3rd Annual Holy Quran & Science Symposium, November 14

einstein on science and religion

Bait-uz-Zafar Mosque

118-15 McLaughlin Avenue, Queens, NY

Saturday November 14th, 2015 10AM-5PM

9:00 AM

Breakfast

10:00 AM

Session 1: The Quran on science & religion: Partners, not rivals

Moderators: Moulana Daud Hanif; Karim Sharif, PhD; Ibshar Khandakar Sahib

Tilawat: Taimur Ahmed Sahib

Welcoming

Sohail Z Husain, MD; Nazir Ayaz Sahib; Zulfikar Sikder Sahib

Honey: A cure for mankind

Tauseef Khan, PhD

Honeybee democracy & decision making

Mohamed Alburaki, PhD

Making leaps & bounds in science through the lens of the Quran Moulana Naseem Mahdi and Abdul Naseer Malmi Kakkada, PhD

Panel discussion

11:45 AM

Session 2a (Men’s Hall): Ahmadi Muslim scientists in action

Moderators: Karimullah Zirvi, PhD; Fizan Abdullah, MD, PhD; Ijaz Ahmed, PhD

Using organic chemistry to recycle rare earth metals

Ijaz Ahmed, PhD

Tackling the problem of cancer

Manzurul Sikder, MD

Reconciling the nature of chemical sidedness from the Quran Hameed Mirza, PhD

Preventing a disease of our own doing: Post-ERCP pancreatitis Abraham I Orabi, BS

The Quran on the molecules that turn on organ regeneration

Sohail Z Husain, MD

Thriving as a physician-scientist

Fizan Abdullah, MD, PhD

Panel discussion

11:45 AM

Session 2b (Women’s Hall): Ahmadi Women Scientist Association (AWSA) program

11:45 AM

Session 2c (Classrooms): Atfalul Ahmadiyya-sponsored team science jeopardy

Moderators: Moulana Hamid N. Malik; Moulana Adnan Ahmed; Zaid Saifullah, BS; Syed Musawar Ahmad, MD

1:00 PM

Zuhr prayer & lunch

2:15 PM

Session 3: Science Fair tour

Judges: Karim Sharif, PhD; Moulana Hamid N. Malik; Sardar Anees Ahmad

3:15 PM

Asr prayer

3:30 PM

Session 4: Hot Topics in science & religion

Moderators: Masoud Malik Sahib; Zia Shah, MD; Moulana Naseem Mahdi;
Sohail Z Husain, MD

Tilawat

Adeel Malik Sahib

The Quran on Evolution & the origin of species

Karim Sharif, PhD

The Quran on genetic engineering: GMO, cloning, & DNA editing Zia Shah, MD

Panel discussion, followed by concluding remarks

5:00 PM

Maghrib prayer & dinner

Twitter: @ScienceMuslim

E-mail: muslim.scientist@ahmadiyya.us

Website: http://www.muslimscientists.org

To enjoy 2014 videos in Youtube, click here

4 replies

  1. It is said that the quran is the word of God and contains no errors. That will be true if it is be proved from Jewish sources that the Jews, who do not believe in God having a son, regard Ezra as the son of God as the author of the quran alleges in sura 9(Repentance):30.

