# Talk:Uzair

This Article needs a complete over-haul and re-write. I don't have time to do it myself. But please mention Al-Jahiz, and the religion of the Yahud which is explained in detail. Also Al-Jahiz's decision to identify Jews as the Yahud so that the term has stuck in modern Arabic. Yahud is clasical Arabic for an Idumean sect known by every scholar worth his salt. Have a loot at the article "people of the book" in the Encyclopaedia of the Quran for a start. See, what you are currently doing is writing an article based upon common unpublished ignorant assumptions of the masses and not doing the research any good reporter should do. 82.6.115.62 (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to start putting in a little info from what you are talking about (e.g. the fact that "Uzair" is the Arabic term for the Mandic "Uthra" worshipped by the Gnostic Jews) but it was deleted by a Communist-Christian Sysop who threatened to block me if I continued to put in references.81.103.121.144 (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
First, I'm not a sysop.  Second, those were standard warning templates.  Third, you were not just adding a little bit of info, you were trying to enforce a POV with your edits, most of which did not include references.  Lastly, what I identify as has nothing to do with this.  Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
″≥×  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.149.249.10 (talk) 05:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC) 

reverted the old content structurem, do not use POV "claim" - as from Islamic perspective it is not a claim and that is what this article is. I will strongly recommend that those adding to Jewish view create a new article on Jewish view of Ezra, as its already a big section of Jewish perspective with repetitive views. ~atif Talk 02:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is it then, besides a claim? An assertion? A statement? It is all the same thing. Islam never makes a claim that Ezra is divine, neither does Judaism. It is only Islam's contention ABOUT Judaism which makes such a claim. As for "Jewish view.." being that Ezra was a Jewish prophet, born a Jew, lived a Jew, and died a Jew, the main article is the proper place for that. In this article, to support WP:NPOV, any claim that Islam makes about Judaism needs to be balanced by Judaism's response, if the claim is felt to be completely erroneous, as is the case in this situation. -- Avi 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
How about "Quranic statements about the Jewish perspective", do you feel that more NPOV? -- Avi 13:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Islam asserts that some Jews considered Ezra as divine, it does not blame Judaism's tenets. Thats why read second verse, it says "They take their priests (Ahbar) and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah ... yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah". Which means they were commanded through scripture pure monotheism, but some still got strayed. Hope you get Quranic view now? ~atif Talk 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
moved Islamic response to first para as it already mentions Islamic views. No need for Islamic response in Islamic view article. Title was wrong as Quran does not say about Judaism religion (read my last comment), only about Ezra's exaltation by some. ~atif Talk 01:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
just wanted to note... the responses section needs some improving in terms of source usage and application. the first two paragraphs come across as slightly OR (considering the sources used, which appear to be ancient and/or primary). it might also be useful to summarise the sources in prose instead of using extensive quotes. ITAQALLAH 12:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a "response"-"claim" section is appropriate. We can write down all those information in a single section. --Aminz (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
This entire article sounds very biased towards the Jewish perspective, especially the frequent use of the term "Muslim apologists." There is nothing for anyone to be apologetic about. There are no apologists, there are scholars. Please fix this error in language ASAP.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharelt (talk • contribs) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 

The comment that people disagree on what "sons of G-d" means is a bit overly ambiguous. In Hebrew and in the Jewish Bible, the term "Son of G-d" is used to refer to anyone who is a righteous human being and is used to describe several people as well as the entire nation of Israel as a whole, referred to as G-d's first born son. By simply stating people disagree, it sounds as if Jewish scholars disagree as to whether Ezra was referred to as a Super-Human entity, which he surely was not in Jewish Tradition. I agree with the other poster. If you are going to present the Islamic view of Jews, you should probably also present the Jewish view of Jews. ~affinity  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.245.156 (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 

Yahel Guhan, please don't make angry exaggerations of "massive censorship". in this edit, you restore a sentence (which adds no new information) sourced to "contenderministries.org", a website of dubious reliability; you restore a paragraph which consisted of unsourced original research, and you reverted my correction of a quote. please explain your edit. ITAQALLAH 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it is of "a website of dubious reliability". Yahel Guhan 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
here's a more constructive idea: why don't you explain how that page is a reliable source? what new information does it add to the article? ITAQALLAH 23:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Avi, would you please explain the relevance of the following passage to this article:

