بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Objection

Allah, the Most High, says:

«“The Jews say, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’ That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before them. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” [1]»

Some critics regard this verse as one of the strongest alleged historical errors in the Qur’an. They argue that contemporary Judaism knows no prominent religious figure named Uzayr who is regarded as the son of God. They further claim that the only plausible identification is Ezra the Scribe, yet Jews neither regarded Ezra as the son of God nor worshipped him, and no such belief exists among the established doctrines of Judaism today.

They also argue that the Qur’an attributes this belief to “the Jews” without qualification, despite its absence from contemporary Judaism. Others assume that Uzayr’s sonship must be identical to the sonship attributed to Christ, and since no Jewish doctrine parallels the Christian doctrine of Christ’s sonship, they consider this another error.

Thus, the objection rests on two principal assumptions:

First, that the Uzayr mentioned in the Qur’an is not Ezra the Scribe.

Second, that the Jews never held any belief regarding one of their rabbis or religious scholars that could explain the Qur’anic statement.

From these follow several subsidiary claims:

1. That Uzayr is an unknown figure with no existence in Jewish tradition.
2. That Uzayr is not Ezra the Scribe.
3. That the Jews never exalted Ezra in a manner that could explain the verse.
4. That the Qur’an attributes this belief to all Jews.
5. That Uzayr’s sonship must necessarily be identical to Christ’s sonship.

As will become clear, the Qur’an does not merely report this statement; it also characterizes it by saying:

«“That is their statement from their mouths.”»

This description carries important implications that will be examined in their proper place. Each of these claims therefore requires careful examination before any judgment can be passed on the verse.

A Summary of the Response

The response rests on two main principles.

First, the Uzayr mentioned in the Qur’an is Ezra the Scribe. This is the interpretation supported by the early Muslim authorities (al-Salaf), historical evidence, Jewish sources, and the context of the Qur’anic passages, and is, in my view, the strongest interpretation.

Second, some contemporary researchers identify Uzayr with Eliezer or another similarly named figure rather than Ezra. I am unaware of any reliable support for this view among the early Muslim authorities and do not find it persuasive. Nevertheless, it will be examined later for the sake of completeness and evaluated in light of the available evidence.

Accordingly, this study will proceed as follows:

1. Establishing that Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe.
2. Examining Ezra’s status within Judaism.
3. Demonstrating the implausibility of such an error if the Qur’an were a fabrication.
4. Addressing whether the statement was limited to a particular group of Jews rather than all Jews.
5. Examining the nature of the religious exaltation (ghulūw) indicated by the Qur’an and the traces of it preserved in Jewish and historical sources.
6. Discussing the alternative identification of Uzayr with Eliezer and explaining why it is not to be preferred.

Chapter One: Establishing That Uzayr Is Ezra the Scribe

The first point that must be established is that the objection, “The Jews know of no man named Uzayr,” is not, by itself, a valid argument. The Qur’an was revealed in clear Arabic, not in Hebrew or Aramaic. When names pass from one language to another, their forms often change while referring to the same person.

No one claims that Moses (Mūsā) is different from the figure known in Hebrew simply because his name differs in pronunciation. Nor does anyone claim that Jesus (ʿĪsā) is a different person from the one known to Christians. What matters is the identity of the individual, not the linguistic form of the name.

Whoever examines the Qur’anic context, the statements of the exegetes, and the Jewish tradition will find that the figure corresponding to Uzayr is none other than Ezra the Scribe.

Indeed, the closest name to Uzayr in Jewish tradition is “Ezra the Scribe” (עזרא הסופר). The consonantal roots of the two names are remarkably similar, sharing the letters ʿayn, zāy, and rāʾ. This makes the transition from “Ezra” to “Uzayr” readily understandable through Arabization, unlike alternative theories that require reconstructing the name into an entirely different form.

This identification was explicitly affirmed by the Jewish philosopher Saʿd ibn Manṣūr Ibn Kammūnah, who wrote:

«“Ezra, to whom they attribute the restoration of the Torah after its disappearance—as they claim—is among those renowned for greatness, abundant virtue, and piety. He is the very one whom the Muslims call Uzayr. They, and some Jews, claim his prophethood. And those who deny his prophethood do not deny his immense status in religion and righteousness. Thus, it is inconceivable that such a man would permit the corruption or alteration of the Book of God.” [2]»

This testimony is especially significant because it comes from a Jewish scholar familiar with his own tradition. It establishes that Ezra is the figure Muslims call Uzayr and confirms his exceptional religious status. If a witness from within the Jewish tradition identifies Ezra with Uzayr, then the claim that the Qur’an speaks of an otherwise unknown figure loses its force.

Nor was Ibn Kammūnah alone in this understanding. It was also the view of the overwhelming majority of the early Muslim exegetes. Al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and others transmitted this interpretation from Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, al-Suddī, and Sulaymān ibn Buraydah. After citing these reports, Ibn Kathīr remarked:

«“This is the well-known view.” [3]»

The eminent exegete Ibn ʿĀshūr likewise observed:

«“The name Ezra appears in the verse in a diminutive form. It is possible that when it was Arabized, it was rendered in the diminutive form. It is also possible that this was the form by which the Jews of Madinah knew him, or that they employed the diminutive as an expression of affection.” [4]»

Accordingly, there is no difficulty in the difference between the forms “Ezra” and “Uzayr,” just as countless names vary across languages.

This identification is further strengthened by Ezra’s unique place in Judaism. He is closely associated with the restoration of the Torah after the Babylonian Exile, the revival of Israel’s religious life, and the reestablishment of the Law as the foundation of the Jewish community. Later generations consequently regarded him as second only to Moses in religious and legislative influence.

Indeed, the Talmud states:

«“Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given through him to Israel, had Moses not preceded him.” [5]»

«(ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל אילמלא קדמו משה)»

This remarkable statement compares Ezra with Moses in the transmission of the Law, a distinction not accorded to any other Jewish rabbi or scholar.

The identification of Uzayr with Ezra therefore rests on far more than a similarity of names. It is supported by linguistic evidence, the testimony of the early Muslim authorities, the statements of Jewish scholars, and Ezra’s unique historical position within Judaism.

No other figure in Jewish history combines all of the following:

• A name closely corresponding to Uzayr.
• Exceptional religious stature.
• A profound association with the Torah and the Law.
• A decisive influence on the formation of post-exilic Judaism.
• Explicit identification by both Muslim and Jewish scholars with the Uzayr mentioned in the Qur’an.

Once it is established that Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe, another question naturally follows: What position did Ezra occupy within Jewish consciousness that his name became associated with this controversy? Was he merely one rabbi among many, or was his status exceptional?

This is the question to which we now turn in the next chapter.

Chapter Two: Ezra’s Status in Judaism

Having established in the previous chapter that the Uzayr mentioned in the Qur’an is Ezra the Scribe, the remaining question is: What status did Ezra occupy within Judaism? Was he merely one rabbi among the scholars of the Children of Israel, or was he an exceptional figure whose exalted position made religious exaggeration concerning him conceivable?

The answer is that Ezra was one of the most influential religious figures to emerge after the Babylonian Exile. Jewish sources themselves place him in an exceptional position approaching that of Moses, peace be upon him.

Nor was this exaltation confined to the Talmud. Jewish and Christian sources alike portray Ezra as the central figure in Jewish life after the Babylonian Exile. Through his devotion and service, he earned the trust of priests, nobles, and the people, enabling his religious and social reforms to gain broad acceptance.

After returning to Jerusalem, he publicly read the Law of Moses to the people, explained it with the assistance of the Levites and Aramaic translations, and led the nation in recommitting itself to the Law. Consequently, later generations came to regard him as the foremost religious leader after Moses and, indeed, as the founder of post-exilic Judaism.

Ezra was known by the titles “the Priest” and “the Scribe.” Among the Jews, the title “scribe” denoted a scholar deeply versed in the Law, its interpretation, and its rulings. Ezra became the foremost figure associated with this title.