    • Do the Jews believe `Uzayr as to be Son of God?
      Ansar Raza, Life Devotee, Missionary, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at, Canada
      3001 Finch Ave West, #103, North York, ON M9M 3A9
      Email: ansar58@gmail.com Tel: 416-732-7801
      “And the Jews say, `Ezra is the son of Allāh,’ and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is the son of Allāh;’ that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allāh’s curse be on them! How they are turned away!” (9:30)
      In this verse, the Holy Qur`ān equates the Jews with the Christians having the same belief about the Prophet `Uzayr as (Ezra) as the Christians have about Jesus Christ as, i.e., ‘son of God’. Rejecting this notion, the Jews claim that there is no such belief found in Judaism about Ezra or any other Prophet, and that this Qur’anic statement is totally false and a baseless allegation against them, not found in the Bible or any Jewish literature. They claim that they strongly believe in this famous creed of Judaism which says; “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
      Ibn Hazm, a great Muslim scholar and exegete has attributed this belief to the Sadducee sect of the Jews, lived in Yemen. The Jewish and Christian scholars have denied the existence of any such Jewish group and have declared such interpretations as a futile attempt to prove the Qur`ānic statement true.
      THE CONCEPT OF SON OF GOD IN THE BIBLE
      The study of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, however, shows that the concept of sonship of God, if not literal but metaphorical, is found in it, as angels and many righteous men are referred to as ‘sons of God’.
      “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6)
      The Bible also referred to God’s special relationship with the Israelites – His chosen people as God’s son:
      “And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the Lord: ‘Israel is My son. My first born’.” (Exodus 4:22)
      “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hosea 11:1)
      Prophet David as is also called son of God.
      “I [David] will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your Father’.” (Psalms 2:7)
      This sonship was passed on to Prophet Solomon as and, by implication, to all future successors of the House of David.
      “Behold, a son shall be born to you [David]…His name shall be Solomon…He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.” (Psalms 2:7)
      Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:31-36)
      As stated in the above incident, when the Jews took stones in their hands to stone Jesus to punish him for calling himself ‘son of God’ he quoted this verse of Psalms in which the Jews were metaphorically called gods, thus explaining his claim to be a metaphorical son of God, not the literal one.
      I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalm 82:6)
      EZRA SINGLED OUT
      As far as the sonship of Ezra is concerned, modern Jewish scholars vehemently deny it as part of the Jewish faith. However, the study of Jewish literature reveals that Ezra holds a special, rather a unique, status amongst the other Israelite Prophets, including Moses. Though it is denied in Encyclopedia Judaica that the Jewish people consider Ezra as son of God, the author of the article under the title ‘Ezra’ mentions this unique position of Ezra among all other Prophets being “singled out”.
      “He was so zealous in spreading the Torah, that rabbis said of him, “If Moses had not anticipated him, Ezra would have received the Torah” (Tosef., Sanh. 4:7). He restored and reestablished the Torah that had been almost completely forgotten (Suk. 20a).” (Encyclopedia Judaica Vol-6 P-1106 – Under Ezra – In the Aggadah)
      “In Islam: Muhammad claims (Sura 9:30) that in the opinion of the Jews, `Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of God. These words are an enigma because no such opinion is to be found among the Jews, even though Ezra was singled out for special appreciation (See Sanh. 21b; Yev. 86 b). The Muslim traditionalists attempt to explain the words of Muhammad with a Muslim legend, whose origin appears to stem from IV Ezra 14: 18-19. The people of Israel sinned, they were punished by God, the Holy Ark was removed and the Torah was forgotten. It was due, however, to Ezra’s merit that his heart was filled with the Torah of God, which he taught to the people of Israel.. When the Holy Ark was returned to them and they compared that which Ezra taught them with the text of the Sefer Torah in the Holy Ark, the words they found were identical. They deduced from this that Ezra was the son of Allah. Tabarī cites another version of this legend: the Jewish scholars themselves hid the Ark, after they were beaten by the Amalekites. H. Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm (I, 99), namely, that the “righteous” who live in Yemen believe 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 the messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christians saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. An allusion to the figure of Ezra as the apostle of the messiah is found in a tale which is widespread among the Jews of Yemen, according to which Ezra requested that they emigrated to Erez Israel, and because they did not, he cursed them. Yemenite Jews have, therefore, refrained from naming their children Ezra. According to some Muslim commentators, `Uzayr is the man who passed by the destroyed city (of Jerusalem; Sura 2:261) and did not believe that it could be rebuilt.” (P-1106, 1107)
      A famous orientalist translator of the Holy Qur`ān, George Sale, also denies this fact mentioned in the Holy Qur`ān and calling it a grievous charge against the Jews, yet feels some little weight in it and believes to have its roots in the fables of rabbins.
      “This grievous charge against the Jews, the commentators endeavour to support by telling us, that it is meant of some ancient heterodox 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 marveled, and declared that he could not have done it, unless he were the son of God. Al Beidāwi 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 thus 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 were 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, who suppose that he only collected and set forth a correct edition of the scriptures, which he labored 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 Christian 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 way of thinking of those men.” (P-152 – THE KORAN by George Sale, Ninth Edition, Philadelphia and London J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY 1923)
      Gordon Darnell Newby, an associate professor of history at North Carolina State University, did an unbiased research and proved that not only Ezra, but Enoch (Prophet Idress as), Baruch, teacher of Ezra, and Elijah were believed to have been translated to heavens alive, stripped off their humanity and ranked among the sons of God. He wrote:
      “Ezra is noted in the Bible as the leader of the expedition of return to Jerusalem from exile and the reestablishment of the Jewish state. For the rabbis, Ezra was the equivalent of Moses. Sanhedrin 21b contends that Ezra would have been the recipient of the Torah had it not already been given to Moses, but he was instead given the task of restoring the forgotten law. He is credited with the introduction of the proper means of writing the Torah, and for this activity he is given the title of Scribe. In extra-rabbinic literature, this appellation is given as “Scribe of the knowledge of the Most High”, a title usually given to one of several archangels, Elijah, and Enoch. Ezra was a disciple of Baruch, who was taken by God to heaven while alive, and Ezra himself was translated to heaven alive, which represents another point of correspondence with Elijah and Enoch. The equation of Ezra the Scribe with Enoch the Scribe and their translations is most likely the solution to our problem.
      Enoch was of the generation of the Flood, of those who transgressed. In the popular books of Enoch, he was taken to heaven so that he would not be destroyed when God abandoned the earth and as a sign of God’s mercy that one pious man would be saved. When translated into heaven, he was stripped of his humanity and transformed into the powerful angel, Metatron, who was taught by God all the secrets, more than any other creature, indeed, and was given guardianship over the treasures of God and became a lesser God. In 3 Enoch 48C, verses 1-4 we read
      Alep: The Holy One, blessed be he, said: I made him strong. I took him, I appointed him, namely Metatron my servant, who is unique among all the denizens of the heights.
      Alep: “I made him strong” in the generation of the first man. When I saw that the men of the generation of the Flood were behaving corruptly, I came and removed my Shekinah from their midst, and I brought it up with the sound of the horn and with shouting to the height above, as it is written.
      God went up to the sound of horn,
      The Lord went up with a fanfare of trumpets.
      Lamed: “I took him”—Enoch the son of Jared, from their midst, and brought him up with the sound of the trumpet and with shouting to the height, to be my witness, together with the four creatures of the chariot, to the world to come.
      Peh: “I appointed him”—over all the storehouses and treasuries which I have in every heaven, and I entrusted to him the keys of each of them. I set him as a prince over all the princes, and made him a minister of the throne of glory….I committed to him wisdom and understanding, so that he should behold the secrets of heaven above and earth beneath.
