Was `Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God?

 

Islamic Awareness

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

Last Modified: 1st September 1999

---

Assalamu-`alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

`Uzayr, who was exalted by a community of Jews, is identified as Ezra by Muslim commentators. The Qur'an says:

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

Before we take care of the origin of the issue of exalting Ezra to son of God by some Jews, let us first discuss the life of the man himself.

Ezra (5th-4th century BC, Babylon and Jerusalem) was a religious leader of the Jews who returned from exile in Babylon, and a reformer who reconstituted the Jewish community on the basis of the Torah (Law, or the regulations of the first five books of the Old Testament). This monumental work of Ezra helped to make Judaism a religion in which law was central, that enabled the Jews to survive as a community when they were dispersed all over the world. Ezra has with some justice been called the father of Judaism since his efforts did much to give Jewish religion the form that was to characterize it for centuries after the specific form the Jewish religion took after the Babylonian Exile. So important was he in the eyes of his people that later tradition regarded him as no less than a second Moses^(P). Regarding the tomb of Ezra Encyclopaedia Judaica says:

There are number of traditions concerning the site of Ezra's tomb. According to Josephus it is in Jerusalem; other hold that he was buried in Urta or in Zunzumu on the Tigris; but the general accepted version is that his tomb is situated in Uzer, a village near Basra. This tradition is mentioned by Benjamin of Tuleda, Pethahiah of Regensburg, Judah Alharizi, and other travelers, Jewish and non-Jewish who visited Babylonia.^[1]

It is to be kept in mind that the knowledge about Ezra is derived from the Biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, supplemented by the Apocryphal (not included in the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament but present in Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churchs' canon) book of I Esdras (Latin Vulgate form of the name Ezra), which preserves the Greek text of Ezra and a part of Nehemiah.

It is interesting to note that the Jews in Arabia, during the advent of Islam, were involved in mystical speculation as well as anthromorphizing and worshipping an angel that functions as the substitute creator of the universe. That angel is usually identified as Metatron^[2]. Newby notes that:

...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]

The Islamic exegetes have mentioned that there existed a community of Jews in Yemen who considered Ezra as son of God. Hirschberg says in Encyclopaedia Judaica:

H. Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely, that the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.' According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to Islam who believed that Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, the apostle (!) of messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah.^[4]

George Sale makes an interesting comment concerning the Muslim as well as Judeo-Christian opinion on this issue.

This grievous charge against the Jews, the commentators endeavour to support by telling us, that it is meant of some ancient heterdox Jews, or else of some Jews of Medina; who said so for no other reason, than for that the law being utterly lost and forgotten during the Babylonish captivity, Ezra having been raised to life after he had been dead one hundred years, dictated the whole anew unto the scribes, out of his own memory; at which they greatly marvelled, and declared that he could not have done it, unless he were the son of God. Al-Beidawi adds, that the imputation must be true, because this verse was read to the Jews and they did not contradict it; which they were ready enough to do in other instances.

That Ezra did restore not only the Pentateuch, but also the other books of the Old Testament, by divine revelation, was the opinion of several of the Christian fathers, who are quoted by Dr.Prideaux, and of some other writers; which they seem to have first borrowed from a passage in that very ancient apocryphal book, called in our English Bible, the second book of Esdras. Dr. Prideaux tells us, that herein the Fathers attributed more to Ezra, than the Jews themselves, which he laboured much in, and went a great way in the perfecting of it. It is not improbable however, that the fiction came originally from the Jews, though they be now of another opinion, and I cannot fix it upon them by any direct proof. For, not to insist upon the testimony of the Mohammedans (which yet I cannot but think of some little weight in a point of this nature,) it is allowed by the most sagacious critics, that the second book of Ezra was written by a Chrisitian indeed, but yet one who had been bred a Jew, and was intimately acquainted with the fables of the Rabbins; and the story itself is perfectly in the taste and was of thinking of those men.^[5]

Last but not the least, a Christian writer also proposed that Muhammad^(P) got the information of Jews exalting Ezra to son of God from the Samaritans who said the Ezra had acted presumptuously and had changed the old divine alphabetical character of the holy Books of the Law - a character still used and revered to this day by rapidly dwindling Samaritan community.^[6] This author concludes in a rather unchristian way that:

But it is not at all unlikely that the source of Mohammed's indictment of the Jews is to be found among the Samaritans or amongst Arab tribesmen of Samaritan strain. If we found in Samaritan literature the opposite belief that Ezra (or Uzair) was the son of Satan, we would be well-nigh sure of having settled the matter.^[7]

And Allah knows best!

