) How can Allah bring the people of this township back to life after their death? (So Allah made him die) right on the spot (a hundred years, then brought him back to life) at the end of the day. (He) Allah (said: How long hast thou tarried) O 'Uzayr? (He said: I have tarried for a day) and then looked at the sun still in the horizon and said (or part of a day. He) Allah (said: Nay, but thou hast tarried) you were dead (for a hundred years. Just look at thy food) figs and grapes (and drink) juice (which have not rotted! Look at thine ass!) look at the bones of your ass how white they look! (And, that We may make thee a token) a sign (to mankind) regarding the matter of bringing the dead to life, that they will be resurrected in the same state they died in, because 'Uzayr died young and was brought back to life as a young person. http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo ... nguageId=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `Ali bin Abi Talib said that the Ayah ﴿2:259﴾ meant `Uzayr. Ibn Jarir also reported it, and this explanation was also reported by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim from Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Sulayman bin Buraydah. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... iew&id=135" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thus, Muslims believe that Uzary/Ezra was a remarkable figure who died and was brought back to life so that he could be a sign for people. In the light of this teaching I can contend that Muslims went extreme in regard to Ezra and called him the son of Allah. "Muslims have said 'Ezra is the son of Allah'. Allah curse them! How they deviate from the truth!" (Surah 9:30) :lol1:
Elohim has come, Allah has vanished
frankie
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by frankie »

Nosubmission wrote:We should also remember that the incompetent writer of the Qur'an borrowed a Jewish legend concerning the bodily resurrection of a man while devising Surah 2:259. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/jftl/jftl19.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Islamic tradition identifies this person as Ezra. For instance:

Or, did you see, such as he, Ezra (‘Uzayr), who (the kāf of ka’lladhī, ‘such as he who’, is extra) passed by a city, namely, the Holy House [sc. Jerusalem], riding on an ass and carrying with him a basket of figs and a cup of juice, [a city] that was fallen down, collapsed, upon its turrets, its roof tops: after Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed it; he said, ‘How (annā means kayfa, ‘how’) shall God give life to this now that it is dead?’, challenging the power of the exalted One, so God made him die, and remain dead for, a hundred years, then he raised him up, brought him back to life to show him how this could be done. http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo ... nguageId=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Or (bethink thee) the like of him who, passing by a township) He says: do you not know about 'Uzayr Ibn Shurahya who passed by the township of Dayr Hiraql (which had fallen into utter ruin, exclaimed: How shall Allah give this township life after its death) How can Allah bring the people of this township back to life after their death? (So Allah made him die) right on the spot (a hundred years, then brought him back to life) at the end of the day. (He) Allah (said: How long hast thou tarried) O 'Uzayr? (He said: I have tarried for a day) and then looked at the sun still in the horizon and said (or part of a day. He) Allah (said: Nay, but thou hast tarried) you were dead (for a hundred years. Just look at thy food) figs and grapes (and drink) juice (which have not rotted! Look at thine ass!) look at the bones of your ass how white they look! (And, that We may make thee a token) a sign (to mankind) regarding the matter of bringing the dead to life, that they will be resurrected in the same state they died in, because 'Uzayr died young and was brought back to life as a young person. http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo ... nguageId=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ibn Abi Hatim recorded that `Ali bin Abi Talib said that the Ayah ﴿2:259﴾ meant `Uzayr. Ibn Jarir also reported it, and this explanation was also reported by Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim from Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, As-Suddi and Sulayman bin Buraydah. http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option ... iew&id=135" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thus, Muslims believe that Uzary/Ezra was a remarkable figure who died and was brought back to life so that he could be a sign for people. In the light of this teaching I can contend that Muslims went extreme in regard to Ezra and called him the son of Allah. "Muslims have said 'Ezra is the son of Allah'. Allah curse them! How they deviate from the truth!" (Surah 9:30) :lol1:

Nosubmission:

It is clear from your research that 9.30 gets its origins from a Jewish story,which is just that, and has no scriptural authority.