      It is particularly interesting to find this material in 3 Enoch, because we can deduce that the inhabitants of the Hijāz 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 sons of God, the Bene Elohīm, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causers 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 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 Hijāz who were apparently involved in the mystical speculations associated with the merkābāh, 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 Elohīm. And, of course, he would fit the description of a religious leader (one of the ahbār of Quran 9:31.) whom the Jews had exalted.” (P: 60-61 – A History of the Jews of Arabia by Gordon Darnell Newby, published in Columbia, South Carolina, by the University of South Carolina Press, 1988 – First Edition).
      Yoram Erder of Tel Aviv University in his article, “The Origin of the Name Idrīs in the Qur`ān: A Study of the Influence of Qumran Literature on Early Islam” appeared in Journal of the Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 339-350, published by the University of Chicago Press, has confirmed this fact that there was a Jewish sect in Yemen which had such beliefs against the mainstream rabbinical Judaism. He wrote:
      “It is evident from the influence of the Enoch literature on the Yemenī Jews of that period, that they were far removed from the mainstream of rabbinical Judaism, which opposed this literature. According to Ibn Hazm, the Jews mentioned in the Qur`ān who believed that `Uzayr was the son of God were members of the Sadducee sect in Yemen. We know today that the Karaites referred to the Qumranic fragments in their possession as Sadducean literature perhaps because of the important role which the family of the Sadducean priests played there.
      Based on the writings of Ibn Hazm, we can conclude that the Sadducean literature, i.e., Enoch literature, possessed by the Karaites in Babylonia and Persia from the eight century on, was also available to the Yemenī Jews in the seventh century.”
      Erminie Huntress wrote in the article, “SON OF GOD” IN JEWISH WRITINGS PRIOR TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA” appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Jun., 1935), pp. 117-123 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature, that after Jewish controversy with Christianity, Jewish scholars, particularly Targumists, (the scholars who narrate Hebrew Bible into Aramaic in prayer services) changed such phrases and terms about sonship of God.
      “The least important use of the term “sons of God” is its application to supernatural beings, reflecting the polytheistic notion of a group or family of gods, beings divine by nature who later became angels. This is illustrated in Gen. 6 2, 4, Job 1 6, 2 i, 38 7, Psalms 29 1 and 89 6, Psalm 82 (if the “sons of the Most High” are angels rather than human judges), Dan. 3 25. In the second century Noah fragment at the end of the book of Enoch (En. 106) there is a curious tale describing Noah’s birth, in which he shows supernatural qualities and is suspected of being the son of a “son of God.” In En. 69 4, 5 and 71 1 ff., passages on the angels (first century B. C. or A. D) Charles translates “sons of God,” believing that to be the original reading; but the text has “sons of the angels.” The circumlocution suggests that this use of the phrase “sons of God” was beginning to seem objectionable. The same feeling may be reflected in some versions of Psalm 89 6 and 29 1, which change אֶלהִ’ם [Elohim] to אֶלִ’ם [Elim] “the mighty.” [Emphasis added] In Wisd. 5 5 (first century B. C.) Dr. Schmidt suggests that the sons of God here are the inhabitants of the celestial world, not only the human saints but the angels; this is possible, but not to be proved. Hence we conclude that while such usage still existed in the second century B. C. there is no certain evidence of it in the first century B. C. or A. D. The reaction against it may, then, have started even before the controversy with Christianity; it might well result simply from the logic of Judaism. The Targums rule out this use of the phrase completely. [Emphasis added] It implied a participation by created beings in the nature of God, which the Jews came to consider impossible, all the more so since some of these angels had sinned.”
      She further wrote about this change.
      The Targums usually change the wording of such Old Testament passages. [Emphasis added] For example, the Targum renders Isa. 1 2 “a people whom I have called sons,” and Jer. 31 sb “My word is to Israel like a father and Ephraim is dear before me.” But although the Targums were undoubtedly taking shape as early as the first century, the final official versions now extant are of course from the third, fourth, or fifth centuries A. D. and show the effects of the conflict with Christianity. The Targumists were concerned not only to repudiate the idea that the Messiah was to be the Son of God, but to deny that God could have a son at all. [Emphasis added]
      The above references prove, beyond doubt that not only the concept of sonship of God, whether literal or figurative, was prevalent among the Jews but also some figures including Ezra were considered as sons of God.
      EZRA—اِبْنٌ “IBN” OF GOD OR HIS وَلَدٌ “WALAD”?
      Now, let’s examine this issue from another perspective by checking the etymological difference between the two words, اِبْنٌ “IBN” AND وَلَدٌ “WALAD” used for ‘son’ in Arabic.
      The study of Qur’ān shows that, in Arabic, there are two words, اِبْنٌ “IBN” AND وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, used to denote “son”. Though both of these words mean ‘son’, it is needed to be kept in mind that every وَلَدٌ “WALAD” is اِبْنٌ “IBN” but every اِبْنٌ “IBN” is not وَلَدٌ “WALAD”. The following differences between the two elucidate this point.
      وَلَدٌ “WALAD”
      وَلَدٌ “WALAD” is one Who is procreated, begotten, engendered, produced or originated from another thing of same kind and species. Therefore, only that person is called وَلَدٌ “WALAD” who is a biological child of his/her parents. Lane quotes an Arabic proverb which says that وُلْدُکِ مَنْ دَمَّی عَقِبَیْکِ “your son is he who made your two heels to be smeared with blood” and explains that “whom you yourself brought forth, he is your son really, not he whom you have taken from another and adopted”.
      Imam Rāghib says that the verb “وَلَدَ” shows the birth of one thing from another thing (of same kind) تَوَلَّدُ الشَّیءِ مِنَ الشَّیءِ.This is the root meaning of the verb “وَلَدَ”. In another verse a derivative of this verb is used to show procreation:
      11:73قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَاْ عَجُوزٌ وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا إِنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عَجِيبٌ
      She said, ‘Oh, woe is me! Shall I bear a child when I am an old woman, and this my husband is an old man? This is indeed a strange thing!’
      This concept, that God begot a son, is refuted in Qur’ān by saying: لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ [112:4] ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten, because a begotten child has to be of the same kind, essence, and nature like his father. A human begets a human and an animal begets the same kind of animal like it. Therefore, one begotten by God has to be God, which is strictly against monotheism as Allāh says
      4:172۔۔۔ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً
      [4:172] …Verily, Allāh is the only One God. Far is it from His Holiness that He should have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as a Guardian.
      Father of وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, called وَالِدٌ “WĀLID” needs to have a spouse, but even Christians believe that God has no spouse. Mary is called “Mother of God (the Son)” but not the “Wife of God (the Father)”
      6:102بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُ صَاحِبَةٌ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
      [6:102] The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?
      72:4وَأَنَّهُ تَعَالَى جَدُّ رَبِّنَا مَا اتَّخَذَ صَاحِبَةً وَلَا وَلَدًا
      [72:4] ‘And we believe that the majesty of our Lord is exalted. He has taken neither wife nor son unto Himself.
      Imam Raghib further says that this word is also used for adopted son and has quoted the verses, but we must see that in this case the word used is نَتِّخِذَہٗ.
      12:22وَقَالَ الَّذِي اشْتَرَاهُ مِن مِّصْرَ لاِمْرَأَتِهِ أَكْرِمِي مَثْوَاهُ عَسَى أَن يَنفَعَنَا أَوْ نَتَّخِذَهُ وَلَدًا
      [12:22] And the man from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, ‘Make his stay honourable. Maybe he will be of benefit to us; or we shall adopt him as a son.’…
      28:10وَقَالَتِ امْرَأَتُ فِرْعَوْنَ قُرَّتُ عَيْنٍ لِّي وَلَكَ لَا تَقْتُلُوهُ عَسَى أَن يَنفَعَنَا أَوْ نَتَّخِذَهُ وَلَدًا وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ
      [28:10] And Pharaoh’s wife said, ‘He will be a joy of the eye, for me and for thee. Kill him not. Haply he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son.’ And they perceived not the consequences thereof.
      These two Prophets are stated to have been adopted as “وَلَد” not “اِبْن” because “وَلَد” includes the meaning of and taken as “اِبْن” because every “وَلَد” is “اِبْن” but every “اِبْن” is not “وَلَد”. Aziz and Pharaoh took these Prophets as “اِبْن” but called them “وَلَد” as it contains both the meanings.