---

References

[1] Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 6, Encylopedia Judaica Jerusalem, p. 1108.

[2] G. D. Newby, A History Of The Jews Of Arabia, 1988, University Of South Carolina Press, p. 59.

[3] Ibid, p. 61.

[4] Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ibid., p. 1108.

[5] George Sale, The Koran, IX Edition of 1923, London, p. 152.

[6] J. Walker, "Who Is 'Uzair?", The Moslem World, Volume XIX, No. 3, 1939, pp. 305-306.

[7] Ibid, p. 306.

Exodus 24:12 Oral law

 "The LORD said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and wait there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the Torah (תּוֹרָה)and commandments which I have inscribed to instruct them.” (Exodus 24:12)

According to Exodus, Moses went up Mount Sinai where he received the tablets, the Torah and commandments. Did you catch the problem?

 

Moses received the "TORAH" alongside the tablets and commandments. Yet the Jews claim Moses wrote the Torah found in the Bible? If that's the case, what did he receive in mount Sinai? The verse is clear, Moses received the Torah. Where exactly is this Torah?

 

 Nowhere in the 5 books known as the "Torah" do we find anywhere written where Moses wrote them. bear in mind Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are stories and events of Moses and the children of Israel.  Ask yourself this question how do you know Genesis was written by Moses? Where exactly does it say Moses wrote Genesis or any of the books? It's all through tradition. Learned Jews know perfectly well the Pentateuch was not written by Moses. 

 

Also, notice the text says, God has written them to teach them. this would refer to the oral law which Christians reject.  Rashi a giant Jewish scholar writes in his commentary

 

את לחת האבן והתורה והמצוה אשר כתבתי להורתם [AND I WILL GIVE THEE] THE TABLETS OF STONE, AND THE LAW, AND THE COMMANDMENT WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN TO TEACH THEM — All the six hundred and thirteen commandments are implicitly contained in the Ten Commandments and may therefore be regarded as having been written on the tablets. Rabbi Saadia specified in the אזהרות which he has composed those commandments which may be associated with each of the Ten Commandments. (Rashi commentary on Exodus 24:12)

 

Now this might be a lot for Christians to swallow however, looking at it from a neutral stance shows the Torah is not the 5 books found in the Bible known as the Pentateuch.

--------------

If Richard Dawkins wrote a book on Christianity and Atheism and quoted a few verses from the Old & New Testament, will you call his book the inspired word of God? Of-course not that will be foolish. Instead you will say his book has a few citations from the Bible hence, it is not the inspired word of God, rather words of God extracted from the inspired books and added to his book. In a similar way when we say your book (bible) is corrupted, we mean there may be some words here and there which were revealed to the Prophets by God that may be embedded within your texts. We do not believe those writings to be the direct verbatim words of the prophets, rather paraphrases. The Quran is our criteria. When we read a text, which parallels to what we believe then we will not have an issue with it, nor will we call it corrupt. Take for example Surah 5:45 something similar if found in your bible Exodus 24:21. So Corruption does not mean the whole body of the text is infected, rather there may be some text which hold truth, again one has to use the Quran as the criteria, but generally your bible is corrupted and cannot be taken as authority.

If it's not found in the Quran then look for it in the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh

 

 

The teaching Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. if it's not found in the Quran then look for it in the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh (Ahadith)

Here is a beautiful Hadith which clarifies this.

Harith ibn Amr reported: Some men among the companions of Mu’adh said the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, sent him to Yemen and the Prophet said:

كَيْفَ تَقْضِي

How will you judge?

Mu’adh said, “I will judge according to what is in the Book of Allah.”