Muslims,your holy book has again been shown to have verses which prove its man made origins not God made origins.Why are you following teachings that are clearly pre-fabrications of stories heard by Mohammed which he used to invent his own version of a religion to give it more authenticity?

Why are you remaining in this faith which turn you not only into people of violence,but into fools also?
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Eagle »

frankie wrote:
Muslims,your holy book has again been shown to have verses which prove its man made origins not God made origins.Why are you following teachings that are clearly pre-fabrications of stories heard by Mohammed which he used to invent his own version of a religion to give it more authenticity?

Why are you remaining in this faith which turn you not only into people of violence,but into fools also?
You're still as stuck in your position now as you were at the beginning of the thread. So which one of your kind ever succeeded in disproving that those Jews addressed by the verse did not say what the Quran says about them?
truthanvil.blogspot.com
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by manfred »

You are still stuck in the same hamster wheel...

If you think that the Jews called Ezra the son of Allah (!) you need to show us JEWISH sources from before Mohammed that at least mentions this curious notion once. You can't because there are none.

Then the next obvious question would be if such an idea is at all likely. It would be completely against the core teachings of Judaism, not to mention that Jews would not refer to God as Allah. The quranic text does not speak of some madman who happens to be a Jew, nor does it specify any particular obscure sect only Muslims ever heard of. It says "the Jews" in the same way as "the Christians", so it obviously means ALL Jews. And just as obviously this is patently nonsense.

Therefore it is disproven. It really is a non-starter. It is simple another of many other errors.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Eagle »

manfred wrote:If you think that the Jews called Ezra the son of Allah (!) you need to show us JEWISH sources
Its not an issue of "thoughts", but of facts. There is an ancient writing testifying to the beliefs of its direct addressees, who are known for their lack of homogeneity in religious matters (hence the idiocy of saying they wouldnt deviate or innovate in religion, and the phrase "son of God" is used for various figures within their scriptures). How can one falsify this claim by arguing from silence, when no other material than that very writing exists concerning the various beliefs of its time?

As for the Quran's quoting them using "Allah" for their God, this has nothing to do with the advent of Islam. Arabic speaking Christians and Jews of pre-islamic times and up to this day, used it and still do because it was and still is the Arabic word for the one God. To them, like for any mind free of blind hatred and prejudice, the word is not exclusive to any one faith.

And im still waiting for an extra biblical proof for Paul's claims regarding Jews and angel worship..
truthanvil.blogspot.com
User avatar
pr126
Posts: 5461
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:24 am
Location: Blighty

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by pr126 »

The word for god in Arabic is Ilah. Allah is but a name of a god.

The sahadah says "there is no god [ilah] but Allah."

Who is Allah?
Last edited by pr126 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Islam: an idea to kill and die for.
User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11602
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by manfred »

There is an ancient writing
If there was you would have produced it ages ago.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"
frankie
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by frankie »

Eagle wrote:
manfred wrote:If you think that the Jews called Ezra the son of Allah (!) you need to show us JEWISH sources
Its not an issue of "thoughts", but of facts. There is an ancient writing testifying to the beliefs of its direct addressees, who are known for their lack of homogeneity in religious matters (hence the idiocy of saying they wouldnt deviate or innovate in religion, and the phrase "son of God" is used for various figures within their scriptures). How can one falsify this claim by arguing from silence, when no other material than that very writing exists concerning the various beliefs of its time?

As for the Quran's quoting them using "Allah" for their God, this has nothing to do with the advent of Islam. Arabic speaking Christians and Jews of pre-islamic times and up to this day, used it and still do because it was and still is the Arabic word for the one God. To them, like for any mind free of blind hatred and prejudice, the word is not exclusive to any one faith.

And im still waiting for an extra biblical proof for Paul's claims regarding Jews and angel worship..
Eagle:
Nosubmission has provided a complete and comprehensive answer why Muslims thought the Jews called a man "son of Allah",but your Islamic indoctrination will not allow you to perceive the truth that shouts from its writings.If, as you rightly point out, it's is an issue of facts,then by your own admission these facts pointed out to you, should have real significance.