      Secondly, in Arabic the words are used either as ’’حقیقۃ‘‘(real) or ’’مجاز‘‘ (metaphor / figurative). A word is used as ’’حقیقۃ‘‘ (real) without any supporting evidence (قرینہ) whereas the same word when used as metaphor or figure of speech necessarily needs قرینہ. In the above quoted two verses non-biological parents and the use of the verb اَخَذَ instead of اَلِدَ is mentioned as قرینہ.

      Allāh has also negated to take an adopted son for Him because even in this case both the adopted son and adopted parent have to be of the same kind and nature. It is therefore fine for Aziz and Pharaoh to adopt a وَلَد but not fine for Allah to adopt a human وَلَد as, being a weakness, it is against the monotheistic status of God, His prestige and majesty to either beget or adopt a son as وَلَد. The concept of any people or individual being “اِبْن” is denied in Qur’an only because of their inappropriateness to be “اِبْن” of God or call anyone His “اِبْن”
      اِبْنٌ “IBN”
      In contrast to وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, اِبْنٌ “IBN” has a wider connotation and includes:
      • a son;
      • a son’s son. The Holy Prophet Muhammadsaw recited this poetic verse during the battle of Hunain, أَنَا النَّبِیُّ لَا کَذِبْ أَنَا إِبْنِ عَبْدُ الْمُطَّلِبْ calling himself son of Abdul-Muttalib, his grandfather though he was not his biological father);
      • and a descendant more remote;
      • People belong to a tribe, a community or a nation called بنی , plural of اِبْنٌ “IBN”, of that tribe, community or nation, e.g., بنی اسرائیل، “Banī Isrāel”; بنی اسماعیل “Banī Ismāel”; بنی آدم “Banī Ādam”;
      • a title or a qualifying name like ابن مریم، ابن السبیل، ابن ابی کبشہ ابو تراب، ابو ہریرہ

      WORD FOR ‘SON’ IN HEBREW
      The word used for ‘son’ in Hebrew is בן, bēn which is equivalent to the Arabic word اِبْنٌ “IBN” not وَلَدٌ “WALAD”. Frank W. Hardy, a Ph.D. in linguistics, presented meanings of ‘bēn’ from two lexicons, their examples from the Bible and categorized them as under:
      “In Hebrew the word bēn can of course be used to describe a male child in relation to his biological father or mother. But it is also frequently used to express a relationship based on shared attributes. The difference could be seen as a contrast in temporal emphasis. The idea of biological descent focuses on where a person came from–in the past. The concept of shared attributes focuses on the characteristics that a person has now–in the present.”( http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/Heb_Ben.pdf)
      BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP
      Son; Grandson (more often son’s son); Child, children
      NON-BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP
      Showing fatherly attitude; Omit name, showing disdainful attitude
      NO RELATIONSHIP
      Member of a people, tribe, Professional Society, Youth, young men (pl); Single Individual; component of a name
      IDIOMATIC MEANING
      Quality, characteristic / mood or fate; Son of (=devoted to) God, divine being; son of man (Sg.) / children of men (pl), other; Age, stage of life
      EXTENDED MEANING
      Young of animals, of plant shoots; of lifeless beings
      Literal Gloss Idiomatic Meaning Example
      Son of Belial Evil man Deut 13:13
      Son of bravery Brave man 1 Sam 14:52
      Son of death Man worthy to die 1 Sam 20:31
      Son of pledges Hostage 2 Kgs 14:14
      Son of rebellion Rebel Num 17:10
      Son of strength Strong man 2 Kgs 2:16
      Son of stripes Man worthy to be beaten Deut 25:2
      Son of wickedness Wicked man 2 Sam 1:34

      FATHER = وَالِدٌ “WĀLID” AND أَبٌ “ABŪ”
      As mentioned above, a father of a وَلَدٌ “WALAD” is called وَالِدٌ “WĀLID”; whereas a father of an اِبْنٌ “IBN” is called أَبٌ “Abū” which has wider meaning than وَالِدٌ “WĀLID”. That is why, while addressing all the Muslims, Allāh called Hazrat Ibrāhīmas أَبٌ “ABŪ not وَالِدٌ “WĀLID of all the Muslims, and not only of his own physical progeny:
      22:79وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ …
      [22:79] And strive in the cause of Allah as it behoves you to strive for it. He has chosen you, and has laid no hardship upon you in religion; so follow the faith of your father Abraham…
      Hazrat Ibrāhīmas also acknowledges this fact and declares those who follow him belong to him.
      14:37رَبِّ إِنَّهُنَّ أَضْلَلْنَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ النَّاسِ فَمَن تَبِعَنِي فَإِنَّهُ مِنِّي وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَإِنَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
      [14:37] ‘My Lord, they have indeed led astray many among mankind. So whoever follows me, he is certainly of me; and whoever disobeys me — Thou art, surely, Most Forgiving, Merciful.
      UZAYRAS— اِبْنٌ “IBN” OR وَلَدٌ “WALAD”
      When we examine the verse [9:30], in the light of the above mentioned facts, we see that the word use in it for ‘son’ is اِبْنٌ “IBN” and not وَلَدٌ “WALAD”. We also know that Christians believe Jesus to be of the same essence, kind, and nature as that of God the Father, hence the وَلَدٌ “WALAD” of God and not His اِبْنٌ “IBN”. Even if they call him اِبْنٌ “IBN” what they mean is وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, by definition, being just like God. It is therefore, unjust to claim that Qur’ān put Jesus and Ezra at the same level of sonship and allege Jews and Christians of having the same kind of belief about these two Prophets being the sons of God.
      WHAT IS DENIED IN QUR’ĀN—BEING وَلَدٌ “WALAD” OR BEING اِبْنٌ “IBN”?
      The study of Qur’ān further reveals that Allāh has condemned this belief in strongest terms that Allāh has taken a وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, and warned those who believe so. Rather, Allāh has expressed the severity of this belief by declaring it enough to make the heavens burst, earth cleave asunder and the mountains fall down in pieces
      18:5وَيُنذِرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا
      [18:5] And that it may warn those who say, ‘ Allāh has taken unto Himself a son.’
      19:91تَكَادُ السَّمَاوَاتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِنْهُ وَتَنشَقُّ الْأَرْضُ وَتَخِرُّ الْجِبَالُ هَدًّا 19:92أَن دَعَوْا لِلرَّحْمَنِ وَلَدًا
      [19:91] The heavens might well-nigh burst thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces, [19:92] Because they ascribe a son to the Gracious God.
      Nonetheless, Allāh did not refute claim of the Jews and the Christians of being اِبْنٌ “IBN” of God and His dear ones but merely dismissed it being not at par with their deeds:
      5:19وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَى نَحْنُ أَبْنَاء اللّهِ وَأَحِبَّاؤُهُ قُلْ فَلِمَ يُعَذِّبُكُم بِذُنُوبِكُم…
      [5:19] The Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are sons of Allāh and His loved ones.’ Say, ‘Why then does He punish you for your sins?
      Likewise, pagans of Makka used to call angels and certain deities as “daughters” of God notwithstanding the fact that they do not like daughters for themselves but only boys.
      16:59وَإِذَا بُشِّرَ أَحَدُهُمْ بِالأُنثَى ظَلَّ وَجْهُهُ مُسْوَدًّا وَهُوَ كَظِيمٌ
      [16:59] And when to one of them is conveyed the tidings of the birth of a female, his face darkens, while he suppresses his inward grief.
      Allāh did not condemn or warn them in such strong terms as He did to Christians, but just sarcastically said that it is a very unfair division to assign males for themselves and females for God.
      37:150 فَاسْتَفْتِهِمْ أَلِرَبِّكَ الْبَنَاتُ وَلَهُمُ الْبَنُونَ
      [37:150] Now ask them whether thy Lord has daughters whereas they have sons.
      52:40أَمْ لَهُ الْبَنَاتُ وَلَكُمُ الْبَنُونَ
      [52:40] Has He daughters and you have sons?
      53:22أَلَكُمُ الذَّكَرُ وَلَهُ الْأُنثَى 53:23تِلْكَ إِذًا قِسْمَةٌ ضِيزَى
      [53:22] ‘What! for you the males and for Him the females!’ [53:23] That indeed is an unfair division.