A fundamental tenet of Judaism is that God is not bound by any limitations of time, matter, or space.[14] Judaism holds the idea of any person being God, or a part of God, or a mediator to God, to be heresy.[15] As stated in the midrash of Exodus Rabba, chapter 29, section 5, as one of the explanations on the verse of the first of the Ten Commandments states: "...I am the first, I have no father; I am the last, I have no brother; Beside Me there is no God; I have no son."[16] The Book of Ezra itself, which Judaism accepts as a chronicle of the life of Ezra, and which predates Muhammad and the Qur'an by nearly 1000 years, gives Ezra's human lineage as being the son of Seraiah Ezra 7:1. The Jerusalem Talmud which also predates Muhammad by centuries, states explicitly in (Ta'anit 2:1) that “if a man claims to be God, he is a liar.”
It seems to me, it belongs to the article on God. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It places the Qur'anic statement in proper reference vis-a-vis Judaism's fundemental beliefs. The Qur'an's statement is tantamount to saying that "The Qur'an states that Christians do not believe Jesus was the son of God". That is something so fundamentally against Christian belief that it nearly obviates the need for a response. Similarly here, instead of bringing hundreds of sources as to Judaism's belief in the non-corporeality of G-d, stating that it is a bedrock of the religion demonstrates the thrust and basis of the few sources brought while simultaneously demonstrating that the beliefs brought in this article are repudiated by all streams of Judaism, which is the required balance. -- Avi (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with a brief mention that the orthodox Judaism does not accept the idea of God having a son in literal sense, but I think this is hardly anything that our reader needs to know(please see [1]). Further, in the above section we have mentioned that there is no extra-quranic source of such a belief available to us, also please see "later Muslim authors who heard from their contemporary Jews and Christians that the accusation of sonship had no basis mentioned three types of explanation" bit. I think these all makes it clear.
I suggest we provide an outgoing link to a section on another article on the Jewish view of God's having a son in its literal sense. --Aminz (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Avi,
Thanks for shortening the passage on the Jewish view of God. Regarding "A fundamental tenet of Judaism is that God is not bound by any limitations of time, matter, or space, and that the idea of any person being God, a part of God, or a mediator to God, is heresy", it is sourced to Maimonedes  etc who come from after Islam. I know that Islamic and Jewish philosophy had a lot of interplay and I am sure that this explains the current Jewish orthodox view. But I am not sure if such a Greek-based philosophical understanding of monotheism was present in the Jewish prophetic era. The sacred writers seem to have been using the anthropomorphic expressions for God less hesitantly (though I know that the current orthodox Judaism interprets them as metaphoric). I was reading something about the Kabbala the other day. They seemed to be less strict. 
Can you possible please source this statement with references preceding Muhammad? Not that it is necessary but I'd guess it improves the article.--Aminz (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maimondes is acting as a codifier of discussion surrounding the Oral Law that existed from the time of  Sinai. As I mentined above, this is so fundemental to Judaism that there was no need to specifically state it. However, there is the reference to Exodus Rabbah, which is accepted as being handed to Moses at Sinai as well, and codified around the time of the Mishna, which predates Muhammed by four to five hundred years. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Avi, I do not refer to monotheism itself, but to a philosophically developed form of monotheism (as in God is not bound by any limitations of time). But never mind. I am happy with leaving it as it is in the article. --Aminz (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Britannica says it was written probably around 350–300 BC and not by Ezra himself. But I'd guess the Jewish tradition has it written by Ezra himself. From my perspective, mentioning that the book of Ezra "predates Muhammad and the Qur'an by around 1000 years" gives a larger time span for heretical views being developed. Would you please let me know if this is the reason we are mentioning this time span? Thanks --Aminz (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The timespan is mentioned so to show that the earliest Jews do not believe Ezra was the son of Hashem and because there are manuscripts that are from B.C. times that clearly show that this book has always said he was the son of Seraiah in other words the oldest text speaking of Ezra never once says any individual thought that Ezra was the son of Hashem and also that the earliest text speaking of Ezra shows that the Jews never thought he was more than a mere mortal--Java7837 (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore it states this because why would a heretical Jew think Ezra is the son of Hashem when it says in the Bible itself that Ezra is the son of Seraiah. Another reason is that people may not claim that the Book of Ezra postdates the time of Muhammad--Java7837 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Something interesting I have read is that a portion of the Torah has been found in Ketef Hinnom it dates back at least to 600bc not only that but some have proposed it dates back to 725bc it shows that the Torah has not been corrupted by the Jews as Muslims claim--Java7837 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
^^You are totally wrong. Read this link: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spappendix.htm
There are countless differences between the current Torah and older versions of it such as the many many differences with the Dead Sea Scrolls  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.191.48 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC) 