By using your reasoning, the facts are that Jews would not call a human being a son of God because it is blasphemy demanding execution.This is the main reason why Jesus was crucified, on a charge of blasphemy,it was part of Jewish Law at that time in history.
Arabic speaking Christians and Jews of pre-islamic times and up to this day, used it and still do because it was and still is the Arabic word for the one God. To them, like for any mind free of blind hatred and prejudice, the word is not exclusive to any one faith.
It may be so that present day Arabic speaking Christians use Allah as a name for God,but this doesn't in itself prove that Allah is the Christian God. Jesus(the Son part of the Trinity) is God to a Christian, not Allah.Jews signify God by letters,not by name.

As pointed out by pr126,Allah is a generic term for god,it covered any one name of the 360 pagan gods in the Kaaba,Mohammed's particular Al ilah (the god) was Hubal the chief or highest (moon) god of the Kaaba,worshipped by him and his tribe the Quraish.Mohammed just used what he alredy knew as a god,and elevated it to be the ONLY god.That is why so much hostility ensued between Jews and Christians,because of his insistance of a pagan entity being the one god of the universe.Islam is just an invention of a 7th century Arabian,who had delusions of grandeur.
Islamic festivals are just a continuation of the pre Islamic ones already known and practiced by Mohammed,shown to be true in Bukhari:5:58:172

Narrated 'Aisha: 'Ashura' (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of Quraish used to fast in the pre-lslamic period of ignorance. The Prophet also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Medina, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura

Mohammed was a false prophet,his words and actions give firm evidence that this is the case,he has as Jesus warned deceived many,and is continuing to do so,if your posts are anything to go by.



The question then regarding anything Paul said is rendered totally irrelevant.
Nosubmission
Posts: 685
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:03 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Nosubmission »

frankie wrote:
Eagle:
Nosubmission has provided a complete and comprehensive answer why Muslims thought the Jews called a man "son of Allah",but your Islamic indoctrination will not allow you to perceive the truth that shouts from its writings.If, as you rightly point out, it's is an issue of facts,then by your own admission these facts pointed out to you, should have real significance.
And with the help of that research I accuse Muslims of calling Ezra the Son of Allah! :lol:
Elohim has come, Allah has vanished
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Eagle »

What does Muslim belief concerning a certain figure (assuming for argument's sake that all Muslims, including contemporary to the prophet Muhammad, accept the speculation about the person in 2:259 being a prophet named Uzair) have any bearing on another people's belief concerning that same entity. This has got to be one of the lamest attempt by one of your kind to try and falsify the verse.

Jesus was never crucified and neither is "son of God" considered blasphemy, not according to your Hebrew scriptures where it is used countless times for regular people, same thing in your own NT. And even if it was blasphemy for argument's sake, knowing how Judaism always lacked homogeneity in religious matters, it would be idiotic to argue they wouldnt contradict eachother or their core beliefs.

The word Allah, it was used by all non polytheist Arabs before Islam, including the hanif, the Christians and the Jews. Hubal wasnt the chief god of the Arab pantheon, Allah was, as stated in the Quran. The descendants of Ishmael, just like the Israelites during and after Moses, began innovating and corrupting the right way by associating deities with the true God and introducing idols inside their respective sanctuaries that were originally built for the worship of one God.

Sure that Islamic rituals existed in pre-islamic times, they are the remnants of the way Ibrahim had established in the settlement of Mecca, and that survived albeit in a disfigured and misused form.
frankie wrote:Mohammed was a false prophet
It is actually Paul and JEsus himself that qualify as false prophets according to the specific criteria of both your OT and NT viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14563#p193235" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And im still waiting for an extra biblical proof for Paul's claims regarding Jews and angel worship..
truthanvil.blogspot.com
frankie
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by frankie »

Eagle wrote:What does Muslim belief concerning a certain figure (assuming for argument's sake that all Muslims, including contemporary to the prophet Muhammad, accept the speculation about the person in 2:259 being a prophet named Uzair) have any bearing on another people's belief concerning that same entity. This has got to be one of the lamest attempt by one of your kind to try and falsify the verse.