      CONCLUSION
      As quoted above, Jewish and Christian scholars “single out” Ezra among all other Israelite Prophets and consider him not only at par with Moses but also with Elijah and Enoch, who are considered a lesser God, and like whom he was also translated to the heavens. We also found out that the Qur’ān does not allege the Jews to believe in Ezra as a وَلَدٌ WALAD of God as Christians believe Jesus to be i.e., of the same essence of and a part of God or himself a God, but as a اِبْنٌ of God, in the sense that he is a dear one to God and close to him. We also need to consider this fact that if there were no difference between these two words, Allah would not have ever used two different words for the same concept as it is redundant and there is no wisdom in it.

  2. Do the Jews believe `Uzayr as to be Son of God?
    Ansar Raza, Life Devotee, Missionary, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at, Canada
    3001 Finch Ave West, #103, North York, ON M9M 3A9
    Email: ansar58@gmail.com Tel: 416-732-7801
    “And the Jews say, `Ezra is the son of Allāh,’ and the Christians say, ‘the Messiah is the son of Allāh;’ that is what they say with their mouths. They only imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. Allāh’s curse be on them! How they are turned away!” (9:30)
    In this verse, the Holy Qur`ān equates the Jews with the Christians having the same belief about the Prophet `Uzayr as (Ezra) as the Christians have about Jesus Christ as, i.e., ‘son of God’. Rejecting this notion, the Jews claim that there is no such belief found in Judaism about Ezra or any other Prophet, and that this Qur’anic statement is totally false and a baseless allegation against them, not found in the Bible or any Jewish literature. They claim that they strongly believe in this famous creed of Judaism which says; “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deuteronomy 6:4).
    Ibn Hazm, a great Muslim scholar and exegete has attributed this belief to the Sadducee sect of the Jews, lived in Yemen. The Jewish and Christian scholars have denied the existence of any such Jewish group and have declared such interpretations as a futile attempt to prove the Qur`ānic statement true.
    THE CONCEPT OF SON OF GOD IN THE BIBLE
    The study of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, however, shows that the concept of sonship of God, if not literal but metaphorical, is found in it, as angels and many righteous men are referred to as ‘sons of God’.
    “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came among them.” (Job 1:6)
    The Bible also referred to God’s special relationship with the Israelites – His chosen people as God’s son:
    “And you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the Lord: ‘Israel is My son. My first born’.” (Exodus 4:22)
    “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.” (Hosea 11:1)
    Prophet David as is also called son of God.
    “I [David] will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today I have become your Father’.” (Psalms 2:7)
    This sonship was passed on to Prophet Solomon as and, by implication, to all future successors of the House of David.
    “Behold, a son shall be born to you [David]…His name shall be Solomon…He shall build a house for My Name; he shall be a son to me, and I will be a Father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.” (Psalms 2:7)
    Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:31-36)
    As stated in the above incident, when the Jews took stones in their hands to stone Jesus to punish him for calling himself ‘son of God’ he quoted this verse of Psalms in which the Jews were metaphorically called gods, thus explaining his claim to be a metaphorical son of God, not the literal one.
    I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psalm 82:6)
    EZRA SINGLED OUT
    As far as the sonship of Ezra is concerned, modern Jewish scholars vehemently deny it as part of the Jewish faith. However, the study of Jewish literature reveals that Ezra holds a special, rather a unique, status amongst the other Israelite Prophets, including Moses. Though it is denied in Encyclopedia Judaica that the Jewish people consider Ezra as son of God, the author of the article under the title ‘Ezra’ mentions this unique position of Ezra among all other Prophets being “singled out”.
    “He was so zealous in spreading the Torah, that rabbis said of him, “If Moses had not anticipated him, Ezra would have received the Torah” (Tosef., Sanh. 4:7). He restored and reestablished the Torah that had been almost completely forgotten (Suk. 20a).” (Encyclopedia Judaica Vol-6 P-1106 – Under Ezra – In the Aggadah)
    “In Islam: Muhammad claims (Sura 9:30) that in the opinion of the Jews, `Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of God. These words are an enigma because no such opinion is to be found among the Jews, even though Ezra was singled out for special appreciation (See Sanh. 21b; Yev. 86 b). The Muslim traditionalists attempt to explain the words of Muhammad with a Muslim legend, whose origin appears to stem from IV Ezra 14: 18-19. The people of Israel sinned, they were punished by God, the Holy Ark was removed and the Torah was forgotten. It was due, however, to Ezra’s merit that his heart was filled with the Torah of God, which he taught to the people of Israel.. When the Holy Ark was returned to them and they compared that which Ezra taught them with the text of the Sefer Torah in the Holy Ark, the words they found were identical. They deduced from this that Ezra was the son of Allah. Tabarī cites another version of this legend: the Jewish scholars themselves hid the Ark, after they were beaten by the Amalekites. H. Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm (I, 99), namely, that the “righteous” who live in Yemen believe 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 the messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christians saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of Allah. An allusion to the figure of Ezra as the apostle of the messiah is found in a tale which is widespread among the Jews of Yemen, according to which Ezra requested that they emigrated to Erez Israel, and because they did not, he cursed them. Yemenite Jews have, therefore, refrained from naming their children Ezra. According to some Muslim commentators, `Uzayr is the man who passed by the destroyed city (of Jerusalem; Sura 2:261) and did not believe that it could be rebuilt.” (P-1106, 1107)
    A famous orientalist translator of the Holy Qur`ān, George Sale, also denies this fact mentioned in the Holy Qur`ān and calling it a grievous charge against the Jews, yet feels some little weight in it and believes to have its roots in the fables of rabbins.
    “This grievous charge against the Jews, the commentators endeavour to support by telling us, that it is meant of some ancient heterodox 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 marveled, and declared that he could not have done it, unless he were the son of God. Al Beidāwi 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 thus 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 were 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, who suppose that he only collected and set forth a correct edition of the scriptures, which he labored 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 Christian 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 way of thinking of those men.” (P-152 – THE KORAN by George Sale, Ninth Edition, Philadelphia and London J. B. LIPPINCOTT COMPANY 1923)
    Gordon Darnell Newby, an associate professor of history at North Carolina State University, did an unbiased research and proved that not only Ezra, but Enoch (Prophet Idress as), Baruch, teacher of Ezra, and Elijah were believed to have been translated to heavens alive, stripped off their humanity and ranked among the sons of God. He wrote:
    “Ezra is noted in the Bible as the leader of the expedition of return to Jerusalem from exile and the reestablishment of the Jewish state. For the rabbis, Ezra was the equivalent of Moses. Sanhedrin 21b contends that Ezra would have been the recipient of the Torah had it not already been given to Moses, but he was instead given the task of restoring the forgotten law. He is credited with the introduction of the proper means of writing the Torah, and for this activity he is given the title of Scribe. In extra-rabbinic literature, this appellation is given as “Scribe of the knowledge of the Most High”, a title usually given to one of several archangels, Elijah, and Enoch. Ezra was a disciple of Baruch, who was taken by God to heaven while alive, and Ezra himself was translated to heaven alive, which represents another point of correspondence with Elijah and Enoch. The equation of Ezra the Scribe with Enoch the Scribe and their translations is most likely the solution to our problem.
    Enoch was of the generation of the Flood, of those who transgressed. In the popular books of Enoch, he was taken to heaven so that he would not be destroyed when God abandoned the earth and as a sign of God’s mercy that one pious man would be saved. When translated into heaven, he was stripped of his humanity and transformed into the powerful angel, Metatron, who was taught by God all the secrets, more than any other creature, indeed, and was given guardianship over the treasures of God and became a lesser God. In 3 Enoch 48C, verses 1-4 we read
    Alep: The Holy One, blessed be he, said: I made him strong. I took him, I appointed him, namely Metatron my servant, who is unique among all the denizens of the heights.
    Alep: “I made him strong” in the generation of the first man. When I saw that the men of the generation of the Flood were behaving corruptly, I came and removed my Shekinah from their midst, and I brought it up with the sound of the horn and with shouting to the height above, as it is written.
    God went up to the sound of horn,
    The Lord went up with a fanfare of trumpets.