One geocities, and two the guy didn't compare the Dead Sea Scrolls with the Torah. He compared it with the Septuagint. He is some Christian apologist misrepresenting data to support the Septuagint. It has been known for a long time by scholars that the Septuagint is inaccurate, they are references to the Septuagint before Christianity existed and they show the Christians tampered with the text. The Septuagint isn't even in Hebrew. One thing there are several different Jewish communities, many of whom haven't came in contact until recently, surprise, surprise, the Torah scrolls are the same. Furthermore unlike the Torah, the Quran is corrupted, look at the Sana'a manuscripts, they are major differences. Furthermore you know the Quran was originally written in the Kufic script, unlike the current Quran, which is written in a completely different script. Furthermore there are many alternative versions of the Quran, predating the modern Quran. Need I mention the Satanic verses? Apparently your prophet couldn't tell if Satan or G-d spoke to him. Isn't logical to say then if Muhuammad couldn't tell if he got certain ayatun from G-d or Satan, that the whole thing may be from Satan? Also you know If Islam is true, Allah can't be an all-powerful G-d, and thus invalidating Islam, why? Simple your god is so weak he couldn't prevent his revelation from being corrupted. --Java7837 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore masjids didn't start pointing to Mecca till the 800's, yet the Quran mentions how the qibla has been changed? That means the Quran didn't reach its final form till at least the 800's.  --Java7837 (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of December 6, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:  The prose is well written, but there are these problems.
In some quotes it is unclear what the paranthesis refer to. If they were NOT part of the original quote, please replace them with square brackets, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Quotations. I am specifically thinking about these sentences:
"particularly because he was equated with Enoch as the Scribe of God, (and) 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."
"chronological and geographical inaccuracies and contradictions; theological impossibilities (anthropomorphic expressions, stories of fornication and whoredom, and the attributing of sins to prophets), as well as lack of reliable transmission (tawatur) of the text."
And this sentence is incorrectly formulated: Ibn Kathir, in his Qur'anic commentary, mentions the reason for Jewish exaltation of Ezra was that he could write down the Torah out of his memory while, Moses could not get the Torah but in a book however "'Uzair got it without a book" 
Note that {{cquote}} is not recommended for article quotations, per the same guideline.
2. Factually accurate?: Lots of citations to various sources, very nice. 
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes 
4. Neutral point of view?: Yes 
5. Article stability? Yes 
6. Images?: Sufficient 
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far.— Fred-J 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Fred for your review. We will fix the issues you raised as soon as possible. Thanks again for the view. --Aminz (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
echoing my thanks too for the review ~atif Talk 08:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Fred, I have made some changes to the article. Would you please let me know if it looks good now. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It looks good now, and I am passing the article. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations! / Fred-J 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, all. There were some issues at the start of the article, but thanks to the collaborative efforts of many people from very diverse backgrounds, the article is now considered one of the best the wiki has to offer, full of reliable quotes and impartially written and flowing prose. Well done, one and all. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

great part is that it reached its GA status within a month of its creation (7-Nov) :) ~atif Talk 00:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations to you too Avi. And thanks very much for your edits to the article. --Aminz (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