Jewish tradition also attributed to him a central role in preserving the religious heritage of the Children of Israel after the Exile. Some traditions even credit him with introducing the Aramaic script known as the Assyrian script, from which the Hebrew script used by Jews today is believed to have developed.

His authority extended beyond teaching and interpretation. He exercised broad legislative and judicial influence, addressing the religious and social challenges facing the post-exilic community and implementing reforms that were accepted throughout the Jewish population. [6]

We are therefore not dealing with an ordinary rabbi, but with a man whom many regarded as indispensable to the preservation of Judaism. His name became inseparably associated with the restoration of the Law, the preservation of Jewish religious identity, and the rebuilding of the nation after the Exile.

This is significant because many critics treat Ezra as though he were a minor or obscure figure. Yet Jewish sources portray him as one of the most influential religious figures in Jewish history. Once we recognize that he was regarded as the renewer of the Law, the preserver of religion, the foremost interpreter of the Torah, the leader of the nation after the Exile, and the architect of major religious reforms, investigating whether religious exaggeration developed around him becomes entirely reasonable.

If Ezra’s stature was such that he could be compared to Moses and regarded as the renewer of the Law and the architect of post-exilic Judaism, then a natural question follows:

Did Jewish reverence for him remain within the bounds of legitimate respect, or did some groups go beyond that and develop forms of religious exaggeration similar to those that arose around other revered religious figures?

At this point, it is important to note that the Qur’an does not require Uzayr’s sonship to be identical in every respect to Christ’s sonship. Rather, it identifies a common pattern: the elevation of a created being beyond the station assigned to him by God.

The next chapter will show that such religious exaggeration was not foreign to Jewish history. Jewish sources preserve numerous examples of extraordinary veneration directed toward prophets, rabbis, and even angelic beings, including the attribution of qualities that transcend ordinary human status. This provides a historical framework within which the statement, “Uzayr is the son of God,” becomes far more intelligible than the claim that such a belief was historically impossible.

Chapter Three: Religious Exaggeration in Jewish Tradition and the Meaning of Uzayr’s Sonship

Section One: Uzayr’s Sonship Need Not Be Identical to Christ’s Sonship

One of the most common objections to the Qur’anic statement:

«“The Jews say, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah,’ and the Christians say, ‘The Messiah is the son of Allah.’” [1]»

is that critics search Jewish tradition for a doctrine identical to the Christian doctrine concerning Christ, peace be upon him. When they fail to find such a parallel, they conclude that the Qur’an erred.

This objection, however, rests on a mistaken reading of the verse.

The Qur’an does not say that Jews and Christians agreed in every detail of their beliefs, nor that Uzayr’s sonship was identical to Christ’s. Rather, the two statements are mentioned together because they share a common foundation: the elevation of a created being beyond the station assigned to him by God.

As scholars have long observed, the conjunction of two things in a text does not require their equality in every ruling or attribute. Al-Shawkānī stated:

«“Conjunction in wording does not necessitate conjunction in ruling.” [7]»

Accordingly, the commonality between Jews and Christians in this verse is a shared form of religious exaggeration (ghulūw), not complete agreement in doctrine.

For one group, sonship may signify explicit divinity, lordship, and participation in God’s unique attributes, as became established in the theology of the majority of Christians. For another, it may signify elevating a person above ordinary humanity, attributing to him an angelic status, treating him as an intermediary between God and His creation, or granting him a unique religious position. What unites these forms is the elevation of a created being beyond the limits of proper servitude to God.

This understanding is further confirmed by the verse that immediately follows:

«“They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, and also the Messiah, son of Mary.” [8]»

The passage thus moves from exaggeration concerning particular individuals to exaggeration concerning religious authorities, indicating that its purpose is to identify a common category of deviation rather than identical theological formulations.

The Prophet ﷺ likewise explained the meaning of this lordship. ʿAdī ibn Ḥātim reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ recite:

«“They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.”»

He said:

«“O Messenger of Allah, they did not worship them.”»

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied:

«“Yes, they did. They would forbid for them what Allah had made lawful, and they would regard it as forbidden; and they would permit for them what Allah had made unlawful, and they would regard it as lawful. That was their worship of them.” []»

In another narration, he said:

«“They did not worship them, but whenever the rabbis declared something lawful, they regarded it as lawful, and whenever they declared something unlawful, they regarded it as unlawful.” [9]»

Thus, the Prophet ﷺ explained lordship here not as belief in creation or providence, nor merely as prostration or supplication, but as obedience to human beings in matters of legislation.

The forms of religious exaggeration condemned by the Qur’an therefore need not all be identical. They may differ from one community to another while sharing the same underlying error: elevating a created being beyond the station assigned to him by God. In some cases, this takes the form of explicit deification; in others, it consists of granting human beings religious or legislative authority that belongs exclusively to God.

Consequently, mentioning Uzayr and Christ together does not require that their sonship be identical in every respect. Rather, the Qur’an establishes that both communities shared the underlying error, even if the specific form of that exaggeration differed.

For this reason, demanding a Jewish doctrine that corresponds word-for-word and concept-for-concept to the Christian doctrine of Christ finds no support in the verse itself, in Arabic usage, or in the exegetical tradition.

The real question is not whether Jewish belief mirrored Christian theology, but what form of religious exaggeration the Qur’an attributes to those Jews who said:

«“Uzayr is the son of Allah.”»

It is to this question that we now turn.

Section Two: The Meaning of Sonship and Religious Exaggeration in Jewish Tradition

Having established that the Qur’an does not require Uzayr’s sonship to be identical to Christ’s, and that the Prophet ﷺ explained certain forms of exaggeration among the People of the Book as taking rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, it remains to examine the meaning of sonship itself and whether Jewish tradition contains forms of religious exaltation that make the Qur’anic statement historically intelligible.

The first point to emphasize is that the early Muslim authorities (al-Salaf) did not understand the verse:

«“The Jews say, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah.’” [1]»

in the same way that Christians understood the sonship of Christ, peace be upon him.

Al-Ṭabarī narrates from Ibn ʿAbbās, may Allah be pleased with him, in his commentary on the verse, that after recounting the loss of the Torah and its restoration through Uzayr, he states:

«“When they saw the Ark, they compared what was in it with what Uzayr had been teaching them, and they found it to be identical. They then said: ‘By Allah, Uzayr was given this only because he is the son of Allah.’” []»

Al-Suddī narrated a similar account, stating that when they found what Uzayr had written to correspond exactly with the Torah preserved by their scholars, they said:

«“Allah would not have granted you this except because you are His son.” [10]»

These reports are significant because neither Ibn ʿAbbās nor al-Suddī interpreted the verse to mean that the Jews regarded Uzayr as a creator deity or a divine hypostasis in the Christian sense. Rather, they connected this statement to the extraordinary religious status and unique knowledge attributed to him. Thus, the early Muslim authorities understood the exaggeration concerning Uzayr to be rooted in his religious standing and relationship to the Torah, not necessarily in a belief identical to the Christian doctrine concerning Christ.

This understanding accords with a well-known feature of the scriptural traditions of the People of the Book: the language of sonship was not always restricted to a single meaning. In their scriptures, filial language is applied to angels, righteous communities, and even the Children of Israel themselves, demonstrating a broader range of usage than the theological meaning later adopted by the majority of Christians.

In this context, certain modern studies become particularly significant. Gordon Newby noted that some Jews in Arabia associated Ezra with Enoch and believed that Enoch had ascended to heaven, been transformed into the angelic being Metatron, and occupied an exalted place among the heavenly beings known as the Bene Elohim (“Sons of God”):

«“Although this view does not represent rabbinic Judaism in any known historical period, it appears that there were some Jews in pre-Islamic Arabia who identified Ezra with Enoch and held that Enoch had ascended to heaven, been divested of his humanity, and transformed into Metatron, who in certain cosmological visions is the chief of the heavenly beings known as the Bene Elohim, literally ‘the Sons of God.’”»