    Lamed: “I took him”—Enoch the son of Jared, from their midst, and brought him up with the sound of the trumpet and with shouting to the height, to be my witness, together with the four creatures of the chariot, to the world to come.
    Peh: “I appointed him”—over all the storehouses and treasuries which I have in every heaven, and I entrusted to him the keys of each of them. I set him as a prince over all the princes, and made him a minister of the throne of glory….I committed to him wisdom and understanding, so that he should behold the secrets of heaven above and earth beneath.
    It is particularly interesting to find this material in 3 Enoch, because we can deduce that the inhabitants of the Hijāz 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 sons of God, the Bene Elohīm, the Watchers, the fallen ones as the causers 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 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 Hijāz who were apparently involved in the mystical speculations associated with the merkābāh, 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 Elohīm. And, of course, he would fit the description of a religious leader (one of the ahbār of Quran 9:31.) whom the Jews had exalted.” (P: 60-61 – A History of the Jews of Arabia by Gordon Darnell Newby, published in Columbia, South Carolina, by the University of South Carolina Press, 1988 – First Edition).
    Yoram Erder of Tel Aviv University in his article, “The Origin of the Name Idrīs in the Qur`ān: A Study of the Influence of Qumran Literature on Early Islam” appeared in Journal of the Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Oct., 1990), pp. 339-350, published by the University of Chicago Press, has confirmed this fact that there was a Jewish sect in Yemen which had such beliefs against the mainstream rabbinical Judaism. He wrote:
    “It is evident from the influence of the Enoch literature on the Yemenī Jews of that period, that they were far removed from the mainstream of rabbinical Judaism, which opposed this literature. According to Ibn Hazm, the Jews mentioned in the Qur`ān who believed that `Uzayr was the son of God were members of the Sadducee sect in Yemen. We know today that the Karaites referred to the Qumranic fragments in their possession as Sadducean literature perhaps because of the important role which the family of the Sadducean priests played there.
    Based on the writings of Ibn Hazm, we can conclude that the Sadducean literature, i.e., Enoch literature, possessed by the Karaites in Babylonia and Persia from the eight century on, was also available to the Yemenī Jews in the seventh century.”
    Erminie Huntress wrote in the article, “SON OF GOD” IN JEWISH WRITINGS PRIOR TO THE CHRISTIAN ERA” appeared in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 54, No. 2 (Jun., 1935), pp. 117-123 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature, that after Jewish controversy with Christianity, Jewish scholars, particularly Targumists, (the scholars who narrate Hebrew Bible into Aramaic in prayer services) changed such phrases and terms about sonship of God.
    “The least important use of the term “sons of God” is its application to supernatural beings, reflecting the polytheistic notion of a group or family of gods, beings divine by nature who later became angels. This is illustrated in Gen. 6 2, 4, Job 1 6, 2 i, 38 7, Psalms 29 1 and 89 6, Psalm 82 (if the “sons of the Most High” are angels rather than human judges), Dan. 3 25. In the second century Noah fragment at the end of the book of Enoch (En. 106) there is a curious tale describing Noah’s birth, in which he shows supernatural qualities and is suspected of being the son of a “son of God.” In En. 69 4, 5 and 71 1 ff., passages on the angels (first century B. C. or A. D) Charles translates “sons of God,” believing that to be the original reading; but the text has “sons of the angels.” The circumlocution suggests that this use of the phrase “sons of God” was beginning to seem objectionable. The same feeling may be reflected in some versions of Psalm 89 6 and 29 1, which change אֶלהִ’ם [Elohim] to אֶלִ’ם [Elim] “the mighty.” [Emphasis added] In Wisd. 5 5 (first century B. C.) Dr. Schmidt suggests that the sons of God here are the inhabitants of the celestial world, not only the human saints but the angels; this is possible, but not to be proved. Hence we conclude that while such usage still existed in the second century B. C. there is no certain evidence of it in the first century B. C. or A. D. The reaction against it may, then, have started even before the controversy with Christianity; it might well result simply from the logic of Judaism. The Targums rule out this use of the phrase completely. [Emphasis added] It implied a participation by created beings in the nature of God, which the Jews came to consider impossible, all the more so since some of these angels had sinned.”
    She further wrote about this change.
    The Targums usually change the wording of such Old Testament passages. [Emphasis added] For example, the Targum renders Isa. 1 2 “a people whom I have called sons,” and Jer. 31 sb “My word is to Israel like a father and Ephraim is dear before me.” But although the Targums were undoubtedly taking shape as early as the first century, the final official versions now extant are of course from the third, fourth, or fifth centuries A. D. and show the effects of the conflict with Christianity. The Targumists were concerned not only to repudiate the idea that the Messiah was to be the Son of God, but to deny that God could have a son at all. [Emphasis added]
    The above references prove, beyond doubt that not only the concept of sonship of God, whether literal or figurative, was prevalent among the Jews but also some figures including Ezra were considered as sons of God.
    EZRA—اِبْنٌ “IBN” OF GOD OR HIS وَلَدٌ “WALAD”?
    Now, let’s examine this issue from another perspective by checking the etymological difference between the two words, اِبْنٌ “IBN” AND وَلَدٌ “WALAD” used for ‘son’ in Arabic.
    The study of Qur’ān shows that, in Arabic, there are two words, اِبْنٌ “IBN” AND وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, used to denote “son”. Though both of these words mean ‘son’, it is needed to be kept in mind that every وَلَدٌ “WALAD” is اِبْنٌ “IBN” but every اِبْنٌ “IBN” is not وَلَدٌ “WALAD”. The following differences between the two elucidate this point.
    وَلَدٌ “WALAD”
    وَلَدٌ “WALAD” is one Who is procreated, begotten, engendered, produced or originated from another thing of same kind and species. Therefore, only that person is called وَلَدٌ “WALAD” who is a biological child of his/her parents. Lane quotes an Arabic proverb which says that وُلْدُکِ مَنْ دَمَّی عَقِبَیْکِ “your son is he who made your two heels to be smeared with blood” and explains that “whom you yourself brought forth, he is your son really, not he whom you have taken from another and adopted”.
    Imam Rāghib says that the verb “وَلَدَ” shows the birth of one thing from another thing (of same kind) تَوَلَّدُ الشَّیءِ مِنَ الشَّیءِ.This is the root meaning of the verb “وَلَدَ”. In another verse a derivative of this verb is used to show procreation:
    11:73قَالَتْ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَأَلِدُ وَأَنَاْ عَجُوزٌ وَهَذَا بَعْلِي شَيْخًا إِنَّ هَذَا لَشَيْءٌ عَجِيبٌ
    She said, ‘Oh, woe is me! Shall I bear a child when I am an old woman, and this my husband is an old man? This is indeed a strange thing!’
    This concept, that God begot a son, is refuted in Qur’ān by saying: لَمْ يَلِدْ وَلَمْ يُولَدْ [112:4] ‘He begets not, nor is He begotten, because a begotten child has to be of the same kind, essence, and nature like his father. A human begets a human and an animal begets the same kind of animal like it. Therefore, one begotten by God has to be God, which is strictly against monotheism as Allāh says
    4:172۔۔۔ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً
    [4:172] …Verily, Allāh is the only One God. Far is it from His Holiness that He should have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And sufficient is Allāh as a Guardian.
    Father of وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, called وَالِدٌ “WĀLID” needs to have a spouse, but even Christians believe that God has no spouse. Mary is called “Mother of God (the Son)” but not the “Wife of God (the Father)”
    6:102بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ أَنَّى يَكُونُ لَهُ وَلَدٌ وَلَمْ تَكُن لَّهُ صَاحِبَةٌ وَخَلَقَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ وهُوَ بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَلِيمٌ
    [6:102] The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?
    72:4وَأَنَّهُ تَعَالَى جَدُّ رَبِّنَا مَا اتَّخَذَ صَاحِبَةً وَلَا وَلَدًا
    [72:4] ‘And we believe that the majesty of our Lord is exalted. He has taken neither wife nor son unto Himself.
    Imam Raghib further says that this word is also used for adopted son and has quoted the verses, but we must see that in this case the word used is نَتِّخِذَہٗ.
    12:22وَقَالَ الَّذِي اشْتَرَاهُ مِن مِّصْرَ لاِمْرَأَتِهِ أَكْرِمِي مَثْوَاهُ عَسَى أَن يَنفَعَنَا أَوْ نَتَّخِذَهُ وَلَدًا
    [12:22] And the man from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, ‘Make his stay honourable. Maybe he will be of benefit to us; or we shall adopt him as a son.’…
    28:10وَقَالَتِ امْرَأَتُ فِرْعَوْنَ قُرَّتُ عَيْنٍ لِّي وَلَكَ لَا تَقْتُلُوهُ عَسَى أَن يَنفَعَنَا أَوْ نَتَّخِذَهُ وَلَدًا وَهُمْ لَا يَشْعُرُونَ
    [28:10] And Pharaoh’s wife said, ‘He will be a joy of the eye, for me and for thee. Kill him not. Haply he will be useful to us, or we may adopt him as a son.’ And they perceived not the consequences thereof.
    These two Prophets are stated to have been adopted as “وَلَد” not “اِبْن” because “وَلَد” includes the meaning of and taken as “اِبْن” because every “وَلَد” is “اِبْن” but every “اِبْن” is not “وَلَد”. Aziz and Pharaoh took these Prophets as “اِبْن” but called them “وَلَد” as it contains both the meanings.