Jesus was never crucified and neither is "son of God" considered blasphemy, not according to your same thing in your own NT. And even if it was blasphemy for argument's sake, knowing how Judaism always lacked homogeneity in religious matters, it would be idiotic to argue they wouldnt contradict eachother or their core beliefs.

The word Allah, it was used by all non polytheist Arabs before Islam, including the hanif, the Christians and the Jews. Hubal wasnt the chief god of the Arab pantheon, Allah was, as stated in the Quran. The descendants of Ishmael, just like the Israelites during and after Moses, began innovating and corrupting the right way by associating deities with the true God and introducing idols inside their respective sanctuaries that were originally built for the worship of one God.

Sure that Islamic rituals existed in pre-islamic times, they are the remnants of the way Ibrahim had established in the settlement of Mecca, and that survived albeit in a disfigured and misused form.
frankie wrote:Mohammed was a false prophet
It is actually Paul and JEsus himself that qualify as false prophets according to the specific criteria of both your OT and NT viewtopic.php?f=25&t=14563#p193235" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And im still waiting for an extra biblical proof for Paul's claims regarding Jews and angel worship..

Eagle:
This thread is rapidly becoming another subject to the one stated.

But just to counter your claims.
Jesus was never crucified and neither is "son of God" considered blasphemy, not according to your same thing in your own NT
Historical evidence is not on your side.Both the N.T.and historical records claim Jesus was crucified on a charge of blasphemy.
Hubal wasnt the chief god of the Arab pantheon, Allah was, as stated in the Quran
Hubal was Mohammeds "allah" before he invented Islam.If you disagree,which god did Mohammed worship before Islam appeared on the scene? Which rituals did he follow and perform,before he destroyed all the idols in the Kaaba except one,the Black Stone,still used in present day Islam?

Sure that Islamic rituals existed in pre-islamic times, they are the remnants of the way Ibrahim had established in the settlement of Mecca, and that survived albeit in a disfigured and misused form.
Not according to Bukhari 5.58.172

Narrated 'Aisha: 'Ashura' (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of Quraish used to fast in the pre-lslamic period of ignorance. The Prophet also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Medina, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura


The quote says these rituals were from the pre Islamic period of ignorance
Why did Mohammed perform rituals,if as you say are in
disfigured and misused form?
These rituals were before the alleged truth of Islam came down,which allegedly would correct the ignorance of the pagans,but the quote from Bukhari clearly shows Mohammed legitimising pagan ritual for all time.Muslims on Hajj still perform the same pre Islamic pagan practice, e.g.kissing the black stone,circumambulation of the Kaaba,running between two hill,etc etc.

If these rituals still practiced in Islam are from the pre Islamic period of ignorance why did Mohammed still perform them?

Going back to the tile of the thread,Uzair could not have been claimed a "son of God."Jewish sources show that 9.30 is a mis representation of a Jewish story about a man who although highly revered as a Jewish scholar,was not called "son of God" by the Jews.
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by Eagle »

That practice of fasting existed since the prophet Abraham and before, read your Tanakh. Quraysh had disfigured it by fasting for the sake of false deities, not caring for the poor. The hanif remnants, including the prophet Muhammad kept on fasting, like the Quraysh, but not for the worship of false deities.

Show me the name "Uzair" in 2:259. Prove the prophet Muhammad believed it spoke of him. As stated before:
Eagle wrote:What does Muslim belief concerning a certain figure (assuming for argument's sake that all Muslims, including contemporary to the prophet Muhammad, accept the speculation about the person in 2:259 being a prophet named Uzair) have any bearing on another people's belief concerning that same entity. This has got to be one of the lamest attempt by one of your kind to try and falsify the verse.
Hubal was not the chief god of the Arab pantheon. But remain in your ignorance if that is what you want.