Newby further notes that some Jews viewed Metatron as a heavenly figure of extraordinary status, helping to explain how conceptions could arise that went beyond ordinary human veneration. [11]

Reuven Firestone likewise drew attention to the extraordinary attributes assigned to Ezra and Enoch in certain traditions. He suggested that adherents of such beliefs may have been present in the environment in which the Qur’an was revealed, and that the verse was directed against this form of religious exaggeration:

«“It appears that some members of the Jewish sect holding these beliefs were living in Medina during the Prophet’s time, and that this Qur’anic verse was revealed as a rejection and refutation of them.” [12]»

Stephen Wasserstrom further reports that Karaite Jews accused certain Rabbanite Jews of assigning Metatron a status approaching that of a divine intermediary or even a “lesser Yahweh” (YHWH ha-Qatan, יהוה הקטן). Such accusations demonstrate that debates over the limits of religious reverence were not unknown within Jewish tradition. [13]

The purpose of citing these examples is not to argue that all Jews held such beliefs, nor that everything said about Enoch or Metatron was also said about Ezra. Rather, they show that religious exaggeration concerning human or angelic figures was not historically impossible within certain Jewish circles.

Once it is established that some Jews attributed extraordinary qualities to human or angelic beings, that the language of sonship had multiple meanings, and that Ezra occupied an unparalleled religious position after Moses in the eyes of many Jews, the possibility of exaggeration concerning him becomes far less surprising.

Indeed, these considerations make the statement:

«“Uzayr is the son of Allah”»

far more historically intelligible than many critics assume, even though the precise nature of that exaggeration and the reason Uzayr, rather than another Israelite figure, was singled out still require further investigation.

It is to that question that we now turn.

Section Three: Applying This to the Statement: “Uzayr Is the Son of Allah”

Having established that the Qur’an does not require Uzayr’s sonship to be identical to Christ’s, that the Prophet ﷺ explained certain forms of religious exaggeration among the People of the Book as taking rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah, and that Jewish tradition contains examples of excessive veneration directed toward religious and angelic figures, we may now return to the central question:

«“Uzayr is the son of Allah”?»

Many critics assume that this statement could only be true if the Jews believed about Uzayr what Christians believe about Christ—full divinity, incarnation, hypostases, and the other details of Christian theology.

As already shown, this assumption is unfounded. Nothing in the verse, the explanations of the early Muslim authorities, or the broader use of filial language within the traditions of the People of the Book requires such an equivalence. Rather, the evidence points to religious exaggeration concerning a figure who occupied an extraordinary place in Jewish consciousness.

We have already seen that the early Muslim authorities linked this statement to what Uzayr’s people believed regarding his unique knowledge of the Torah after it had been lost, to the extent that they declared:

«“By Allah, Uzayr was given this only because he is the son of Allah.” [10]»

This shows that the statement arose from excessive veneration of Uzayr’s unique religious status, not from belief in a literal genealogical relationship or a Christian-style doctrine of divine sonship.

Nor was Ezra viewed as merely one rabbi among many. His name became inseparably associated with the Torah, and many regarded him as the greatest religious figure after Moses.

Here an important aspect of the verse becomes apparent. The Qur’an does not say:

«“The Jews say, ‘Moses is the son of Allah,’”»

even though Moses, peace be upon him, occupies a higher rank than Ezra.

Nor does it say:

«“The Jews say, ‘Abraham is the son of Allah,’”»

even though Abraham, peace be upon him, is the patriarch of the prophets.

Instead, it specifically mentions Uzayr.

The most apparent explanation, in light of the evidence already presented, is that Ezra occupied a unique place as the figure associated with the preservation of the Law, the revival of religious life, and the restoration of Judaism after the Babylonian Exile. For this reason, he was especially susceptible to becoming the object of religious exaggeration.

People may admire a scholar or honor a reformer, but when they believe that a single individual preserved their religion after its disappearance, restored their Law after its decline, and rescued their community after its collapse, that person’s status naturally rises far above that of others.

Al-Samawʾal al-Maghribī pointed to this very phenomenon when he wrote:

«“When Ezra saw that the Temple had been burned, the kingdom destroyed, the people scattered, and their scriptures lost, he compiled from what he had memorized and from passages preserved by the priests the Torah that is now in their possession. For this reason they exaggerated in their veneration of Ezra to the utmost degree… because he produced for them a book by which their religion was preserved.” [14]»

The point here is not whether every detail of his account of the Torah’s history is correct, but his observation:

«“For this reason they exaggerated in their veneration of Ezra,”»

which directly connects that exaggeration to the belief that the preservation of religion depended upon him.

Ibn Ḥazm likewise perceived this connection when he wrote:

«“Ezra’s writing of the Torah took place more than seventy years after the destruction of Jerusalem. Their own books indicate that Ezra did not write or restore it until nearly forty years after their return to the land, following the seventy years during which they had remained without it. At that time there was no prophet among them, nor any remnant, nor the Ark… From that point onward the Torah spread and copies were produced.” [15]»

The significance of Ibn Ḥazm’s observation is that the Torah known among later Jews became closely associated with Ezra’s name, making him central to Jewish religious memory. If people are capable of excessive devotion toward scholars and reformers for lesser reasons, then such devotion is even more conceivable toward one whom they believed had preserved their religion and safeguarded their Law.

When this is considered alongside the broader use of filial language in certain Jewish traditions and the existence of beliefs that elevated human or angelic figures to extraordinary ranks, much of the supposed difficulty surrounding the verse disappears.

The question therefore is no longer:

«“How could some Jews have said, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah’?”»

Rather, it becomes:

«“What would prevent such exaggeration from arising concerning a figure who occupied such an exceptional position?”»

The claim of historical impossibility therefore rests on no substantial foundation. It typically assumes that later Rabbinic Judaism represents all Jewish groups in every age, whereas the Qur’an speaks of a statement made by a particular group of Jews, not a universal Jewish consensus.

If Jews could apply filial language to righteous figures and heavenly beings, if history attests to movements that exaggerated the status of religious personalities, and if Ezra was regarded by many as the renewer of the Law, the preserver of religion, and the greatest religious figure after Moses, then he is more likely than others to have become the focus of such exaggeration.

Accordingly, interpreting the verse according to its apparent meaning encounters none of the difficulties imagined by critics. On the contrary, it accords with the explanations of the early Muslim authorities, Jewish history, and evidence found in both ancient and modern sources.

Yet even if the historical plausibility of this statement is established, another question remains:

If such a statement was historically possible, how could the Prophet ﷺ have known of it? Is it conceivable that he could attribute to the Jews a belief with no basis whatsoever and yet encounter no objection from the very Jews who lived among him and were among the most eager to discredit his message?

This is the question we shall address in the next chapter.

Chapter Four: The Impossibility That the Qur’an Erred About or Falsely Attributed This Belief to the Jews

Having established that Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe, that he occupied an exceptional position in post-exilic Judaism, and that religious exaggeration concerning him is neither historically nor religiously impossible, we may now turn to one of the strongest arguments in this discussion.

The objection is that the Jews never said, “Uzayr is the son of Allah,” and that the Qur’an therefore falsely attributed this belief to them.

This claim, however, is confronted by a number of historical and rational considerations that make such a conclusion highly implausible.

First: The Qur’an Refers to a Belief That Was Proclaimed and Transmitted

One of the fundamental flaws in this objection is that it treats the verse as though it were referring to a written statement preserved in a sacred text that must still exist today.

But this is not what the Qur’an says.

Allah does not say, “It is written in the Torah that Uzayr is the son of Allah,” nor, “The Jews recorded in their scriptures that Uzayr is the son of Allah.” Rather, He says:

«“The Jews say, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah.’”»

He then immediately follows this with:

«“That is their statement from their mouths.” [42]»

Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī commented on this verse:

«“Know that after relating this statement about them, Allah says: ‘That is their statement from their mouths.’

One may ask: Every statement is uttered by the mouth, so why specify this statement with such a description?

The answer may be given in several ways:

First, it may refer to a statement unsupported by any proof. It is nothing more than words uttered by them, devoid of any valid meaning. In other words, they have spoken with their tongues, yet their words carry no weight before reason. For attributing a son to God—while He is exalted above need, desire, companionship, and procreation—is a false statement devoid of rational foundation.