After reading this article, I feel confused. The first sentence reads: "Ezra (Arabic: عزير, 'Uzair, Turkish: Üzeyir) was a priest and scribe who returned to Jerusalem from Babylonian exile." This is fine for Ezra, but this is "Islamic view of Ezra", isn't it? The first sentence must summarize the Islamic view instead of saying who he was. The lead says: "One Qur'anic verse (Qur'an 9:30) refers to a person named Uzair worshiped by Jews as "the son of God". Uzair is usually identified by Muslim commentators with the biblical Ezra, or sometimes with a man who slept for three hundred years. Modern scholars have also suggested the Biblical Enoch, Azazel and Osiris." This point is not found anywhere else in this article, so this sentence is not in accord with WP:LEAD. Is it only Qur'an 9:30 that calls Ezra "Uzair"? Is so, how is it called elsewhere, say, in the hadith? And if not, why does the sentence say "a person named Uzair" instead of "Ezra"? If there is a disagreement on whether Uzair actually refers to Ezra, why is this article called "Islamic view of Ezra" instead of "Uzair"? This problem permeates the whole article, as it hops from "Ezra" to "Uzair". What tradition does this passage come from: "After resurrection, he rode on his donkey and entered his native place. But the people did not recognize him, nor did his household, except the maid, who was now an old blind woman. He prayed to God to cure her blindness and she could see again. He meets his son who recognized him by a mole between his shoulders and was older than him. Ezra then led the people to locate the only surviving copy of Torah as the remaining were burnt by Nebuchadnezzar. He thus renovated the Torah to the Children of Israel."? When I read "Islamic traditions", I assume it means hadith, but no hadith are mentioned in this passage. The same applies to the Quranic verse just above it: the verse is for some reason in the section on traditions, though no hadith are cited. THe section title "Quranic statements about perceived Jewish exaltation" is weaseling and confusing. In this section, the paragraph on academic views is merely a collection of quotes. Is there a consensus academic view on this verse? Are there any groups of scholars who adhere to some theories? The article is silent about it, all one can read are quotes. Beit Or 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have made some changes accordingly. There does not seem to be any academic consensus re the identity of Uzair, but there is a kind of consensus among Muslims (regardless of how that evolved) on that issue. Therefore I think "Islamic view of Ezra" is an appropriate title. --Be happy!! (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody here know of Jewish pescher technique> According to it Eliasib, along with Ezra who would be son of God, and the current Davidic King would form the basis of the davidic trinity. These concepts are very very Jewish. This is likely what the Quran was condemning. (http://www.pesherofchrist.infinitesoulutions.com/). Someone should include this explanation in the article. That said reading the Bible and Jewish history its very easy to imagine there being a time when Jews took Ezra as son of God. I mean how many have the Jews fallen into outright polytheism despite what their religion says. The Levantine cults for example held great power amongst the Hebrew even during the time of the first temple, we saw that the temple was filled with polytheistic idols. Or Hebrew women who refused to stop worshipping the "Queen of Heaven" without which they felt their problems would never cease. Its not that the Israelites didn't worship Yahweh, its that they worshiped others besides him. For example in the Bible we see that when the Assyrians invaded the Hebrews felt that their enemies' gods were stronger than their protector god, Yahweh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.191.48 (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC) 

This does not sound very scholarly and impartial (taken from the intro, 5/Mar/09): 

"According to Kate Zebiri, a senior lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, "No Jewish or extra-Qur'anic sources available to us mention worshiping of Ezra as the “son of God” by Jews."[5] According to Abraham Geiger who was very knowledgeable in Islam and won a prize for his essay "Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?". The essay earned Geiger a doctorate at the University of Marburg. It demonstrated that large parts of the Koran were taken from, or based on, Rabbinic literature."