    Secondly, in Arabic the words are used either as ’’حقیقۃ‘‘(real) or ’’مجاز‘‘ (metaphor / figurative). A word is used as ’’حقیقۃ‘‘ (real) without any supporting evidence (قرینہ) whereas the same word when used as metaphor or figure of speech necessarily needs قرینہ. In the above quoted two verses non-biological parents and the use of the verb اَخَذَ instead of اَلِدَ is mentioned as قرینہ.

    Allāh has also negated to take an adopted son for Him because even in this case both the adopted son and adopted parent have to be of the same kind and nature. It is therefore fine for Aziz and Pharaoh to adopt a وَلَد but not fine for Allah to adopt a human وَلَد as, being a weakness, it is against the monotheistic status of God, His prestige and majesty to either beget or adopt a son as وَلَد. The concept of any people or individual being “اِبْن” is denied in Qur’an only because of their inappropriateness to be “اِبْن” of God or call anyone His “اِبْن”
    اِبْنٌ “IBN”
    In contrast to وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, اِبْنٌ “IBN” has a wider connotation and includes:
    • a son;
    • a son’s son. The Holy Prophet Muhammadsaw recited this poetic verse during the battle of Hunain, أَنَا النَّبِیُّ لَا کَذِبْ أَنَا إِبْنِ عَبْدُ الْمُطَّلِبْ calling himself son of Abdul-Muttalib, his grandfather though he was not his biological father);
    • and a descendant more remote;
    • People belong to a tribe, a community or a nation called بنی , plural of اِبْنٌ “IBN”, of that tribe, community or nation, e.g., بنی اسرائیل، “Banī Isrāel”; بنی اسماعیل “Banī Ismāel”; بنی آدم “Banī Ādam”;
    • a title or a qualifying name like ابن مریم، ابن السبیل، ابن ابی کبشہ ابو تراب، ابو ہریرہ