It isnt blasphemy for someone to be called "son of God", your NT and OT are both full of such references, make your own research, and Jesus himself refutes such charge in Jn10:33-36. As for the crucifixion fable and the alleged historical sources confirming it:
viewtopic.php?f=21&t=14095&start=20#p191731" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Before addressing the evidence quoted in your link, note it well that no contemporary writing or immidiately following Jesus' time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have proof that Bar Kochba (another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus) has archeological and historical proof of his existence.

If we turn to the primary source, the NT, we see that the over dramatization surrounding Jesus' death found in Matt27:45,51,52, which clearly was an effort by that unknown writer to connect Jesus to the prophecies of Zech14, isnt reported in other Gospels let alone contemporary historical writings, with the eclipse, earthquake and deads coming back to life to be seen by many (where did they all go by the way, did they just keep wandering around for some time like zombies in the streets of Jerusalem?), besides other spectacular events such as Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, his witnessed ascencion to heaven and other various wonderful displays allegedly seen by many. None of all this is reported in history including the works of Josephus or Philo who lived very close to the time and at the place where all these things supposedly happenned and wrote profusely about every noted personage of Palestine, describing every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era, even Galilee natives historians such as Tiberias who wrote detailed accounts of the period and of the Jews covering the entire time Jesus existed. Same deafening silence regarding other contemporaries of Jesus such as the Roman aristocrat and prodigious writer Seneca, and Pliny the Elder or other historians of the time who failed to mention these amazing events yet their works covered vast subjects relevant to their period. Seneca's silence was such an embarrasement even to early Christians that in the late 4th century forgeries were made in the shape of an exchange of letters between him and none other than the apostle Paul.

Romans were renouned record keepers and they recorded earthquakes which they called prodigies yet the only ones spoken about around Jesus' era happenned in 37 BCE (too early) and again in 110 CE (too late).
Partly for this reason, even many biblical scholars doubt that these cataclysms surrounding the alleged crucifixion really happened.
Even Peter who was giving his speech in Acts 2 only 50 days after the alleged event along with Paul who in 1Cor15 was trying to convince the people on Jesus' resurection never mentionned this extraordinary event to strengthen their arguments in front of an audience that badly needed it.
Although Christian apologists choose to ignore Matthew's account -for obvious reasons- when trying to prove the historicity of the crucifixion, they do try to find some basis for the alleged eclipse by refering to an obscure pagan personality of whom next to nothing is known about; Thallus. He is mentionned in a 9th century work that relies on a 3rd century Christian writer called Julius Africanus who himself paraphrases -not quotes- Thallus about a solar eclipse none knows when and where it happenned exactly and neither does Thallus link it to Jesus. As a side note the only recorded eclipse closest to Jesus' location and time of death occured in the year 29 in the Persian Gulf which doesnt fit the Jesus chronology and would have been of negligible impact in Jerusalem, 100s of miles away.

The non-Christian sources Christians reference for Jesus' crucifixion arent by contemporary historians aside from a disputed Roman passage (see below), or the few forged lines awkwardly inserted in between 2 flowing sections in Josephus' voluminous works that has pages and chapters devoted to petty personalities such as robbers or simple kings, yet this devout and zealous orthodox Jew, and who remained so until his death, ie the last person to accept Jesus as a god or as the Jewish King-messiah is said to have given a short comment in the middle of an acount about another character (Pilate) about how Jesus was indeed the wonderful, divine, and prophecied Jewish King-Messiah. Just a short passage about his long awaited Jewish King and yet he reports in much more details about John the Baptist and other self-proclaimed messiahs like Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, the "Egyptian Jew" messiah? The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian.
There is a reason why none of the early Church fathers up to the 3rd century never quoted this most-appropriate passage in their controversies with the Jews and other works despite their familiarity with Josephus' writings; it is a late forgery. For example Origen the Church Father who spent most of his life contending with the pagan writer Celsus, and using Josephus' works failed to mention this "ultimate rebuttal". Origen even condemns Josephus for not having accepted Jesus as the messiah in his writings. It isnt until Eusebius the official propagandist for Emperor Constantine, who judged that "it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived", the Church father notorious for his deception and distortions of evidence to advance the cause of the church, described by St Jerome himself who thought of him as well as other Church Fathers such as Origen as sometimes "compelled to say not what they think but what is useful", that we see a mention of the passage. The first ever mention of the passage unsurprisingly comes at a time where Christianity monopolised what should be the truth, torching whole libraries, yet keeping Josephus' histories which they needed to advance their cause, turning the leading Jewish historian of his day into a witness for Jesus Christ.
In fact the Latin version of Josephus' work translated by Jerome is very similar to the quote Eusebius attributes to Josephus, except of course for the crucial parts about Jesus. Even later Christian apologists and open deciever such as Chrysostom who judged that "often it is necessary to deceive", and Photius both rejected this passage in their works yet they needed evidence such as this in their writings. Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words. Because of the overwhelming evidence against its authenticity, Christian apologists try turning to another much briefer reference in "Book 20" Yet Josephus's second reference falls both because it is dependent upon the earlier (false) reference for explanation – and because it actually refers to "Jesus, the son of Damneus" who was made "high priest by king Agrippa".