The Prophet said:

فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ

What if it is not in the Book of Allah?

Mu’adh said, “Then with the tradition (sunnah) of the Messenger of Allah.”

The Prophet said:

فَإِنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي سُنَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

What if it is not in the tradition of the Messenger of Allah?

Mu’adh said, “Then I will strive to form an opinion (ijtihad).”

The Prophet said:

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي وَفَّقَ رَسُولَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

All praise is due to Allah who has made suitable the messenger of the Messenger of Allah.

(Source: Sunan At-Tirmidhi 1327, Grade: Sahih)

----------

From this beautiful Hadith we gather that if something is not found in the Quran then we should look for it in the Sunna of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. If it's not found both in the Quran and Sunna of Prophet Pbuh then strive to form an opinion (ijtihad).

Next time a non-Muslim asks you show from the Quran where is the word Tawheed mentioned. Do not hesitate to tell them as Muslims we base our teachings from both Quran and Sunnah. Show them the Hadith which was confirmed by Prophet Muhammed Pbuh.

We are not like the Christians who follow the bible only. We Muslims follow both Quran and Sunnah.

Hudhaifa reported:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) narrated to us two ahadith. I have seen one (crystallized into reality), and I am waiting for the other. He told us: Trustworthiness descended in the innermost (root) of the hearts of people. Then the Qur'an was revealed and they learnt from the Qur'an and they learnt from the Sunnah….. (Sahih Muslim Book 1, Hadith 274)

Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I have left two matters with you. As long as you hold to them, you will not go the wrong way. They are the Book of Allah and the Sunna of His Prophet." (Muwatta Malik The Decree Book 46, Hadith 3)

Any Islamic matters in discussions both Quran and Sunnah should be used. Thus, asking us where Tawheed is found we can show you from the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammed Pbuh. You can't demand something which we have to agree with.

Remember we are not to entertain the non Muslims.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "The Quran's many Gods and Lords: An Analysis of the Worship given to And Deification of Creatures within the Islamic Text"

 

By

 

Bassam Zawadi

 

 

 

Sam Shamoun's article could be located here.

 

First, Shamoun reiterates the same old argument regarding the Qur'an showing how Adam and Joseph (peace be upon them both) receiving prostration and then he claims that this is idolatry since all prostration must be given to God alone.

 

For a full discussion on this issue, we ask the readers to read the following two articles by Shaykh Jalal Abu Al Rub on the issue...

 

http://islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=7

 

http://islamlife.com/readarticle.php?article_id=8

 

 

Sam Shamoun tried replying back to Shaykh Jalal's points over here...

 

 

http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Abualrub/twoadams_ss1.htm

 

http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Abualrub/twoadams_ss2.htm

 

 

However, anyone reading the exchange would clearly see that Shamoun lost the argument even though he had the last say in it.

 

Shamoun goes on to quote Surah 48:9 as an argument; however I already addressed that near the end of my article over here.

 

Shamoun then goes on to quote Surah 3:18, which states...

 

 

ALLAH bears witness that there is no god but HE - and also do the angels and those possessed of knowledge, maintaining justice; there is no god but HE, the Mighty, the Wise.

 

 

Shamoun then states...

 

The literal rendering of the Arabic has Allah testifying that he, the angels and the men of knowledge are all God! This is due primarily to the Arabic conjunction translated "and" (wa) that connects the three groups together. We will be saying more about this Arabic conjunction a little later in order to see how this impacts Islamic monotheism.

 

The author has wrongly positioned the angels and men of knowledge in the sentence. Instead of making these two groups the subject of the witnessing or confession, the author made them the object of the testimony given by Allah. In other words, instead of having these two groups confessing along with Allah that there is no god but he, the author made them part of Allah's confession! To put it another way, the passage has Allah confessing that these groups are God along with Allah!

 

 

This is absolute absurdity. The verse only says that God, the angels and those who possess knowledge bear witness that Allah is the only God! Where on earth does one get the idea of polytheism in this verse?

 

The verse in no way shows that the angels and the knowledgeable ones are not included as those bearing witness. This all has to do with the way one is reciting the verse.