Second, a person may adopt a doctrine through allusion or implication, but once he openly declares it and expresses it with his tongue, this represents the fullest manifestation of his commitment to that doctrine. The meaning here is that they openly proclaimed this belief and did not conceal it.

Third, the meaning may be that they called others to this doctrine until it became widespread upon people’s tongues and in their speech. The verse thus indicates the extent of their efforts in propagating this belief.” [16]»

As al-Rāzī explains, the verse is not merely reporting a statement uttered on a single occasion. Rather, it describes a belief openly professed and circulated among its adherents.

Accordingly, the truthfulness of the Qur’anic report does not depend upon the survival of a written document explicitly containing this statement. The Qur’an does not speak of a preserved text; it speaks of a belief that was expressed, transmitted, and known among those who held it.

Indeed, many historical beliefs and doctrines have left behind no surviving written record. Their existence is known through reports, traditions, historical testimony, and the accounts of those who witnessed or transmitted them.

Therefore, the absence of a surviving text can establish only that no such text has reached us. It does not establish that the belief itself never existed.

Second: The Impossibility of Jewish Silence When They Were Fully Capable of Refuting the Claim

Here we arrive at the heart of the argument.

The Prophet ﷺ was not speaking about a vanished nation that had disappeared centuries before his time. Rather, he lived among the Jews themselves.

Madinah was home to substantial Jewish communities, and there was ongoing dialogue and debate between the Prophet ﷺ and their rabbis concerning doctrine, prophecy, and law. Among the most prominent Jewish scholars who embraced Islam was ʿAbdullāh ibn Salām, may Allah be pleased with him, who was thoroughly acquainted with the religion, scriptures, and traditions of his people.

Had the Prophet ﷺ attributed to the Jews a belief with absolutely no basis, this would have been among the easiest objections they could have raised, whether by those who remained upon Judaism or by those who embraced Islam while retaining detailed knowledge of Jewish tradition.

Nor were the Jews known for remaining silent when an opportunity for criticism presented itself. On the contrary, they repeatedly questioned and tested the Prophet ﷺ.

They questioned him concerning the soul, whereupon Allah revealed:

«“And they ask you concerning the soul. Say: The soul is of the affair of my Lord.” [44]»

They likewise tested him concerning prophets, unseen realities, and matters of religious law in order to examine his truthfulness. [17]

The Qur’an itself records many of their objections and debates. If they challenged him over subtle matters and minor details, how could they have remained silent had he attributed to them an entirely fabricated doctrine?

Moreover, the Qur’an repeatedly challenged them concerning matters they could verify from their own scriptures. Allah says:

«“Say: O you who are Jews, if you claim that you are allies of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then wish for death, if you are truthful.” [46]»

And He says:

«“Say: Then bring the Torah and recite it, if you are truthful.” [47]»

The Qur’an thus called upon them to consult their own scriptures and produce evidence. How, then, could it simultaneously attribute to them a belief with no historical basis without their seizing upon such an error to discredit the Prophet ﷺ?

For this reason, some Western scholars themselves recognized the force of this difficulty. Casanova, despite rejecting the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ, acknowledged that attributing such a doctrinal error to him is difficult to reconcile with the early Islamic environment and its familiarity with Jewish tradition. He wrote:

«“It is possible that Muhammad misunderstood this or that passage of the Bible or the Gospel, but it seems to me that this doctrinal error is incompatible with what we know about Muhammad’s relations with rabbis such as Abd al-Salām Wahb ibn Munabbih, and Kaʿb al-Aḥbār.” [18]»

(By “Abd al-Salām,” he is referring to ʿAbdullāh ibn Salām, may Allah be pleased with him.)

Although Casanova did not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ, he nevertheless recognized that such a mistake is difficult to reconcile with the presence of Jewish scholars who embraced Islam and possessed substantial knowledge of their own religious heritage.

Admittedly, Wahb ibn Munabbih and Kaʿb al-Aḥbār did not personally meet the Prophet ﷺ. Nevertheless, the core difficulty identified by Casanova remains valid: the existence of Jewish scholars within the early Islamic community familiar with Jewish tradition makes it difficult to explain how such a misconception could have been introduced and transmitted without challenge.

One may go even further and ask:

If the statement “Uzayr is the son of Allah” were entirely fabricated, where is the Jewish protest against it?

Where are the rabbis declaring, “Muhammad has falsely attributed to us a belief that we do not recognize”?

How is it that the historical sources preserve dozens of questions, objections, and debates between the Prophet ﷺ and the Jews, yet preserve no objection of this kind, even though it would have been among the strongest arguments available to them?

The absence of such a protest, despite every incentive to make it if the accusation were false, strongly indicates that the verse referred to something known within the Jewish environment of that time, even if its traces later disappeared.

The hypothesis of a historical error is therefore not the most plausible explanation. A more reasonable explanation is that the Qur’an reported a belief held by a particular group of Jews during the Prophet’s time—or perhaps by an earlier group whose influence persisted into later generations—and that this belief eventually disappeared, leaving no surviving trace except what Allah preserved in His Book.

This is the issue to which we now turn in the next chapter, where we shall examine the statements of Muslim exegetes and historians who held that this belief belonged to a particular group of Jews rather than to all Jews in every time and place.

Chapter Five: The View That This Belief Was Held by a Particular Jewish Group

If the claim of a historical error is implausible, and if the Qur’an is reporting a belief known during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, a natural question follows:

Who were the Jews who said, “Uzayr is the son of Allah”?

A number of exegetes and historians held that this was not the belief of all Jews, but of a particular Jewish group that lived in Arabia or was known there during the Prophet’s lifetime.

First: Nothing in the Verse Requires That All Jews Held This Belief

A common objection is:

How could Allah say:

«“The Jews say, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah.’” [1]»

if, assuming such people existed, they did not represent all Jews?

The answer is that this is a well-known feature of Arabic expression. A statement or action may be attributed to a larger community when it is committed by one of its members or by a group within it.

Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī explained:

«“Those who held this belief were only some of the Jews. Nevertheless, Allah attributed the statement to the Jews in accordance with the Arab custom of applying the name of a group to one of its members. Thus it is said: ‘Tamīm did such-and-such,’ even though only one member of Tamīm did it. Likewise, one says, ‘He rides horses,’ even if he has ridden only one horse, or ‘He sits with kings,’ even if he sits with only one of them.” [16]»

This style of expression occurs frequently in the Qur’an.

Allah says:

«“And the Jews said: ‘Allah’s hand is chained.’” [19]»

Yet no exegete understood this to mean that every Jew uttered these exact words.

Likewise, Allah says:

«“Allah has certainly heard the statement of those who said: ‘Indeed, Allah is poor while we are rich.’” [20]»

Again, no scholar understood this to mean that every Jew made this statement.

Similarly, some of the Children of Israel said to Moses, peace be upon him:

«“Make for us a god just as they have gods.” [21]»

Despite this, Ibn Kathīr commented:

«“Not all of the Children of Israel asked this question; rather, the pronoun here refers to the group as a whole.” [22]»

Accordingly, nothing in Allah’s statement:

«“The Jews say, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah.’”»

requires that every Jew, in every time and place, held this belief. It is sufficient that it was professed by a particular group among them.

Second: Who Were the People Who Held This Belief?

Among the earliest reports concerning this verse is what Ibn Isḥāq narrated, as cited by al-Ṭabarī:

«“Sallām ibn Mishkam, Nuʿmān ibn Awfā, Shās ibn Qays, and Mālik ibn al-Ṣayf came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and said: ‘How can we follow you when you have abandoned our qiblah, and you do not claim that Uzayr is the son of Allah?’ Thereupon Allah revealed concerning their statement: ‘The Jews say: Uzayr is the son of Allah.’” [10]»

If authentic, this report is explicit: it states that a group of Jews confronted the Prophet ﷺ with this belief and that the verse was revealed in response.