No contemporary writing or immidiately following his time mention a thing about the extraordinary events surrounding his life or alleged crucifixion. Yet we have proof that Bar Kochba (another messianic claimant who came just a few years after Jesus) has archeological and historical proof of his existance.

A passage by the Roman Tacitus (born a good 20 years after Jesus' death and started writing some 60 years later, meaning he wasnt a historical witness and only relied on hearsay if we were to accept the passage attributed to him as athentic) talking of the persecutions of early Christians, mentions how the founder of this religion "was Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was punished, as a criminal by the procurator, Pontius Pilate". Besides the fact that Pilate wasnt procurator but prefect which further shows how this passage if genuenly writen by Tacitus certainly wasnt based on detailed historical research, but again, none of the Church fathers nor any Christian writer prior to the 15th century mention it, despite their familiarity with Tacitus' works and their need for such weighty evidence by a renouned historian. Not even Eusebius who in the 4th century cites all sources available from Jewish and pagan sources. In fact it is well known that Tacitus' writing dates to about 112 CE meaning 70+ years after Jesus supposed death, so definitely not proof of anything even if the quote was from Tacitus himself but even this is disputed due to the fact there is only 1 surviving copy of this writing, supposedly "copied" in the 8th century CE (700 years after it was supposedly written) by Christian hands who wrote history, meaning it was most probably another forgery. There exist no Roman records of Jesus' execution by Pontius Pilate and here we have the most renouned of Roman historians citing the alleged event, and yet he is ignored by Christian apologists up to the 15th century.
In fact the reference to Jesus is absent from a 5th century Christian writer Sulpicius Severus who quotes the passage attributed to Tacitus in nearly the same words.

Concerning the Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata (125-180 CE), his statements concerning Jesus (an assumption since he never names Jesus, keeping in mind that many were crucified in Jesus' time) were written near the end of the 2nd century, meaning he had no independent sources and relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge etc in fact Lucian does not even specify his sources.

Sulpicius Severus wrote in the 5th century about alleged Christian persecution under Emperor Nero yet no historian or any Christian writer ever confirmed this, including Josephus who did not fail describing and denouncing Nero's abuse of power.

Another funny forgery is The Lentulus Letter, attributed to a fictitious predecessor to Pontius Pilate, governor of Judaea, called "Publius Lentulus". The letter is addressed to the Roman Senate, reporting Christ's "raising of the dead", describes him as "the most beautiful of the sons of men."

Jesus in the Talmud
http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/jesusnarr.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just as there are no evidence for Jesus' alleged crucifixion, there is even less evidence for the scale of persecution early Christians allegedly sufferred, and the reason why violence was directed at them. In fact it was precisely due to the religious toleration of the Roman world, that nevertheless despised Jews for their insularity and acted against religious movements only when they appeared to threaten public order, that the nascent cult of Christianity was able to develop, become organised and, ultimately, seduce the Roman state.