 

Whenever one recites this verse there is a pause after one says "no god but HE". This would signify a comma and time to stop. Then one continues to recite the verse and mention the angels and the people of knowledge.

 

So the verse should be read as follows...

 

ALLAH bears witness that there is no god but HE, [pause] and the angels and those possessed of knowledge, [pause] maintaining justice; [pause] there is no god but HE, the Mighty, the Wise.

 

The verse could clearly be interpreted and shown by the way that it is recited that not only does Allah bear witness that there is no God but He. But the angels and those possessed of knowledge as well.

 

Shamoun then gives his argument from Surah 9:31...

 

Q. 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.

Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi WAalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu Aaamma mushrikoona

Again, because of the way the Arabic text is worded, the above passage is actually saying that Jesus is Lord along with Allah. Hence the Quran's author ended up confessing that both Allah and Jesus are Lord!

 

This is a result of Shamoun not understanding the verse properly. What does the Qur'an mean when it says that the Jews and Christians took their rabbis and priests as lords? The Prophet (peace be upon him) answers this...

 

Imam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a Hadith via several chains of narration, from `Adi bin Hatim, may Allah be pleased with him, who became Christian during the time of Jahiliyyah. When the call of the Messenger of Allah reached his area, `Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were captured. The Messenger of Allah freed his sister and gave her gifts. So she went to her brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allah . `Adi, who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai') and whose father, Hatim At-Ta'i, was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah. When the people announced his arrival, `Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck. The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah;

[اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ]

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah). `Adi commented, "I said, `They did not worship them.''' The Prophet said,

«بَلَى إِنَّهُمْ حَرَّمُوا عَلَيْهِمُ الْحَلَالَ وَأَحَلُّوا لَهُمُ الْحَرَامَ فَاتَّبَعُوهُمْ فَذَلِكَ عِبَادَتُهُمْ إِيَّاهُم»

(Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.) The Messenger of Allah said to `Adi,

«يَا عَدِيُّ مَا تَقُولُ؟ أَيُفِرُّكَ أَنْ يُقَالَ: اللهُ أَكْبَرَ؟ فَهَلْ تَعْلَمُ شَيْئًا أَكْبَرَ مِنَ اللهِ؟ مَا يُفِرُّكَ؟ أَيُفِرُّكَ أَنْ يُقَالَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ؟ فَهَلْ تَعْلَمُ مَنْ إِلهٌ إِلَّا اللهُ؟»

(O `Adi what do you say Did you run away (to Ash-Sham) so that 'Allahu Akbar' (Allah is the Great) is not pronounced Do you know of anything greater than Allah What made you run away Did you run away so that `La ilaha illallah' is not pronounced Do you know of any deity worthy of worship except Allah)

The Messenger invited `Adi to embrace Islam, and he embraced Islam and pronounced the Testimony of Truth. The face of the Messenger of Allah beamed with pleasure and he said to `Adi,

«إِنَّ الْيَهُودَ مَغْضُوبٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَالنَّصَارَى ضَالُّون»

(Verily, the Jews have earned the anger (of Allah) and the Christians are misguided.) Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman, `Abdullah bin `Abbas and several others said about the explanation of,

[اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ]

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah...) that the Christians and Jews obeyed their monks and rabbis in whatever they allowed or prohibited for them. This is why Allah said,

[وَمَآ أُمِرُواْ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُواْ إِلَـهاً وَحِداً]

(while they were commanded to worship none but One God), Who, whatever He renders prohibited is the prohibited, whatever He allowed is the allowed, whatever He legislates, is to be the law followed, and whatever He decides is to be adhered to; (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)

 

The Rabbis and Priests were taken as lords not because they were worshipped as Gods in the sense that we understand. It was because they declared what was permissible and impermissible and the people obeyed them when they shouldn't have and rather should have obeyed God.

 

This is different in regards to Jesus whom Christians actually not only obey in regards to what is permissible or not, but also actually believe is God.

 

This is a possible reason why Allah separated Jesus in the verse from the Rabbis and Priests. For the polytheistic beliefs surrounding these individuals are of a different nature.