What is particularly noteworthy is that the report concerns Jews living in the very environment in which the Qur’an was revealed, not Jews of distant lands or remote generations. Accordingly, the early authorities in sīrah and tafsīr did not understand the verse as referring to an obscure legend or an imaginary doctrine, but to a belief known during the Prophet’s lifetime.

A critic may object that this report does not meet the highest standards of ḥadīth authenticity.

The response is that the argument does not rest upon this report alone. Rather, it demonstrates that the earliest Muslim scholars saw no historical difficulty in the verse. They understood it according to its apparent meaning and regarded it as referring to a belief associated with a particular group of Jews in Arabia.

Thus, even if one sets aside the question of the report’s chain of transmission, it remains valuable as evidence for how the earliest generations understood the verse.

This understanding becomes even more significant in light of the considerations discussed in the previous chapter. If the Qur’an was publicly recited before Jewish communities, and no preserved objection accuses the Prophet ﷺ of inventing a doctrine entirely foreign to Judaism, then the explanation that a particular Jewish group held this belief is more plausible than the claim of a historical mistake.

Accordingly, the question is not whether all Jews everywhere held this doctrine, but whether some Jews were known to hold it. The early exegetical tradition regarded this as both possible and historically unproblematic.

This understanding was later articulated explicitly by a number of Muslim scholars, among whom was Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī, whose discussion deserves particular attention.

Third: Was This the Belief of a Jewish Group in Arabia?

Abū Bakr Ibn al-ʿArabī addressed this issue directly and offered a valuable response:

«“The Jews of our time have dissociated themselves from the claim that Uzayr is the son of Allah. But this does not prevent it from having existed during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, for this verse was revealed in his lifetime while Jews were present with him in Madinah and elsewhere, and it has not been transmitted from any of them that they rejected this statement or challenged it. The apparent explanation is that those who held this belief were only a group among them and not all of them, just as those Christians who say that Christ is the son of God are only one group among the Christians and not all of them. It is therefore possible that this group later disappeared.” [23]»

Ibn al-ʿArabī’s statement brings together several important observations.

First, he acknowledges that the Jews known in his own time did not profess this belief.

Second, he argues that this fact does not undermine the truthfulness of the Qur’anic report.

Third, he considers it most likely that the belief belonged to a particular Jewish group rather than to all Jews.

Fourth, he notes that such a group may simply have vanished over time, just as many Jewish, Christian, and other religious sects have disappeared throughout history.

This explanation was accepted by a large number of scholars who discussed the issue, and it accords naturally with what is known about the history of religious communities. Countless sects, schools, and movements flourished for a period and then disappeared, leaving behind little more than scattered references in historical sources.

Indeed, the disappearance of a group is not evidence that it never existed. On the contrary, the history of religions is filled with examples of communities whose beliefs are known to us only through the reports of others after their own writings and institutions have vanished.

For this reason, the absence of Jews today who profess the belief that “Uzayr is the son of Allah” cannot by itself serve as evidence against the Qur’anic account. At most, it demonstrates that such a belief is no longer part of mainstream Judaism.

The more relevant historical question is whether a particular Jewish group could have held such a belief during the period in which the Qur’an was revealed.

As we have already seen, this was the understanding of early Muslim exegetes, and it remained the preferred explanation of many later scholars.

Moreover, this interpretation gains additional strength from a report discussed by Ibn Ḥajar, who addressed a famous prophetic tradition that appears to refer to Jews who worshipped Uzayr. His discussion further reinforces the conclusion that the verse concerns a specific group rather than the entirety of the Jewish people.

It is to this evidence that we now turn.

Fourth: Does the Disappearance of the Group Undermine the Qur’anic Report?

It may be asked: If this group truly existed, where did it go? Why do we find no trace of it today?

The answer is that this question is not unique to the present discussion.

History is filled with religious sects and theological movements that once existed and later disappeared, leaving behind little more than scattered references in books and historical records.

Indeed, many ancient Jewish sects no longer exist today, yet historians do not doubt that they once flourished and exercised influence in their own time.

For this reason, Ibn al-ʿArabī did not regard the disappearance of those who held this belief in his own age as evidence against the Qur’an. Rather, he viewed the extinction of the group as the most natural explanation for why no such community remained in his day.

This understanding is further supported by the well-known ḥadīth of intercession, in which it is said that the Jews will be asked on the Day of Resurrection:

«“Whom did you worship?”»

And they will reply:

«“We used to worship Uzayr, the son of Allah.” [24]»

Some have objected that this ḥadīth appears to conflict with the interpretation that only a particular group of Jews held this belief, since its wording seems to attribute the response to the Jews collectively.

However, al-Ḥāfith Ibn Ḥajar addressed this difficulty and offered an important answer:

«“His statement, ‘We used to worship Uzayr, the son of Allah,’ presents a difficulty, because only some Jews were characterized by this belief, while most of them denied it. It may be answered that this particular address is directed only to those who were characterized by that belief. As for the others, their response would involve mentioning whatever object of disbelief they followed. This is similar to what occurs among the Christians, for some of them answer, ‘Christ, the son of God,’ even though among them are those who claimed to worship God alone—namely the Unionists, who said that God is the Messiah, son of Mary.” [25]»

Ibn Ḥajar’s explanation is highly significant because it makes clear that the ḥadīth does not require all Jews to have held this belief. Rather, it can be understood as referring specifically to the group that was characterized by it.

At the same time, the ḥadīth provides an additional witness to the core issue under discussion. The Prophet ﷺ did not mention this belief only in the Qur’an; he also referred to it in the ḥadīth of intercession while describing the condition of nations on the Day of Resurrection. This indicates that he regarded it as a known historical reality, not as a passing story or a mistaken attribution.

The conclusion of all the foregoing discussion is that the majority of Muslim exegetes did not understand the verse to mean that every Jew held this belief. Rather, they interpreted it as referring to a particular group among them.

The reports of tafsīr, the discussion of Ibn al-ʿArabī, and the ḥadīth of intercession as explained by Ibn Ḥajar all point in the same direction: namely, that this belief was known among a specific group of Jews, even if those who professed it later disappeared from history.

Once this is established, the discussion naturally moves from the question:

«“Did anyone actually hold this belief?”»

to a more important question:

«“Why was Ezra, specifically, the object of such religious exaggeration?”»

This is the subject of the next chapter, where we shall examine the particular evidence concerning Ezra and the unique role he came to occupy as the restorer of the Law and the reviver of Jewish religious life after the Babylonian Exile, thereby becoming a figure around whom excessive veneration could arise.

Chapter Six: The Particular Evidence Concerning Ezra and the Origins of the Veneration Directed Toward Him

Having established that the Qur’anic Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe, that he occupied an exceptional position among the Jews after Moses, peace be upon him, that religious exaggeration concerning human and heavenly beings was not unknown in Jewish history, and that the verse refers to a particular group of Jews rather than all Jews, we may now ask:

Why was Ezra, specifically, the object of such veneration?

The purpose here is not to repeat what has already been said about Ezra’s status or the possibility of excessive devotion toward him, but to assemble historical and Jewish testimonies that explain why his name became uniquely associated with the Torah and the preservation of religion.

The issue is not simply that Ezra was respected or regarded as a great scholar. History has known many scholars, reformers, and religious leaders who enjoyed such esteem without becoming the object of extraordinary religious exaltation.

What distinguished Ezra was his unique place in Jewish memory. He became associated with the restoration of the Torah after national catastrophe, the reestablishment of religious life after the Babylonian Exile, the preservation of Jewish identity after dispersion, and the renewal of the covenantal order upon which Jewish communal life rested.

In other words, Ezra was remembered not merely as a teacher of the Law, but as the man through whom the Law itself was restored to its central place in Jewish life after a period of disruption and decline.

This point is crucial. The greater the role a community attributes to an individual in preserving its religion, restoring its sacred traditions, and safeguarding its identity, the greater the possibility that later generations may elevate that individual beyond his proper station.

