Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:33:46 IST
From: Shaul Wallach <F66204@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.arabic
Subject: Re: Jews and Ozir (Was Re: What is H a m a s ??)

     I'm replying here to both of Hamza's posts in one. Again I
apologize for the deletions needed to keep the size manageable.

In article <1k0tdaINN1sa@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Hamaza H. Salah) writes:

>>     As I explained before, neither did the Jews intend to help Muhammad
>>build a new religion nor did the latter intend to convert to Judaism.
>
>Don't forget that the Prophet Muhammad did not bring the holy Quran from any
>human source.  It was revealed on him from Almighty Allah.  As I told you
>before that the Jews and Christians used to challenge our Prophet by asking
>him very serious question and he used to answer on the spot.  Also the holy
>Quran, as I stated before, does not have any of the contradictions that
>existed in the previous books. Allah told us how the previous books were
>changed:
>
>    (verses deleted)
>
>There is no need to explain the above verses!

     For a Muslim, of course, this is true. This is, of course, one
raison d'etre for Islam; namely, that the previous religions had
been corrupted and that Islam came to restore the original, correct
version. Needless to say, Jews believe that their version is correct,
and accept all the explanations our Rabbis gave for the apparent
"contradictions" in the Torah.

>>     However, much of what the Qur'an says about the Jews (especially
>>in al-Baqara) is in response to the polemics with them in Medina.
>
>This is the way the Quran was revealed on our Prophet.  It did not come
>as a whole from the first moment of Islam.  It used to be revealed from
>Allah according to the events that took place there.  In this way our
>Book (Quran) is different from the previous books which came as a whole
>and at once.

     Our Torah was also given over a period of 40 years, from the
time of the Exodus from Egypt until the time the Israelites reached
the east side of the Jordan in Moab, just before they entered the
Land of Israel under Joshua.

>>For
>>example, Ibn Hisham (p. 398) gives the names of men (apparently Jews)
>>who criticised Muhammad for not believing that Uzayr was the son of God,
>>and in response to whom came down al-Tawba 30 ("The Jews say that
>>Uzayr is the son of God ..."). If we accept this at face value, then
>                                ################################
>>(as explained before) it follows that either these Jews were sectarians
>>or intended their remark figuratively. A. Guillaume, in his edition
>>of Ibn Hisham ("The Life of Muhammad"), remarks on the same page on
>>another accusation that ascribed polytheism to the Jews and found it
>>rather far-fetched.
>
>What you are mentioning about Ibn Hisham is absolutely wrong.  I don't know
>what kind of Sirrat Ibn Hisham you are reading from.  May be you are reading
>the one which has Israeliat.

     I don't think so. I have checked the Arabic version edited by Umar
Abd as-Salaam Tadmuri and published by Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, Beirut
(1408/1987). The passage is found in Vol. 2, p. 211 and corresponds
to Guillaume's translation I have brought below. I think it rather
unlikely Muslims in Beirut would publish a Sira today that they know
contains Israiliyyat.

>                              The al-Tawba 30 did not come for the reason
>you are telling me about. It came for the reason I have mentioned to you
>when Allah has brought to life some one called Bukhustner after 100 years of
>his death.  The Jews said that he is the son of God as a result of that.

    Who is Bukhustner?? Can you give me an exact reference?

    But now in your following post you write:

>>    I found `Uzayr mentioned by Ibn Ishaq in two contexts. The first
>>was in a disputation between Muhammad and the Quraysh, where the
>>latter told Muhammad, "We worship the angels; the Jews worship
>>`Uzayr; and the Christians worship Jesus Son of Mary" (Ibn Hisham
>>p. 236, Guillaume p. 163). The second was in Madina, where a
>>group of Jews came to him and said, "How can we follow you when
>>you have abandoned our Qibla and you do not allege that `Uzayr is
>>the son of God?" So God sent down concerning these words: 'The
>>Jews say that `Uzayr is the son of God ...'" (Sura 9.30) (Ibn Hisham
>>pp. 398-9, Guillaume p. 269). Again, if these accounts of the Jews
>>were literally correct then these Jews were obviously heretical.
>
>That is really what I tried to point out earlier, that is jews
>in the past did say and jews at the time of the prophet did not
>deny it, but nowdays jews do deny it.
>
>And it looks I was correct now that is you misquoted Ibn Hisham
>in your previous message.

    I don't think so. This second passage I quoted here (Ibn Hisham
pp. 398-9) is the same one I referred to before and cited above in
Tadmuri's new edition. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough before, but
there was no misquote.