 

Secondly, there is no violation of Arabic grammar in the verse. This is what the verse says...

 

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

 

Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona

 

 

Anyone who knows basic Arabic will know that 'Messiah' (maseeh) in the verse above has a fat ha at the end of it, which is indicated by 'ha' being added to the word Maseeh. This indicates that it is the accusative (maf'ool bihi) of the verse.

 

The verb in the verse is 'they have taken' (Ittakhathoo). Thus, the Messiah is the accusative of the verb, which means that the verse is saying that the Messiah was taken as a lord by those that also took their Rabbis and Priests as lords.

 

If the verse wanted to say as Shamoun is saying and that is that they took their priests and rabbis as lords besides taking Allah and the Messiah as lords, then the verse would have said...

 

waalmaseehi

 

With a 'hi' at the end just like the word 'Allah' has right before it.

 

The funny thing about this is that Shamoun already knows this, for he indicates in his footnotes...

 

Some may take exception with our exegesis of Q. 9:31, and assert that the Arabic text clearly places Jesus alongside the rabbis and monks who were wrongly taken as Lords besides Allah. For instance, the conjunction (wa) before Al-Maseeha, and the short vowel fatha (a), at the end of the word indicate that Al-Maseeha is in the accusative, so it is another object (together with the first two, ahbarahum waruhbanahum, "their rabbis and their monks") of the verb "have taken." The sentence should therefore actually read like this:

They have taken their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah Mary's son as lords apart from God, and they were commanded to serve but One God; there is no god but He; glory be to Him, above that they associate.

If the wa was a conjunction of Al-Maseeh to Allah, i.e. binding Allah and the Messiah together, then it would need to be in the genitive just like Allahi, i.e. Al-Maseehi.

 

He thinks he refuted the argument by then saying afterwards...

 

To begin with, we must consider two important considerations when assessing the soundness or weakness of this argument. The main problem with this argument is that it presupposes that the markings distinguishing the different cases in Arabic, i.e. nominative, accusative etc., were always there, were always part of the original text. The reality, however, is quite different since the original Arabic Quran had no markings to help differentiate between the different nuances of the word.

Here is how the text would look like in transliteration minus the critical points:

min doon allah w almaseeh bn maryam

As one can see, there is no short fatha at the end of the words almaseeh, bn or maryam, which means that the original Arabic text did indeed conjoin Jesus along with Allah.

This is a very weak argument from Shamoun's end because the Muslims put the diatrical marks in accordance with the way that they have been reciting it the whole time. Since the Muslims were reciting the verse the whole time with a fat ha on the word Maseeh, they then went ahead and put the diatrical mark that way.

 

Foolish Shamoun also states...

 

Since the Arabic text had no markings this would mean that someone reading it would have clearly seen that Jesus was being joined alongside Allah as the one Lord whom others had to believe in, as opposed to their rabbis and priests.

 

 

Ignoramus Shamoun forgets that if there are no diatrical marks on the text then it is possible that it could be joining Jesus with Allah or it is also possible that it could be putting Jesus in the accusative.

But since the Muslims have always been reciting the verse with Jesus being put in the accusative, then THERE IS NO PROBLEM.

 

Also, how can Jesus be God in light of Islam when the Prophet's (peace be upon him) statement is so explicitly clear...

 

 

Saheeh Bukhari

 

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817:

 

Then Allah's Apostle said, 'Do not praise me excessively as Jesus, son of Marry was praised, but call me Allah's Slave and His Apostles.'

 

 

Shamoun's next feeble attempt is his appeal to Surah 3:38-48 and Surah 19:3-10. He argues...

 

Fourth, there is additional evidence demonstrating that Allah isn't the only Lord. There are specific references where prophets and righteous persons addressed angelic messengers as their Lord!

