Surah 9. At-Tauba, Ayah 30
| وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ عُزَيْرٌ ابْنُ اللَّهِ وَقَالَتِ النَّصَارَى الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ اللَّهِ ۖ ذَٰلِكَ قَوْلُهُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِهِمْ ۖ يُضَاهِئُونَ قَوْلَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ قَبْلُ ۚ قَاتَلَهُمُ اللَّهُ ۚ أَنَّىٰ يُؤْفَكُونَ |
| Transliteration | : | wa- qaalat al- yahod cuzayr ibn 'allaah wa- qaalat an- nas.aaraa al- maseh. ibn 'allaah dhaalika qawl -hum bi- afwaah -him yud.aahi'on qawl 'alladhena kafaro min qablu qaatala -hum 'allaah 'annaa yu'fakon |
| Pickthall | : | And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! |
| Asad | : | AND THE JEWS say, "Ezra is God's son," while the Christians say, "The Christ is God's son." Such are the sayings which they utter with their mouths, following in spirit assertions made in earlier times by people who denied the truth!44 [They deserve the imprecation:] "May God destroy them!"45 How perverted are their minds!46 |
| Malik | : | The Jews say: "Uzair (Azra) is the son of Allah," and the Christians say: " Messiah (Christ) is the son of Allah." That is what they say with their mouths, imitating the sayings of the former unbelievers. May Allah destroy them! How perverted they are! |
| Yusuf Ali | : | The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth! 1283 1284 1285 |
Note - 44This 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 Our'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
qiblah and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?") 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.
|
Note - 45My interpolation, between brackets, of the words "they
deserve the imprecation" is based on Zamakhshari's and
Razi's convincing interpretation of this phrase.
Originally, the Arabs used the expression "may God
destroy him" in the sense of a direct imprecation; but
already in pre-Qur'anic Arabic it had assumed the
character of an idiomatic device meant to circumscribe
anything that is extremely strange or horrifying: and,
according to many philologists, "this, rather than its
literal meaning, is the purport [of this phrase] here"
(Manar X, 399).
|
Note - 46See surah {5}, note [90].
|
Note - 1283In n. 718 to v. 18, 1 have quoted passages from the Old
Testament, showing how freely the expression "sons of
Allah" was used by the Jews. A sect of them called 'Uzair
a son of Allah, according to Baidhawl. In Appendix II
(Sura v.) I have shown that the constitution of Judaism
dates from 'Uzair (Ezra). The Christians still call
Christ the Son of Allah.
|
Note - 1284Taking men for gods or sons of Allah was not a new thing.
All ancient mythologies have fables of that kind. There
was less excuse for such blasphemies after the Prophets
of Allah had clearly explained out true relation to Allah
than in the times of primitive ignorance and
superstition.
|
Note - 1285Cf. v. 75.
|
Share your thoughts about this with others by posting a comment. Visit our FAQ for some ideas.
Filter Comments 
 |
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 Our'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 qiblah and dost not consider Ezra a son of God?") 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. |
| |
My interpolation, between brackets, of the words "they deserve the imprecation" is based on Zamakhshari's and Razi's convincing interpretation of this phrase. Originally, the Arabs used the expression "may God destroy him" in the sense of a direct imprecation; but already in pre-Qur'anic Arabic it had assumed the character of an idiomatic device meant to circumscribe anything that is extremely strange or horrifying: and, according to many philologists, "this, rather than its literal meaning, is the purport [of this phrase] here" (Manar X, 399). |
| |
In n. 718 to v. 18, 1 have quoted passages from the Old Testament, showing how freely the expression "sons of Allah" was used by the Jews. A sect of them called 'Uzair a son of Allah, according to Baidhawl. In Appendix II (Sura v.) I have shown that the constitution of Judaism dates from 'Uzair (Ezra). The Christians still call Christ the Son of Allah. |
| |
Taking men for gods or sons of Allah was not a new thing. All ancient mythologies have fables of that kind. There was less excuse for such blasphemies after the Prophets of Allah had clearly explained out true relation to Allah than in the times of primitive ignorance and superstition. |