Also the absence of contemporary Muslim opinion on the issue is clear, despite non-Muslim contemporaries being cited. I think that the article is suggestive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.226.168 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 

Hello,
In terms of contemporary Muslim opinion, please incorporate the following quotes:
Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali writes:

Of course there is no evidence in the extant Old Testament about it; but the Qur'an was not referring to what is written in the Old Testament about 'Uzayr but to the belief and assertion of some of the Jews of the time who regarded 'Uzayr as the son of God. In fact the 'ayah in question, 9:30, starts with the expression: "And the Jews say". The commentator Al-Baydawi, to whome Watt refers a number of times in his book, (fn. Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, 108, note 2 to Chapter 1 and notes 2 and 10 to Chapter III) makes it clear with reference to this 'ayah that because the Old Testament was given its present form by 'Uzayr, many of the Jews of the time considered him a "son of God" and that specifically at Madina there was a group of Jews who held that belief. Al-Baydawi futher points out that the 'ayah in question was read out and recited as usual but no Madinan Jew came forward with a contradiction (fn.Al-Baydawi, Tafsir, I, second Egyptian impression, 1968, p. 412). It is to be noted that this 'ayah is unanimously regarded as Madinan. Hence the silence of the Jews of the place on the matter is suggestive enough, particularly as they were avowed critics of the Prophet.
Not only Al-Baydawi but also other commentators mention that the 'ayah refers to the views of a particular group of the Jews. For instance, Al-Tabari bives a number of reports together with their chains of narrators specifically mentioning the leading Jews of Madina who considered Uzayr a son of God. The most prominent of those Jews were Finhas, Sullam ibn Mishkam, Nu'man ibn Awfa, Sha's ibn Qays and Malik ibn al-Sayf (fn. Al-Tabari, Tafsir, XIV, 201-204). Similarly, Al-Qurtubi mentions the same fact and the same names adding that the expression "the Jews" occuring at the beginning of the 'ayah means "some particular Jews", just as the expression "people told them" (qala lahum al-nas) means not all the people of the world but some particular people. He further says that the Jewish sect who held that 'Uzayr was God's son had become extinct by his (Al-Qurtubi's) time (fn. Al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, Pt. VIII, 116-117).

 (Muhammad Mohar Ali, The Qur'an and the Orientalists, Jam'iyat 'Ihyaa' Minhaaj Al-Sunnah 2004, p. 66)

Muhammad Asad is a jew who converted to Islam and this is what he says about this verse...

This statement is connected with the preceding verse, which speaks of the erring followers of earlier revelation. The charge of shirk ("the ascribing of divinity [or "divine qualities"] to aught beside God") is levelled against both the Jews and the Christians in amplification, as it were, of the statement that they "do not follow the religion of truth [which God has enjoined upon them]".
As regards the belief attributed to the Jews that Ezra (or, in the Arabicized form of this name, `Uzayr) was "God's son", it is to be noted that almost all classical commentators of the Qur'an agree in that only the Jews of Arabia, and not all Jews, have been thus accused.
(According to a Tradition on the authority of Ibn `Abbas - quoted by Tabari in his commentary on this verse - some of the Jews of Medina once said to Muhammad, "How could we follow thee when thou hast forsaken our giblah* and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?")
(*[Qiblah in arabic] when the Muslims changed the direction of worship i.e. from Bayt Al Maqdis [in Jerusalem] to Masjid Al-Haraam in Makkah)
On the other hand, Ezra occupies a unique position in the esteem of all Jews, and has always been praised by them in the most extravagant terms. It was he who restored and codified the Torah after it had been lost during the Babylonian Exile, and "edited" it in more or less the form which it has today; and thus "he promoted the establishment of an exclusive, legalistic type of religion that became dominant in later Judaism" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1963, vol. IX, p. 15).
Ever since then he has been venerated to such a degree that his verdicts on the Law of Moses have come to be regarded by the Talmudists as being practically equivalent to the Law itself: which, in Qur'anic ideology, amounts to the unforgivable sin of shirk, inasmuch as it implies the elevation of a human being to the status of a quasi-divine law-giver and the blasphemous attribution to him - albeit metaphorically - of the quality of "sonship" in relation to God. Cf. in this connection Exodus iv, 22-23 ("Israel is My son") or Jeremiah xxxi, 9 ("I am a father to Israel"): expressions to which, because of their idolatrous implications, the Qur'an takes strong exception.