Then and there did Zachariah PRAY TO HIS LORD (rabbahu), saying, `MY LORD (rabbi) grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.' AND THE ANGELS CALLED TO HIM as he stood praying in the chamber, `ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH - noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous. HE SAID `MY LORD (rabbi), how shall I have a son, when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?' He answered, `Such is the way of ALLAH; HE does what HE pleases,' HE SAID `MY LORD (rabbi), give me a commandment.' He replied, `The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not speak to men for three days except by signs. And remember thy Lord much and glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.' S. 3:38-41 Sher Ali

When he called upon HIS LORD (rabbahu) in a low voice, He said: MY LORD (rabbi)! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, MY LORD (rabbi)! I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee: And surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased. O Zakariya! surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be Yahya: We have not made before anyone his equal. He said: O MY LORD (rabbi)! when shall I have a son, and my wife is barren, and I myself have reached indeed the extreme degree of old age? HE SAID: So shall it be, YOUR LORD (rabbuka) SAYS: It is easy to Me, and indeed I created you before, when you were nothing. He said: My Lord! give me a sign. He said: Your sign is that you will not be able to speak to the people three nights while in sound health. S. 19:3-10 Shakir

These texts are supposedly reporting Zechariah's prayer to God for a son, the angels' response, and the subsequent discussion that allegedly takes place between them. These texts show Zechariah either addressing the angels collectively, or one specific angel, as his Lord! We repeat again the specific portion in order to highlight that this is what Zechariah did:

He said, 'O my Lord, how shall I have a son, seeing my wife is barren, and I have attained to the declining of old age?' SAID HE, ?So it shall be; THY LORD says, "Easy is that for Me, seeing that I created thee aforetime, when thou wast nothing."' S. 19:8-9 Arberry

The entity addressing Zechariah mentions what the latter's Lord had said, which obviously means that the one responding to Zechariah wasn't Allah. He must have therefore been one of the angels. And yet it is very clear from the above texts that Zechariah allegedly addressed this specific angel as Lord!

The Quran further asserts that Mary, the Lord Jesus' mother, called the angels, or at least one of them, her Lord:

"Behold! THE ANGELS SAID: ?O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations. O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.' This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with pens (or arrows), as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point). Behold! THE ANGELS SAID: ?O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.' She said: ?O MY LORD! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?' HE SAID: ?Even so; Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, "Be," and it is!'" S. 3:42-47 Pickthall

Lest one accuse us of misinterpretation, Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir provides indirect attestation for our analysis since he says that the entity who responded to Zechariah was the angel. He states in reference to Q. 3:40:

<"O my Lord! How can I have a son when I am very old, and my wife is barren'' (He) said.>

meaning the angel said, (Source)

And in connection to Q. 19:9 Ibn Kathir wrote:

Zakariyya was amazed when his supplication was answered and he was given the good news of a son. He became extremely overjoyed and asked how this child would be born to him, and in what manner he would come. This was particularly amazing because his wife was an old woman who was barren and had not given birth to any children in her entire life. Even Zakariyya himself had become old and advanced in years, his bones had become feeble and thin, and he had no potent semen or vigor for sexual intercourse.

The Answer of the Angel .

That is, the angel, in his response to Zakariyya and his was amazement. (Source; bold emphasis ours)

In fact, Muslim expositors were perplexed by the above passages, specifically Q. 3:40 where Zechariah addresses the angel as his Lord. They were apparently troubled at the idea of a prophet calling an angel his Lord. Muslim writer Mahmoud M. Ayoub says of Q. 3:40:

Two issues concerned commentators in this verse. The first is the question of whether it is God or Gabriel whom Zechariah addresses as Lord. The second is how Zechariah, as a prophet, could have any doubt in God's power to cause an old, barren woman to bear a child?

. Ibn Kathir assumes that Zechariah's dialogue was with an angel, not with God (Ibn Kathir, II, p. 36).

Qurtubi begins by relating on the authority of al-Kalbi that the word "Lord" in this verse refers to Gabriel. He says, "Zechariah said to Gabriel ?my lord,'" meaning ?my master.'".