    At this point I am confused. Above you wrote that Al-Tawba 30
did not come down in answer to what the Jews told Muhammad in Madina.
But according to the second passage from Ibn Hisham it appears that
it did. And you agreed afterwards that the first 100 verses of al-Baqara
did come down "in reference" to what the Jews said in Madina, as
Ibn Hisham wrote. While you, as a faithful Muslim, believe that the
verses are all divine revelation, the reason for them clearly appears
to be what the Jews said in Madina. Perhaps you could explain yourself
more clearly.

>>>>>According to islam, when Ozir came back to jews after 100 years from his
>>>>>death and recited the Torah with no mistakes and had some other miracles,
>>>>>jews at the time were stunned by him and said that he does that because he
>>>>>is the son of God.
>>>
>>>>    Western scholars trace this to the apocryphal IV Ezra 14 (in 2 Esdras),
>>>>which tells how Ezra restored the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible plus 70
>>>>additional apocryphal books. But this source does not refer to Ezra as
>>>>the son of God either. See the Encyclopedia Judaica (under Ezra) and
>>>>Brill's Encylopedia of Islam (under Uzair) for other Islamic stories
>>>>about Ezra.
>>>
>>>There are two version of the story.  One that muslim scholars record and
>>>other non-muslim (western) ones.
>
>>    Can you give me a source for the latter?
>
> Try Tafseer Ibn Katheer and Qurtobi.

     But these are traditional Muslim scholars. Why would they record
a non-Mulsim version of the story?

     I haven't found these two scholars on al-Tawba 30 yet, but I
have seen Tabari. He quotes two ahadith, neither of which corresponds
exactly to what you say above. In the first one (16621), the Jews
sin, God takes away the ark containing the Taurat and punishes them
with illness so that they forget the Taurat. Ezra prays to God,
a flame enters his body and he restores the Taurat and teaches it
to Bani Israil. God then returns the ark and they find their old
version identical with what Ezra taught them, so they say he is
the son of God.

     In the second hadith (16622), the Amalekites kill the
Israelites and take their Taurat. The surviving scholars bury
the Taurat in a mountain, and Ezra prays to God. He is finally
told by an old man to open his mouth, and something like a
large coal comes into him as if from a bottle. He announces to
Bani Israil that he has recovered the Taurat, but they don't
believe him. He then ties a pen to each finger and writes the
whole Taurat. The scholars dig up the Torah they had buried and
find it identical with what Ezra had written, etc.

     The version you tell, however, is more related to al-Baqara
259 (this is the verse in Yusuf Ali's translation, while the
Encyclopedia of Islam says Sura 2:261) which tells of a city
being ruined for 100 years and then coming back to life. Yusuf
Ali says on this verse that it has been referred by Muslims
to Ezekiel, Nehemiah or Ezra, even though none of these is
mentioned explicitly in the verse. Yusuf Ali himself believes
the verse is general. Bernard Heller (in Encyclopedia of Islam)
cites the story on this verse that Nebuchadnezzar killed
40,000 scholars and put Ezra to sleep for 100 years, after
which he woke up and restored the Taurat. The scholars then
dug up the Taurat in a vineyard, etc., etc.

     We have here at least 3 versions of the story. Tabari's
second version is remarkably similar to the story in the
apocryphal IV Ezra 14:18-44 which tells how Ezra restored
the Torah together with the Apocrypha. In this version, Ezra
hears a voice and drinks a goblet of water that is like fire.
Then he dictates the Torah to five scholars, analogous to
his five fingers in the Muslim version. Heller points out
that this apocryphon exists in two Arab versions (see Revue
des Etudes Juives 49:209 (1904); Emil Kautzsch, "Die Apokryphen
und Pseudeographen der Alten Testamentes" (Tuebigen, 1900), vol.
2, p. 322). He concludes that the Arab apocryphon is the source
of Tabari's second hadith on Uzayr.

>>  (Here I quoted al-Maida 20 in Yusuf Ali's edition)
>
>I think you are here misquoting the quran.  When you quote a verse
>from the quran, you don't quote it from Yusuf Ali Commentary.  You
>quote it directly by giving its verse number. Verse 22 of what.  Al-Maida
>20 and 22 say something different.
>
>Please don't try to put a random verse number of yours.  Just to make
>it easy on you, it is verse 18 of Al-Maidah.

     Yes, in the traditional commentaries it is numbered verse 18.
But Yusuf Ali does number it verse 20. I didn't misquote, but only
used a different edition from you.