    WORD FOR ‘SON’ IN HEBREW
    The word used for ‘son’ in Hebrew is בן, bēn which is equivalent to the Arabic word اِبْنٌ “IBN” not وَلَدٌ “WALAD”. Frank W. Hardy, a Ph.D. in linguistics, presented meanings of ‘bēn’ from two lexicons, their examples from the Bible and categorized them as under:
    “In Hebrew the word bēn can of course be used to describe a male child in relation to his biological father or mother. But it is also frequently used to express a relationship based on shared attributes. The difference could be seen as a contrast in temporal emphasis. The idea of biological descent focuses on where a person came from–in the past. The concept of shared attributes focuses on the characteristics that a person has now–in the present.”( http://www.historicism.org/Documents/Jrnl/Heb_Ben.pdf)
    BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP
    Son; Grandson (more often son’s son); Child, children
    NON-BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIP
    Showing fatherly attitude; Omit name, showing disdainful attitude
    NO RELATIONSHIP
    Member of a people, tribe, Professional Society, Youth, young men (pl); Single Individual; component of a name
    IDIOMATIC MEANING
    Quality, characteristic / mood or fate; Son of (=devoted to) God, divine being; son of man (Sg.) / children of men (pl), other; Age, stage of life
    EXTENDED MEANING
    Young of animals, of plant shoots; of lifeless beings
    Literal Gloss Idiomatic Meaning Example
    Son of Belial Evil man Deut 13:13
    Son of bravery Brave man 1 Sam 14:52
    Son of death Man worthy to die 1 Sam 20:31
    Son of pledges Hostage 2 Kgs 14:14
    Son of rebellion Rebel Num 17:10
    Son of strength Strong man 2 Kgs 2:16
    Son of stripes Man worthy to be beaten Deut 25:2
    Son of wickedness Wicked man 2 Sam 1:34

    FATHER = وَالِدٌ “WĀLID” AND أَبٌ “ABŪ”
    As mentioned above, a father of a وَلَدٌ “WALAD” is called وَالِدٌ “WĀLID”; whereas a father of an اِبْنٌ “IBN” is called أَبٌ “Abū” which has wider meaning than وَالِدٌ “WĀLID”. That is why, while addressing all the Muslims, Allāh called Hazrat Ibrāhīmas أَبٌ “ABŪ not وَالِدٌ “WĀLID of all the Muslims, and not only of his own physical progeny:
    22:79وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ …
    [22:79] And strive in the cause of Allah as it behoves you to strive for it. He has chosen you, and has laid no hardship upon you in religion; so follow the faith of your father Abraham…
    Hazrat Ibrāhīmas also acknowledges this fact and declares those who follow him belong to him.
    14:37رَبِّ إِنَّهُنَّ أَضْلَلْنَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ النَّاسِ فَمَن تَبِعَنِي فَإِنَّهُ مِنِّي وَمَنْ عَصَانِي فَإِنَّكَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ
    [14:37] ‘My Lord, they have indeed led astray many among mankind. So whoever follows me, he is certainly of me; and whoever disobeys me — Thou art, surely, Most Forgiving, Merciful.
    UZAYRAS— اِبْنٌ “IBN” OR وَلَدٌ “WALAD”
    When we examine the verse [9:30], in the light of the above mentioned facts, we see that the word use in it for ‘son’ is اِبْنٌ “IBN” and not وَلَدٌ “WALAD”. We also know that Christians believe Jesus to be of the same essence, kind, and nature as that of God the Father, hence the وَلَدٌ “WALAD” of God and not His اِبْنٌ “IBN”. Even if they call him اِبْنٌ “IBN” what they mean is وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, by definition, being just like God. It is therefore, unjust to claim that Qur’ān put Jesus and Ezra at the same level of sonship and allege Jews and Christians of having the same kind of belief about these two Prophets being the sons of God.
    WHAT IS DENIED IN QUR’ĀN—BEING وَلَدٌ “WALAD” OR BEING اِبْنٌ “IBN”?
    The study of Qur’ān further reveals that Allāh has condemned this belief in strongest terms that Allāh has taken a وَلَدٌ “WALAD”, and warned those who believe so. Rather, Allāh has expressed the severity of this belief by declaring it enough to make the heavens burst, earth cleave asunder and the mountains fall down in pieces
    18:5وَيُنذِرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا اتَّخَذَ اللَّهُ وَلَدًا
    [18:5] And that it may warn those who say, ‘ Allāh has taken unto Himself a son.’
    19:91تَكَادُ السَّمَاوَاتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِنْهُ وَتَنشَقُّ الْأَرْضُ وَتَخِرُّ الْجِبَالُ هَدًّا 19:92أَن دَعَوْا لِلرَّحْمَنِ وَلَدًا
    [19:91] The heavens might well-nigh burst thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the mountains fall down in pieces, [19:92] Because they ascribe a son to the Gracious God.
    Nonetheless, Allāh did not refute claim of the Jews and the Christians of being اِبْنٌ “IBN” of God and His dear ones but merely dismissed it being not at par with their deeds:
    5:19وَقَالَتِ الْيَهُودُ وَالنَّصَارَى نَحْنُ أَبْنَاء اللّهِ وَأَحِبَّاؤُهُ قُلْ فَلِمَ يُعَذِّبُكُم بِذُنُوبِكُم…
    [5:19] The Jews and the Christians say, ‘We are sons of Allāh and His loved ones.’ Say, ‘Why then does He punish you for your sins?
    Likewise, pagans of Makka used to call angels and certain deities as “daughters” of God notwithstanding the fact that they do not like daughters for themselves but only boys.
    16:59وَإِذَا بُشِّرَ أَحَدُهُمْ بِالأُنثَى ظَلَّ وَجْهُهُ مُسْوَدًّا وَهُوَ كَظِيمٌ
    [16:59] And when to one of them is conveyed the tidings of the birth of a female, his face darkens, while he suppresses his inward grief.
    Allāh did not condemn or warn them in such strong terms as He did to Christians, but just sarcastically said that it is a very unfair division to assign males for themselves and females for God.
    37:150 فَاسْتَفْتِهِمْ أَلِرَبِّكَ الْبَنَاتُ وَلَهُمُ الْبَنُونَ
    [37:150] Now ask them whether thy Lord has daughters whereas they have sons.
    52:40أَمْ لَهُ الْبَنَاتُ وَلَكُمُ الْبَنُونَ
    [52:40] Has He daughters and you have sons?
    53:22أَلَكُمُ الذَّكَرُ وَلَهُ الْأُنثَى 53:23تِلْكَ إِذًا قِسْمَةٌ ضِيزَى
    [53:22] ‘What! for you the males and for Him the females!’ [53:23] That indeed is an unfair division.

    CONCLUSION
    As quoted above, Jewish and Christian scholars “single out” Ezra among all other Israelite Prophets and consider him not only at par with Moses but also with Elijah and Enoch, who are considered a lesser God, and like whom he was also translated to the heavens. We also found out that the Qur’ān does not allege the Jews to believe in Ezra as a وَلَدٌ WALAD of God as Christians believe Jesus to be i.e., of the same essence of and a part of God or himself a God, but as a اِبْنٌ of God, in the sense that he is a dear one to God and close to him. We also need to consider this fact that if there were no difference between these two words, Allah would not have ever used two different words for the same concept as it is redundant and there is no wisdom in it.

Leave a Reply