Razi begins with the question of Zechariah's dialogue and whether it was with God or with Gabriel. The question is important because it concerns the theological debate about God's transcendence and the problem of anthropomorphism. If God hears and speaks in a manner familiar to human beings, then the question arises as to whether God has similar organs of hearing and speech. Razi argues that it is equally possible that Zechariah was addressing either God or the angel in this verse. He presents two explanations which he attributes to the mufassirun, that is, other commentators. The first is: "When the angels called to Zechariah and gave him the good news, he wondered and turned to God for reassurance. Zechariah was actually addressing the angel Gabriel, and not God. The invocation ?my lord' is here addressed to a superior or master, and not to God." (Ayoub, The Qur?an and Its Interpreters: The House of ?Imran [State University of New York (SUNY) Press, Albany 1992], Volume II, pp. 112-113)

 

More than one solution could be provided to solve to this alleged problem.

Firstly, (and this would only be applicable to the argument from Surah 3:42-47) it is possible that Maryam was speaking to angel Gabriel and when she called him 'lord', she meant master, since the word rabb could also mean this (see Surah 12:41) This is the view of Imam Qurtubi.

 

Secondly, it is possible that Maryam was initially speaking with angel Gabriel, but then the conversation shifted to Allah and her. However, I personally do not think that this is the case.

 

Thirdly, Maryam was intentionally speaking to Allah. She knows that Allah is the All Hearer and Allah is speaking back to her through the angel Gabriel. Instead of speaking to her directly, angel Gabriel is speaking Allah's words verbatim back to Maryam. This makes the angel Gabriel the medium of communication between Allah and Maryam. 

 

Similarly, in Zechariah's case. This can easily be the case if you read Surah 3:38-41.

 

However, in regards to Surah 19:3-10 it appears that Shamoun has pointed out...

 

These texts are supposedly reporting Zechariah's prayer to God for a son, the angels' response, and the subsequent discussion that allegedly takes place between them. These texts show Zechariah either addressing the angels collectively, or one specific angel, as his Lord! We repeat again the specific portion in order to highlight that this is what Zechariah did:

He said, 'O my Lord, how shall I have a son, seeing my wife is barren, and I have attained to the declining of old age?' SAID HE, ?So it shall be; THY LORD says, "Easy is that for Me, seeing that I created thee aforetime, when thou wast nothing."' S. 19:8-9 Arberry

The entity addressing Zechariah mentions what the latter's Lord had said, which obviously means that the one responding to Zechariah wasn't Allah. He must have therefore been one of the angels. And yet it is very clear from the above texts that Zechariah allegedly addressed this specific angel as Lord!

 

Verses 8 to 9 will not refute the third solution that I have provided (Allah speaking through the agency of the angels), for I see no problem how the angel can utter...

 

'So it shall be; THY LORD says, "Easy is that for Me, seeing that I created thee aforetime, when thou wast nothing."'

 

The angel said from his own self, "So it shall be" and then the angel is quoting the statement of God. This actually strengthens my argument. It is clear that when the angel is quoting the Lord as saying something, the angel is differentiating himself from being God. This is explicit proof that the angel itself is not lord.

 

The fact that Zechariah (peace be upon him) is calling out to his lord and the angel responds does not mean that the angel is Lord. The angel is only communicating the response of Allah to Zechariah (peace be upon him).

 

Shamoun says...

 

Now one might want to say that even here the author's intention wasn't that angels are Lord. The author actually meant to say that Zechariah and Mary were addressing Allah as their Lord. But this response refutes the Quran's claim of being perspicuous and inimitable. It shows that this was another time that the author of the Quran ended up affirming that there were other Gods and Lords besides Allah as a result of the awkward structure of the Arabic. At the very least, the formulation is so problematic that even the Muslim commentators struggled with its meaning!

 

The fact that scholars might differ as to the meaning of certain verses in the Qur'an is not a result of the Qur'an being poorly structured, just as the Bible is not necessarily poorly grammatically structured or contradicting it self when it says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) just because scholars might differ in regards to the meaning of a specific passage.

 

First of all, the Qur'an clearly admits that it has ambiguous verses in it (Surah 3:7). For the Qur'an to be clear about it having some unclear verses in it is not an oxymoron.