 (Asad, Message of the Qur'an)
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/ezra.html

One if you say the believe that Ezra was considered the son of Allah, by only a some group of Jews, so insignifigant that nobody mentions this belief before the Quran, one you contradict the Hadith which outright says it was the belief of all the Jews. Furthermore you have problems with context, in the context of this aya, where it is compared to the prevelancy of Christians believing Jesus is the son of Allah, also the Arabic no where says some Jews, it uses basically the same Arabic for Christian belief in Jesus being the son of Allah. Also one of the articles says maybe this is because of how much Ezra is venetrated in Judaism, and that this is not literal, couldn't I then say the Muslims say Muhammad is the son of God. Furthermore, as you know the belief that Muhammad is the son of Allah, is by defenition outside the belief of Islam, and is therefore wrong to apply to any people claiming to be Muslim. The same is true for saying Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah, it is outside of Jewish belief. As for the excuse well Ezra compiled the Old Testament, this is simply a lie. Furthermore, Ezra is not overly venetrated in Judaism, than any other prophet, and not at all to the level that one would mistake Jews for believing Ezra is the son of God. As for no Jew came and said it was a mistake, one this account is based off completely Muslim oral tradition. Second this account didn't happen, it was made up by Muslim apologists, as an excuse. It still makes you wonder if the belief that Ezra was the son of Allah, was so prevelant, that the Quran had to mention it, it seems odd that no non-Muslim records mention such, and too no one mentions it before the Quran. As for islamic-awareness I am familiar with this site, it is completely unscholarly. It does stuff like misquote people to make it seem like an opinion they reject is their opinion, use a bunch of out of context quotes, then reach a conclusion none of the people who were taken out of context would support, cite people expressing fringe opinions as long as it supports Islam, cite out of date research, and other unadacemic things --Java7837 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

...one you contradict the Hadith which outright says it was the belief of all the Jews...
I don't know of such Hadith, strong or weak. Can you quote it?
...also the Arabic no where says some Jews,...
Don't forget that the Holy Quran was revealed in Arabic and thus follows Arabic grammar rules and it's very well known that in Arabic you can use the plural for the singular, talk about the whole when you only mean the part. Want evidence from the Holy Quran itself? Here it is:
1-"Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations." Chapter 3 - verse 42.
Please note that in this translation (Yusuf Ali) as well as in the Original the Angels is in the plural. Do you think that the Quran meant that all the angels in all the heavens said this or only the angels that were sent to her?
2-"The desert Arabs say, "We believe." Say, "Ye have no faith; but ye (only)say, 'We have submitted our wills to Allah,' For not yet has Faith entered your hearts. But if ye obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not belittle aught of your deeds: for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Chapter 49 - verse 14.
Again do you think that this was the saying of all the desert arabs? Of course not, as it is very well known from other verses of the Holy Quran and various Hadiths.
As for no Jew came and said it was a mistake, one this account is based off completely Muslim oral tradition. 
The issue here is not whether the oral tradition is right or wrong. It's a common sense issue. Do you think that anyone with the least amount of common sense would ascribe a saying to someone who hasn't said it while this person is alive and can easily be contacted for verification. Why would I do that? Why risk my authenticity for something that won't give me any benefit?
It still makes you wonder if the belief that Ezra was the son of Allah, was so prevelant, that the Quran had to mention it, it seems odd that no non-Muslim records mention such, and too no one mentions it before the Quran.
You should have added as far as I know because it is mentioned and a lot. 
What do you say of this?
For thou shalt be taken away from all, and from henceforth thou shalt remain with my Son, and with such as be like thee, until the times be ended. 
This is is verse 9 of Chapter 14 of 2 Esdras which is cannonized in many scriptures. Here is an online from sacred-texts site: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/es2014.htm
--Msharnoubi (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This quote seems to me to be pointing out that Esdras is being taken to the SOn, not that Esdras is the Son. Also, 2 Esdras is not considered canonical by any Jews in ancient or modern times to the best of my knowledge. 88.226.101.175 (talk) 06:59, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Furthermore, 2 Esdras seems to be written AFTER the time of Jesus. I may be wrong though. 88.226.101.175 (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