The question, therefore, is not whether Ezra was revered—that much is beyond dispute—but whether the nature of that reverence, together with the historical role attributed to him, made him a plausible object of excessive religious devotion among certain groups.

The evidence examined in the following sections suggests that it did.

Indeed, Jewish sources repeatedly portray Ezra not merely as a learned scribe, but as the restorer of the Torah, the guardian of religious continuity, the architect of post-exilic Judaism, and, in some traditions, a figure whose significance approached that of Moses himself.

These distinctive features—not merely his learning or piety—help explain why his name became associated with extraordinary veneration in Jewish religious memory and why certain groups could eventually elevate him beyond the limits of proper human reverence.

First: Ezra and the Torah — From Scholar to Restorer of the Law

It has already been noted that the Talmud elevated Ezra to a unique position, declaring:

«“Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given through him had Moses not preceded him.” [5]»

We also cited the testimony of the Jewish philosopher Ibn Kammūnah regarding Ezra’s immense stature among his people. [2]

Yet Ezra’s significance extended far beyond that of a distinguished scholar or interpreter of the Law. Ancient Jewish traditions and modern academic studies alike associate him with the Torah itself in a manner unmatched by virtually any other figure in post-biblical Judaism.

Rev. Dr. Samuel Yūsuf notes that several early Church Fathers—including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome—held that the Torah written by Moses had been lost or destroyed during the devastation of Jerusalem and that Ezra later rewrote it through divine inspiration. [26]

Whether this belief is historically correct is not the point. Its significance lies in demonstrating how closely Ezra’s name became associated with the preservation and restoration of sacred Scripture in both Jewish and Christian religious memory.

A number of modern scholars have likewise argued that the Torah in its present form passed through a long process of compilation, editing, and redaction.

For this reason, the Jewish rabbi Reuven Hammer wrote:

«“It is generally accepted in scholarly circles today that four documents were combined into one: the Yahwist source, which uses the four-letter divine name YHWH; the Elohist source, which refers to God as Elohim; the Priestly source, reflecting priestly legislation; and Deuteronomy, or the Deuteronomic school. The final editor was perhaps—and most likely—Ezra the Scribe.” [27]»

Similarly, the Jewish scholar Richard Elliott Friedman devoted an entire volume to the formation of the books of the Hebrew Bible and concluded that Ezra is among the figures most closely connected with the final redaction of the text. He then made his well-known observation:

«“In the entire Bible, only two people are known as lawgivers: Moses and Ezra.” [28]»

This statement reveals the remarkable place Ezra came to occupy within Jewish tradition. He was viewed not merely as a preserver of sacred texts or an interpreter of religious law, but as the second great figure in Jewish legislative history after Moses himself.

It is therefore not difficult to understand why Ezra’s name became inseparably linked with the Torah in a way no other rabbi or religious teacher could rival. The more closely a community associates its religious survival with a single individual, the more likely later generations are to surround that person with extraordinary reverence.

For many Jews, Ezra was not simply a learned man among others. He was the figure through whom the Torah was restored, religious life renewed, and the continuity of Israel’s sacred tradition preserved after one of the greatest crises in its history.

This helps explain why Ezra occupied such an exceptional place in Jewish memory and why he became a uniquely plausible object of excessive religious glorification among certain groups.

Second: Ezra and the Preservation of Religion After the Babylonian Exile

Earlier, we cited reports from the Salaf indicating that some Jews exaggerated in their reverence for Uzayr because they believed he had restored the Torah after it had been lost and revived the religion after its decline.

Additional evidence supports this understanding.

Ibn Ḥazm drew attention to the central role Ezra came to occupy in Jewish history after the Babylonian Exile [15]

The significance of Ibn Ḥazm’s statement is that the Torah known among the Jews became closely associated with Ezra’s name.

Nor was this understanding unique to Ibn Ḥazm. Al-Samawʾal al-Maghribī—himself a former Jewish scholar before embracing Islam—likewise connected the Jews’ extraordinary reverence for Ezra with their belief that he had preserved their religion after the catastrophe that befell them. He wrote:

«“When Ezra saw that the people’s Temple had been burned, their kingdom destroyed, their community scattered, and their writings lost, he gathered from his own memory and from the portions preserved by the priests and compiled from them the Torah that is now in their possession. For this reason they exaggerated in their reverence for Ezra to an extreme degree… because he produced for them a book by which their religion was preserved.” [14]»

Whether one agrees with every aspect of al-Samawʾal’s historical reconstruction is beside the point. What matters is the connection he draws between the exaltation of Ezra and the belief that he preserved the religion after its apparent loss.

Indeed, this idea became sufficiently widespread that Abū Yūsuf al-Qirqisānī, one of the leading Karaite Jewish scholars, felt compelled to refute it. He wrote:

«“They claimed that the Torah now in the possession of the nation is not the Torah brought by Moses, but rather something composed by Ezra, because the Torah brought by Moses had, according to them, disappeared, fallen away, and been lost. This amounts to the complete collapse of the religion. If the Muslims were aware that some among them said this, they would need no other argument by which to reproach us and contend against us. For some of their theologians already argue against us by claiming that the Torah in our possession is not the Torah brought by Moses. We declare anyone who says such a thing to be a liar and self-contradictory, and we hold that what drives them to such claims is desperation and the force of the argument against them. Yet if they knew that some of the Rabbanites themselves held this view—may God confound them—they would find in it sufficient material and would have no need for anything else.” [29]»

This passage is particularly significant because it comes from a Jewish scholar disputing another Jewish group, not from a Muslim polemicist. Its importance lies not in determining whether the claim is true or false, but in showing that such ideas were sufficiently well known to require refutation.

More importantly, al-Qirqisānī treats the attribution of the Torah to Ezra as a matter touching the very foundations of Judaism. If the Torah in common circulation were not the Torah revealed to Moses but a work composed or reconstructed by Ezra, then the implications would extend to the integrity of the entire religious tradition. For this reason, he described the claim as amounting to “the complete collapse of the religion.”

What concerns us here, however, is the extraordinary association that developed in certain Jewish circles between Ezra and the Torah itself. The connection became so strong that some attributed to him a decisive role in the preservation and transmission of the sacred text known to later generations.

This helps explain the exceptional reverence surrounding Ezra in Jewish tradition and makes the explanations transmitted from the Salaf—linking the exaggeration concerning him to the restoration of the Torah and the revival of religion—far more intelligible historically.

Taken together, these testimonies portray Ezra not merely as a distinguished scholar, but as the man upon whom the survival of the religion itself was believed to depend after one of the greatest catastrophes in the history of the Children of Israel.

Few forms of religious prestige are more likely to generate extraordinary reverence. It is therefore hardly surprising that Ezra came to occupy such an elevated place in Jewish memory and that some groups could eventually regard him with a level of devotion exceeding the bounds of ordinary respect.

Third: Ezra in Certain Later Traditions — A Portrait That Transcends Ordinary Humanity

If the preceding evidence has shown why Ezra came to be highly revered because of his connection to the Torah and the preservation of the Law, certain later Jewish traditions reveal another dimension of the picture. In some sources, Ezra’s exalted status developed beyond that of a scholar or religious leader into portrayals approaching the heavenly or angelic realm.

Some Western scholars noticed this phenomenon while attempting to explain the Qur’anic reference to Uzayr.

The French orientalist Paul Casanova, followed by Régis Blachère, suggested that the issue might be connected to a heavenly figure found in certain Jewish traditions, namely Azriel (עזריאל) or Uzziel (עוזיאל). They linked this proposal to Genesis 6:1–4 and its reference to the “sons of God” (bene Elohim), an expression many classical Jewish and Christian interpreters understood as referring to angels.

Although this proposal highlights a connection between divine sonship and certain angelic concepts within Jewish tradition, it is unpersuasive as an identification of Uzayr himself. The names differ significantly in their consonantal structure, and the Qur’anic context associates Uzayr with the rabbis and religious authorities elevated beyond their proper station, making a revered human figure the more natural reading.

Later Jewish literature likewise suggests that Ezra’s image did not always remain confined to ordinary humanity.