In total, Christians, throughout a 300 year period, lost about a little less than 2000 persons, not for solely adhering to a faith that until the early years of the 2nd century, Roman administrators were ignorant of, but due to their own provocations, stirring up of the population by refusing military service and motivating others to do the same based on the fear of eternal damnation, campaigns of psycho-terorism that consisted in seizing every possible calamity that befell the Roman world as an occasion to claim "divine retribution" and the soon destruction of "Babylon" with the emminent return of Jesus, confrontations by the church as it organized itself against a fragilized, erroded and fragmented Roman empire as a "state within a state". It was only when the empire was itself in peril that the Roman state acted violently against any hostile element from within, including Christians.

That 2000 estimate is dwarfed by the victims of the witch trials, burnings and lynchings during the period 1300-1800 numbering 35-65,000 (and many estimates are much higher) or victims of the Inquisition, though sometimes speculatively put in the millions, in any event far exceeded anything dreamed of by the cruellest of Roman emperors against Christians. This isnt even taking into consideration forced conversions of peasantry, temple-torching and shrine-smashing ordered by bishops as soon as Christianity started ruling under Emperor Constantine, Christian persecution by Christians themselves such as the 100.000 Protestant Netherlanders sent for execution by the Catholic Charles V of Spain. What modern apologetics forget is that much more Christians died for their faith at the hands of fellow Christians than had died before in all the "persecutions".

The willingness of an individual to suffer and die for a particular cause or belief doesn't prove its truthfulness or validity. For example, the willingness of the leadership of the early Mormon church to undergo persecution and even death doesn't prove the veracity of the Mormon faith system. Likewise, the New Testament description of some of the disciples undergoing suffering or death does not prove that what they preached or believed was true either.

In the words of Celsus, one of the foremost thinkers of his age whose critique of the Christians was so damaging that Christians destroyed every copy of his work they could find "Clearly the Christians have used ... myths ... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth ... It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction."
truthanvil.blogspot.com
frankie
Posts: 2616
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Who is Uzair mentioned in Quran 9.30

Post by frankie »

Eagle:
That practice of fasting existed since the prophet Abraham and before, read your Tanakh. Quraysh had disfigured it by fasting for the sake of false deities, not caring for the poor. The hanif remnants, including the prophet Muhammad kept on fasting, like the Quraysh, but not for the worship of false deities.
The focus rests on Islamic worship,which according to Muslim sources are a continuation of pre Islamic period of ignorance rituals which Mohammed himself practiced,and Muslims still do today during Ramadan,also mentioned in the Bukhari quote.If the Quraish had as you say "disfigured it by fasting for the sake of false deities,"why had Mohammed seen fit to endorse this "disfiguration"by taking part in this period of ignorance pagan practice,thereby legitimising it for all time?

The pagan idol in the shape of a black stone,which Mohammed was seen kissing, is still held in the Kaaba,used as part of Islamic religious practice during Hajj.If Mohammed accepted the notion of a one god,why is an inanimate object still held to be part of a one god worship?
Hubal was not the chief god of the Arab pantheon
Yes, he was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Pagan_Origins_of_Islam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are letting your Islamic indoctrination again blind you to the truth.


Interestingly,your post does not mention Pliny the younger,who was a known persecutor of Christians,just as Paul was before his conversion to Christianity.The following link refutes entirely your claim,just as the other historical figures do, noted previously :
Just as there are no evidence for Jesus' alleged crucifixion, there is even less evidence for the scale of persecution early Christians allegedly sufferred
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_ ... Christians" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Christians are the most persecuted people in present day Muslim lands,they live in fear daily of their lives just because of their faith.If Islam was as it claims to be all about peace and tolerance, this persecution would not exist.Mohammed is the root cause of this persecution of not just Christians, but all who do not accept him and his god;his ways,example and "holy"book are a complete recipe for putting Muslims at eternal war between Non Muslims,until Islam is "proclaimed over all religion".

Why do you support and defend such a belief system,that puts you at eternal war with your fellow humans,such a faith cannot come from a force for the good of humanity,to advocate such hostility it must surely come from a force for the bad of humanity?
Post Reply