 

Secondly, Shamoun's ignorance of Qur'anic exegesis also results in him exaggerating the 'difficulty' of some passages. He lacks the understanding and knowledge of first grade Arabic grammar and on top of that he doesn't allow other Qur'anic passages to explain one another and bring harmony to the meaning of verses. He refuses to take Surah 3:80 into consideration when it makes it clear that angels are not divine. Rather, he isolates a verse from the rest of the Qur'an and appeals to translations.

 

 

Shamoun goes on to quote Surah 3:45-52 as an argument and then states...

 

In light of such confusion can a Muslim really claim that the Quran is the height of Arabic eloquence?

 

 

Shamoun's argument is easily resolved if one studies about Iltifaat...

 

www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html

www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/robinson.html

 

 

The funny thing is that Shamoun even admits that he knows about this grammatical feature...

 

and that Allah often switches from speaking in the first person singular to first person plural to third person address

 

 

Doesn't he realize that this refutes his argument of appealing to Surah 3, since one can argue that there was a shift in who was speaking?

 

Shamoun's last set of arguments when he appeals to Surah 6:114; 17:1-2; 19:34-40, 49-64; 37:170-184; 70:38-41 could also be addressed easily by anyone who is even aware of the concept of Iltifaat.

------------------------

First of all you need to understand that the grammer of Arabic is very different from that of English. You have to understand that you cannot translate Shakespeare word for word in Hindi or it will lose its meanings.

 

اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا لَّا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُون

 

You need to pay an urgent attention on the word, “وَالْمَسِيحَ” (walmasih), implying that Masih is different from Allah. If it meant what you suppose it means it would have mentioned والمسيحي (walmasihi) with an “I” in the end.

 

Now what is the complete translation of the verse,

 

According to MM Pickthall (previously a Christian) the verse translates as follows—They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him).

 

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

 

These translations also do not give the full meaning. Infact the verse talks of a transition in the faith of Christains.

 

The first step away from religion was to take scholars and monks as gods besides Allah—what ever they say becomes more valuable than the actual words of God this is exactly what lead the alleged corruption in Bible—and finally Christians have taken Massaiyah the son of marry as their god. The verse is actually refuting the doctrine of Trinity and criticising the very process that led to creation of this doctrine. Everyone with even a little bit of understanding of Arabic grammar would conclude as I did. Not surprisingly Arabic scholars concluded the same way and hence you see no translation interpreting the verse as you did.

 

The verse can also be seen in a different context. The fact that it the verse mentions Arbab which also means relatives indicates that the verse is talking about many types of shirk (polithiesm). In some people it is common to worship relatives as Family gods, in India, such gods are known as Kul Devata. And finally the verse gives special mention to the polithiesm of worshipping Massaiyah. Some act considered evil by Quran, if mentioned seperately in the same verse implies it is far worse than the others.

 

Your misunderstanding is due to limitations of English language. While translating there is a limited space. It requires a long explaination in English for a simple verse in Arabic. Not a wonder God chose Arabic to give his message to mankind.

 

 

 

Verse 9:31 is the continuity of the previous verse. It’s better to read them in sequence to have better understanding. Let’s check:

 

وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ۖ ذَٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُم بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ ۖ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِن قَبْلُ ۚ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ ۚ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ - 9:30

 

The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah "; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? Tawbah 9:30

 

اتَّخَذُوا أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَانَهُمْ أَرْبَابًا مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ وَالْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا إِلَٰهًا وَاحِدًا ۖ لَّا إِلَٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ سُبْحَانَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ - 9:31

They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah, and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. Tawbah 9:31

Analysis:

 

Verse 9:30 mentions Jews who declared Uzair A.S son of God. Then Christians are mentioned who believe that Jesus is son of God. Allah negates both of these groups and curse them.

Verse 9:31 is very clear in narrating that both of these groups were commanded to worship only One Allah but they ignored this command and followed their monks and priests. It was tantamount to taking priests and monks like gods.

 

This verse is concluded with the declaration that there is no god worthy to worship except One Allah. He is Exalted and is free from having any partner.

 

Conclusion:

This question is based on wrong interpretation of the verse mentioned.