Particularly noteworthy is the work commonly known as:

«Fourth Ezra (4 Ezra)»

In this text, Ezra is portrayed not merely as a scribe or interpreter of the Law, but as one chosen to receive extraordinary divine mysteries and revelations.

Among the most striking descriptions applied to him is the title:

«“Scribe of the Knowledge of the Most High.” [30]»

The book concludes with an equally remarkable account concerning Ezra’s fate. He is told:

«“You shall be taken away from among men, and from now on you shall live with my Son and with those who are like you until the times are fulfilled.”»

In some translations the passage is rendered:

«“He was taken to a place where no one like him exists.” [31]»

Whatever judgment one reaches concerning these texts, they demonstrate that Ezra’s image in certain traditions was no longer confined to that of an ordinary human scholar.

For this reason, a number of researchers have devoted entire studies to what they call:

«The Apotheosis of Ezra»

The term apotheosis refers to the elevation of a human being to superhuman status or the attribution of qualities transcending the normal limits of human existence. It does not necessarily imply outright deification. Nevertheless, the very use of such terminology illustrates the extraordinary level of exaltation Ezra attained in certain traditions.

The evidence surveyed in this chapter does not establish that all Jews said, “Uzayr is the son of Allah.” Rather, it establishes that Ezra was no ordinary figure in Jewish memory. His name became inseparably associated with the Torah, the preservation of religion, the restoration of the nation after exile, and, in some traditions, with descriptions that transcended the ordinary boundaries of human existence.

At this point, the question:

«“How could a group of Jews have exaggerated in their reverence for Ezra?”»

becomes easier to answer than the opposite question:

«“Why should such exaggeration be regarded as historically impossible in the case of a figure whose status became so extraordinary?”»

Yet one further aspect of Ezra’s story remains. A number of reports from the Salaf identify him with the man whom Allah caused to die for one hundred years and then brought back to life, mentioned in the verse:

«“Or like the one who passed by a town while it had fallen into ruin upon its roofs…”»

Whether this identification is ultimately correct or not, its presence in early Islamic tradition introduces another dimension to the discussion. It also offers a possible explanation for some of the extraordinary reverence associated with Ezra and provides a striking perspective on a historical puzzle that has attracted the attention of modern scholars.

This is the subject to which we now turn in the next chapter.

Chapter Eight: A Historical Insight Concerning Uzayr and the Story of the Hundred Years

Having completed our discussion of the original objection, examined Ezra’s position in Jewish tradition, and explored the forms of reverence associated with him, it is fitting to conclude with an intriguing historical observation concerning Ezra himself.

This observation is not presented as the primary proof that the Qur’anic Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe, nor as the principal argument concerning the statement, “Uzayr is the son of Allah.” Rather, it offers a historical perspective worthy of reflection.

As we have seen, Ezra came to occupy an exceptional place in Jewish tradition. The Talmud states:

«“Ezra was worthy that the Torah should have been given through him had Moses not preceded him.” [5]»

His name also became closely associated with the Torah, the restoration of religious life after the Babylonian Exile, and the revival of the Jewish community after one of the greatest catastrophes in its history.

Yet when one reads the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, one encounters a curious historical phenomenon.

According to the narrative, Ezra appears in the seventh year of Artaxerxes as a leading figure in Jerusalem’s religious reform after the Exile. The narrative then shifts to Nehemiah, whose mission begins in the twentieth year of the same king, approximately thirteen years later. During Nehemiah’s time, Jerusalem remained sparsely populated, its walls lay in ruins, and he undertook their reconstruction.

Up to this point, the chronology appears straightforward.

The difficulty arises afterward. Ezra disappears from the narrative for a considerable period before reappearing in later sections. More strikingly, some passages portray Nehemiah as a contemporary of the High Priest Eliashib, whereas others associate Ezra with Johanan, Eliashib’s grandson.

These features have led many scholars to conclude that Ezra’s chronology is more complex than it first appears, prompting numerous attempts to reconstruct his historical timeline.

Lisbeth Fried, in her commentary on Ezra, argues that Ezra may have arrived in Jerusalem many years after Nehemiah, possibly during the reign of Artaxerxes II rather than Artaxerxes I. According to her reconstruction, the biblical narrative may have conflated events associated with different Persian kings, producing the chronological difficulties visible in the present text. [35]

Similarly, Lester Grabbe discusses these chronological problems in Ezra–Nehemiah. He notes that the narrative places Ezra’s mission shortly after the rebuilding of the Temple, whereas historical calculations point to a substantial gap—possibly half a century or more—between the two events. [36]

Grabbe also highlights another chronological difficulty. The biblical text presents Ezra as the son of Seraiah, the high priest executed at the fall of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. Taken literally, this creates an obvious chronological problem because of the unusually long interval involved. [37]

Our concern here is not to adjudicate between competing scholarly reconstructions, but simply to note that Ezra’s historical profile remains the subject of scholarly debate and that aspects of his chronology continue to resist easy explanation.

At this point, an intriguing feature of the Islamic tradition deserves notice.

A large number of early Muslim authorities identified the man described in the verse:

«“Or like the one who passed by a town while it had fallen into ruin upon its roofs. He said, ‘How will Allah bring this to life after its death?’ So Allah caused him to die for a hundred years and then revived him.” [32]»

with Uzayr.

Ibn Kathīr writes:

«“The scholars differed regarding the identity of this man. Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrated… from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib that he said: ‘It was Uzayr.’ Al-Ṭabarī also narrated it from Nājiyah. Al-Ṭabarī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim likewise related it from Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, al-Suddī, and Sulaymān ibn Buraydah. This is the well-known view.” [33]»

He then adds:

«“As for the town, the well-known opinion is that it was Jerusalem, which he passed by after its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar and the killing of its inhabitants.” [34]»

According to this interpretation, Uzayr witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, was caused by Allah to die for one hundred years, and was then restored to life.

We do not claim that this interpretation resolves every historical difficulty surrounding Ezra, nor that modern scholars have reached this conclusion. What is noteworthy is that early Muslim exegetes preserved an interpretation linking Uzayr with the destruction of Jerusalem and a prolonged interruption in his earthly life, while modern scholars continue to debate chronological puzzles surrounding Ezra’s career.

For this reason, the observation is worthy of consideration.

The Qur’an does not merely recount the histories of previous nations; in many instances it also clarifies matters over which they differed. As Allah says:

«“Indeed, this Qur’an relates to the Children of Israel most of that over which they differ.” [38]»

We do not present this as a standalone proof of prophethood or a decisive argument. Rather, it is a possible historical indication connected to the figure at the center of this discussion. It also provides an additional consideration supporting the conclusion reached throughout this study: that the Uzayr mentioned in the Qur’an is most plausibly Ezra of Jewish tradition.

This becomes particularly relevant when we turn to the alternative theory proposed by some modern writers—that Uzayr was not Ezra at all, but Eliezer or another similarly named figure.

It is to that theory that we now turn in the next chapter.

Chapter Nine: The Possibility That the Intended Figure Was Eliezer and Why This View Is Unpersuasive

After presenting the evidence supporting the conclusion that the Qur’anic Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe, it is appropriate to consider another view advanced by some modern researchers—not because it is persuasive, but to address the principal alternative explanation.

According to this view, the Uzayr mentioned in the Qur’an is not Ezra the Scribe, but the famous Jewish rabbi Eliezer (Eliezer ben Hyrcanus).

Its proponents point to passages in Jewish literature displaying extraordinary veneration toward Eliezer. Among the most frequently cited is a Midrashic report:

«“When Moses ascended to heaven, he found God sitting and discussing the laws of the Red Heifer, saying: ‘My son Eliezer says that a calf is considered one year old, and a cow two years old…’” [35]»

They also appeal to the Talmudic account of the “Oven of Akhnai,” in which Eliezer defended his legal opinion through miraculous signs. A tree was uprooted, water flowed contrary to its natural course, the walls of the academy began to collapse, and finally a heavenly voice proclaimed:

«“Why do you dispute with Eliezer, when the law agrees with him in every place?” [36]»

The narrative concludes with the statement attributed to God:

«“My children have defeated Me; My children have defeated Me.” [37]»

These texts undoubtedly portray Eliezer as a figure of remarkable stature and demonstrate that excessive reverence toward rabbis was not unknown in Jewish history. Yet proving that such reverence existed is one thing; proving that the Qur’anic Uzayr was Eliezer is quite another.