>>    Yusuf Ali comments on this verse (note 718): "If used figuratively,
>>these and like words refer to the love of God. Unfortunately, "son"
>>used in a physical sense or "beloved" in an exclusive sense as if
>>God loved only the Jews, makes a mockery of religion."
>
>Would you do yourself and myself a favor and see what Yusuf Ali said
>about verse 30 of Al-tawbah?  See for yourself "son" here and there
>means two different things.  Please don't ignore this one.

    I already looked at it before. Here is what Yusuf Ali writes on
the verse: "In n. 718 to v.20 I have quoted passages from the Old
Testament, showing how freely the expression "son of God" was used by the
Jews. A sect of them called `Uzair a son of God, according to Baidhawi."
So I still don't see what the difference is.

    In note 718, before the quote above, Yusuf Ali brings verses
from the Bible to which I already brought the traditional Jewish
commentaries, showing that the expression "son of God" is never
used literally or physically in Jewish sources.

    It is worth adding that Tabari on al-Tawba 30, after bringing
the two ahadith, brings an alternate reading of the verse in which
`Uzayr is read without a tanwin. According to this reading, Tabari
seems to imply that `Uzayr is not literally meant to be the "son
of God." Perhaps you could help explain this passage of Tabari for
us exactly; it's rather technical and my Arabic isn't that good.

>>    Another example is the first qibla towards Jerusalem. Yusuf Ali
>>(on al-Baqara 142-147) is quite clear that this was a custom which
>>originated with the Jews. Ibn Hisham also says that in Mecca,
>>Muhammad placed the Ka`ba in a line between him and Syria. According
>>to Ibn Hisham, the same Jews who criticised him about Uzayr also
>>criticised him about the qibla, showing that he heard about the
>>first qibla from the Jews.
>
>Again what you are quoting from Ibn Hisham book is not true at all.
>I hope you give where you find it.  A chapter or page number would be helpful.

     Here is what Ibn Hisham says (p. 190; Guillaume p. 135; Tadmuri
vol. 1, p. 327): "While he was in Mecca he faced Syria in prayer, and
when he prayed, he prayed between the southern corner and the black
stone, putting the Ka`ba between himself and Syria." The example of
al-Bara' in Mecca (Ibn Hisham pp. 294-5; Guillaume p. 202; Tadmuri
vol. 2, pp. 86-7) also shows that the first qibla was towards Syria,
i.e. Jerusalem. Here I agree that it does not necessarily follow
that Muhammad learned it directly from the Jews. It may be that
the Arabs of Mecca and Madina did face Syria, in keeping with the
Jewish custom, until Muhammad changed it in the second year after
Hijra.

>Islam refuses to establish itself based on customs or traditions.  If you
>read the holy Quran carefully you will see how Islam disgraded the people
>who just followed the religions of their fathers as customs and traditions.
>Islam do not accept the faith of the one who becomes Muslim because his father
>is a Muslim.  You have to make your mind and heart and follow Islam based on
>what you believe in.

     The exact same idea is expressed in Isaiah 29:13.

>>    A final example of a purely Jewish custom which has been
>>retained in Islam to this day is the Sawm al-`Ashura, the
>>optional fast on the 10th of Muharram (first month in the
>>Muslim year) which corresponds to the Jewish fast on the
>>Day of Atonement (10th of Tishri). As part of the break with
>>Judaism the fast was moved to the month of Ramadan, but it
>>is still considered virtuous to observe the Ashura (see the
>>entry on Ashura in Encyclopedia of Islam for the relevant
>>sources). I have heard of a Muslim who still observes the
>>Ashura.
>
>That is true.  The reason behind this is that Sawm al-`Ashura was the custom
>of Prophet Musa.  Our Prophet said that I like to fast the same way as my
>brother Musa used to do in al-`Ashura.  This shows how our religion is a
>continuation of the other religions accepted by Allah.  What's wrong with
>that?!

     Nothing at all. The only problem is with the claim you mentioned
above that the Jews changed the Taurat. There is no concrete evidence
that they did. All the evidence we now have points to the antiquity
of the scriptures to far before Ezra. The Moabite Stone, for example,
mentions Israelite kings of the 9th century BCE who are otherwise
known only from the Book of Kings. In Jerusalem, silver amulets have
recently been found in burial caves dating to the time of the First
Temple with excerpts of verses from Numbers and Deuteronomy, written
in the old Hebrew script from centuries before Ezra. We obviously
cannot accept the Muslim belief that our Taurat has been changed.

     In your posts you have repeated several times the basic
Muslim belief that the Qur'an was divinely revealed to Muhammad
in its entirety. We have a similar belief regarding the Torah.
But I have a feeling that what led Jews to reject Muhammad was
not so much his claim of divine revelation. Our Torah tells us
about divine revelations to non-Jews as well, such as to the
Midianite prophet Bil`am (Numbers 22-25). The main problem,
I think, was the fact that Muhammad wanted the Jews to change
their beliefs and customs. Our Torah warns us not to go after
anyone who tells us to change our religious law, even if he
gives signs that come true.