(quote)Also in surah 3:67 it says, "Abraham was neither Jewish, nor Christian; he was a monotheist submitter. He never was an idol worshiper." and in surah 2:135 it reads "And they say, 'Be Jews or Christians and you shall be guided.' Say thou: 'Nay, rather the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith; he was no idolater.'" clearly implying the author(s) of the Quran believed that Jews in general associate either a partner or partners with God. Furthermore many believe claiming that the verse refers to a some group of Jews, Muslims are limiting Allah, so as to say the Quran, is the word of Allah.(quote)
The part which i highlighted in bold has been perhaps misinterpreted wrongly, he was no idolater may simply mean he was not an idolater(pagan), not implying that Jews or Christians were idolaters.
Thus the verse was trying to say that Abraham was not a Jew(by faith) or Christian or a pagan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.243 (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 
>>has never collaborated with any evidence.
ought this not to be 'has never been corroborated with any evidence'?
71.30.83.37 (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Also,what is with the reference to "Muslim apologists" throughout the artcile?Enigmie (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If any of you are going to revert to a previous version of the article..  don't.  Whole scale blind reverts restore the use of a previously deleted template, that the article currently of course does not use.  If you are going to make edits, do it without a blind revert that restores deleted templates.— Dædαlus Contribs 01:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

"...in fact Judaism is more strict on its interpretation of monotheism than Islam." <- I strongly disagree with this statement and this is simply based on the Qur'an itseld. In Surah al-Ikhlas of the Qur'an mentions that 'God is One and Only' and that 'He neither begets nor is He begotten'. So, how is it then that Judaism is more strict on its interpretation of monotheism than Islam? Can someone please explain to me? Perhaps this needs to be corrected or rephrased.

Could someone explain to me why this sourced section was removed?Per WP:NPOV we should represent all views on this matter Jewish and Muslim.--Shrike (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, it's nice to finally see an article about something disagreed upon by Muslims and Jews to be (relatively) clear of rampant POV allegations and edit warring. Just wanted you to now that there's some grammar issues, in the article, so I'll be bold and fix them.PerfectGentleman (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Scholar Abdal Hakim Murad (Timothy Winter) has stated the following on this issue; "on Uzair as ‘son of Allah’, this Uzair clearly has nothing to do with Ezra the Scribe (whose name is not Uzair in Arabic anyway). Looking at the etymology, Gordon Newby (‘The Jews of Arabia’, p. 60-1) has identified him with Enoch, whom Jews often assimilated to Metatron, a creator-angel who was one of the ‘sons of Allah’ (b’nai elohim) in rabbinic Judaism in the period. The Qur'an is apparently taking the side of the Karaites against the Rabbinites, who had effectively divinised Enoch through identifying him with Metatron. There is not the flimsiest piece of evidence suggesting that Ezra is meant."[11]
The source cited is http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/a-reply-from-tim-winter-on-the-crucifixion/
The linked blog no longer exists. And a wordpress blog does not seem like a reliable source so I ask: Should we keep this piece of text of remove it? Human10.0 (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "chief perspective" on Ezra is Jewish and not Islamic, because he was a Jewish figure predating Qur'an by almost a millennium. Same if "Uzair" is identified with any other Jewish figure from history. Qur'an's (read Muhammad's) completely baseless and slanderous claim is indeed clearly stated in the article to have no historic corroboration whatsoever - neither in Judaism's own sources, nor in the sources of other peoples of the Middle East. These people shouldn't be allowed to subvert this basic and self-evident truth so that they may feel cozy with their belief that "Qur'an is perfect" and cannot contradict reality (which it does, many times). An editor with an appropriate moniker "Emir" swiftly removed this paragraph despite me not editing anything in the article itself, on pretext of this "not being a forum", a lack of "good faith" and not putting it at the end of the page. While paragraphs above like the one titled "Ezra being son of God is very Jewish" which are clearly offensive and what matters most, mind-bogglingly untrue (especially in the light of the well-known Jewish rejection of such concepts for which we were killed, maimed and exiled for 2000 years by Christians), conveniently remained. Either remove everything or leave my statement alone. Here, I am putting it at the end of the page. 81.218.33.195 (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The last section appearently needs further verifications. Does this article still fullfill the criteria for a "good article"?--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed that OR parapgraph (tagged as such since 2015).  I think the article is of current GA quality with that removed. --ThaddeusB (talk)