>>     The Jewish convert to Islam, Ka`b al-Akhbar, introduced a
>>large amount of Rabbinic Aggadot and Midrashim into the body of
>>Islam. These are known as the Isra'iliyat but in time lost their
>>respected position. Among these Aggadot are the Solomonic
>>Structures (Amara Suleimaniyya) which are based on the story
>>in the Talmud about the angel Ashmadai who helped Solomon
>>hew the stones for the First Temple.
>
>Once the Jews were defeated by the Muslims and by the new religion, Islam,
>they did their best to distroy Islam by other ways.  They created so many
>false stories and myths and tried to add them to Islam. This happend at the
>time of Sahabat of the Prophet Muhammad.  Our Prophet once saw Omar Ibn
>al-Khatab reading some chapters of the Tura, then he got angry and ask Omar
>not even to look at it saying that if Musa is alive then he will have nothing
>but to follow me.

     But above you admit exactly the reverse, that Muhammad followed Musa in
observing Sawm al-`Ashara.

>                   Ka`b al-Ahbar converted to Islam and he was a commited
>Muslim.  He narrated some of these Isra'iliyat by mistake.

     What exactly was his mistake?

>                                                            He never had any
>intention to harm Islam.  Some Muslim scholars are still criticizing and
>blaming him for what he did.  Same to say about Wahbah Ibn Munabih.

     What harm did these two converts do, if Islam is, after all, a
continuation of the previous religions?

>I would like to tell you that the story of Ozair is not the only crime the
>Jews have commited against their religions, the Prophets, and Allah.  They
>killed so many Prophets as well as so many good people who call for justice.
>They have many false imaginations about Allah.  They believe that Allah is
>a human-like and that Yacob defeated him breaking his leg.  They believe that
>Yacob force Allah, after breaking his leg, to call him Israel, etc.

    Danny Keren has already provided the Jewish version of this from the
Torah and the Zohar. Ya`qov wrestled with the angel (our Rabbis say he
was the guardian angel of Esau and fought with Ya`qov over the birthright
and Isaac's blessing), and the angel blessed him and changed his name
to Yisrael. The only comment I have to make on Danny's otherwise well-done
presentation is that "sarita" (not "sharita") conveys the meaning of
ruling or prevailing; the word comes from a similar root as "sar"
meaning "prince". The Targum renders "you are a great man before God
and before men, and you prevailed."

>[.... Other stuff was deleted ....]
>I will try to verify every thing mentioned and quoted at some
>other time.  If there is too much misquoting as it looked to
>be the way so far.  I will pull out of this thread for lack
>of honesty.  I hope this won't be the case.

     As I hope you saw above, there was no misquoting to my
knowledge, only a difference in the numbering of one verse
between the editions we used. I have taken every effort to
quote exactly and to give exact citations. If I do make a
mistake, kindly correct me and we'll keep up from there.

>>>>   (description of Orthodox Jews in Israel deleted)
>>>
>>>I really don't deny what you say here.  And Quran has good verses
>>>about some jews who obey God's commands.  It says in one of them,
>>>"And some of these jews are believers, but the majority are not."
>>>What you indicated in your previous post is that the majority
>>>of jews don't obey God's words.  Plus having some miniority who do
>>>doesn't stop God's punishment.  I hope you agree.
>
>>     This is not quite so simple. Our Torah tells how Abraham (A"S)
>>prayed for Sodom and Gemorrah even though most of the people
>>there were wicked, and that God agreed to spare the cities even
>>if there had been no more than 10 righteous men in them (Genesis
>>18). As Jews we are very careful about passing judgment on our
>>generation. Allah knows best.
>
>If that is the case, why then God is and had been punishing all jews
>despite of having number of them that are good.

     Ah, here we have come to the timeless problem of evil. The whole
Book of Job addresses this question, and sums up by saying, "The
fear of God, that is wisdom." We could ask the same question of
many other peoples who have suffered, too, such as the Palestinians,
Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Somalians, Bosnians, and so on. By your reasoning
we would have to say that these peoples are also sinners because
they are being punished.

     Again, it is not our business to decide who is righteous and
who is wicked. Only God does that. Our job is to try to be good
towards God and our fellow man as best as our religion teaches
us.

>                  ___________________ cl056@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>_____________
>                 (______   _  |   _  |_
>_____ H A M Z A ________) |-| |_ |-| | |

Shalom,

Shaul