For several reasons, this identification remains unpersuasive.

First: The Linguistic Relationship Between Uzayr and Ezra Is Far More Natural

The closest Jewish name to Uzayr is Ezra (עזרא). The two names share the same essential consonantal structure, consisting of the letters ʿayin, zayin, and rāʾ. As noted earlier, a number of scholars explained Uzayr as an Arabicized or diminutive form of Ezra.

By contrast, identifying Uzayr with Eliezer (אליעזר) requires removing the entire first element of the name—El (“God”)—and deriving Uzayr from the remainder. This is a much less natural linguistic correspondence.

Second: This Interpretation Is Unknown to the Early Muslim Tradition

No report is known from the Companions, the Successors, or the early authorities of tafsīr identifying Uzayr as Eliezer. By contrast, numerous early reports identify him as Ezra, and this became the standard interpretation throughout the classical exegetical tradition.

A late hypothesis cannot overturn such a longstanding interpretive consensus without exceptionally strong evidence, and no such evidence appears to exist.

Third: The Islamic Memory of Uzayr Fits Ezra Better Than Eliezer

As discussed in the previous chapter, many early Muslim authorities identified the man mentioned in the verse:

«“Or like the one who passed by a town while it had fallen into ruin upon its roofs…” [32]»

as Uzayr.

This interpretation is reported from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Ḥasan, Qatādah, al-Suddī, and others. Consequently, Uzayr became associated in the early Islamic tradition with the destruction of Jerusalem, the story of the hundred years, and the restoration of life after that period.

Some scholars also discussed the possibility that he may have been a prophet, citing the report:

«“I do not know whether Uzayr was a prophet or not.” [38]»

although many regarded it as weak.

The point is not to establish Uzayr’s prophethood, but to note that this entire portrait naturally fits the ancient biblical figure associated with Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile. Eliezer, by contrast, lived centuries later, between Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them both.

The Prophet ﷺ said:

«“I am the closest of all people to Jesus son of Mary in this world and the next. The prophets are paternal brothers, and there was no prophet between him and me.” [39]»

If this narration excludes any prophet between Jesus and Muhammad, it creates an additional difficulty for those who identify Uzayr with Eliezer while also allowing for the possibility of Uzayr’s prophethood.

At the very least, the traditional Islamic portrait of Uzayr corresponds naturally with Ezra, whereas identifying him with Eliezer requires abandoning the framework preserved in the early exegetical tradition.

Fourth: The Early Exegetical Reports Are Centered on Ezra and the Torah

This is among the strongest considerations.

The reports transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās, al-Suddī, and others not only identify Uzayr but also explain why some people exaggerated in their reverence for him. They revolve around a common theme: the Torah had been lost or its knowledge had disappeared, Allah restored it through Uzayr, and some people then exaggerated concerning him.

This is not merely a matter of names but of an entire historical framework involving:

• Uzayr,
• the Torah,
• the loss of religious knowledge,
• the restoration of the Law,
• and the excessive veneration that followed.

All of these elements correspond naturally to Ezra the Scribe. Nothing comparable is associated with Eliezer, who is not remembered as the restorer of the Torah or the reviver of the Law. Consequently, identifying Uzayr with Eliezer leaves the traditional explanations without a coherent historical foundation.

Fifth: Specialists Generally Identify Uzayr with Ezra

The identification of Uzayr with Ezra is not confined to Muslim scholars. As noted previously, the Jewish philosopher Ibn Kammūnah explicitly identified Ezra as the figure Muslims call Uzayr. [2]

Likewise, the overwhelming majority of Jewish and Western academic discussions begin by identifying the Qur’anic Uzayr with Ezra before debating the meaning of his sonship or the identity of the group that held such a belief.

The Eliezer hypothesis has never achieved comparable acceptance among specialists.

Moreover, it explains only a limited aspect of the discussion: that exaggerated reverence for religious authorities existed in some Jewish circles. It does not explain the connection with the Torah, the restoration of the Law, the early exegetical reports, the testimony of Jewish writers, or the cumulative historical evidence surveyed throughout this study.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Eliezer hypothesis has been included for the sake of completeness and because the traditions concerning Eliezer demonstrate that excessive reverence toward rabbis was a real phenomenon in certain strands of Jewish tradition.

Nevertheless, the stronger and more convincing view is that the Qur’anic Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe.

This interpretation is supported by the testimony of the early Muslim authorities, linguistic evidence, a coherent explanation for the origin of the exaggeration surrounding him, historical indications, Jewish sources, and modern scholarship. It also explains Uzayr’s connection with the Torah, the restoration of the Law after the Exile, Ezra’s exceptional position in Jewish memory, and the extraordinary reverence attributed to him in a number of ancient and later traditions.

By contrast, the Eliezer interpretation explains only one aspect of the discussion—the possibility of excessive reverence toward certain rabbis. It does not adequately account for the broader body of evidence, which consistently points to Ezra.

Accordingly, identifying Uzayr with Ezra remains the strongest and most natural interpretation of the relevant texts, the early Muslim tradition, and the cumulative historical and linguistic evidence presented throughout this study.

The claim that the Qur’an contains a historical error therefore rests on no solid foundation. Rather, the Qur’anic account is consistent with Ezra’s place in Jewish tradition and with the existence of beliefs that later disappeared, leaving only scattered traces in the historical record while their memory was preserved by Allah in His Book.

Final Conclusion

After examining the evidence, transmitted reports, and historical indications, it becomes clear that the claim of a historical error in the Qur’anic statement:

«“And the Jews say, ‘Uzayr is the son of Allah.’”»

rests on no solid foundation.

The Jewish figure who most closely corresponds to the Qur’anic Uzayr is Ezra the Scribe, as indicated by the interpretations of the early Muslim authorities, the linguistic evidence, Jewish testimonies, and modern historical scholarship.

It has also become clear that Ezra was far from an ordinary figure in Jewish religious consciousness. His name became closely associated with the Torah, the preservation of the Law, and the revival of Jewish religious life after the Babylonian Exile. Given this exceptional status, extraordinary veneration of him becomes historically understandable rather than surprising.

The evidence likewise shows that the Qur’an does not require this belief to have been held by all Jews in every age. Rather, it may refer to a particular group among them, as maintained by a number of classical exegetes and supported by the ḥadīth of intercession together with the explanations of Ibn Ḥajar and other scholars.

Nor does the absence of this belief among Jews today establish that it never existed. History contains many religious groups and doctrines that disappeared over time, leaving behind only scattered traces in historical sources.

As for the view that the Qur’anic Uzayr was Eliezer rather than Ezra, while it demonstrates that excessive reverence toward certain Jewish rabbis existed, it does not account for the full range of evidence as convincingly as the identification of Uzayr with Ezra the Scribe.

Accordingly, the Qur’anic verse is entirely consistent with what is known about Jewish history and tradition. The objections raised against it generally arise from misunderstanding the nature of the sonship attributed to Uzayr, imposing requirements upon the Qur’anic text that it does not itself imply, or treating the absence of contemporary evidence as proof that a past belief never existed.

And Allah knows best.

الحمد لله رب العالمين

References

[1] Qur’an, al-Tawbah 9:30.

[2] Ibn Kammūnah, Tanqīḥ al-Abḥāth li-l-Milal al-Thalāth, Cairo: Dār al-Anṣār, 1380 AH / 1960 CE, p. 32.

[3] Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʿAẓīm, commentary on al-Tawbah 9:30.

[4] Ibn ʿĀshūr, al-Taḥrīr wa-l-Tanwīr, commentary on al-Tawbah 9:30.

[5] Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 21b.

[6] “Ezra,” St-Takla Bible Encyclopedia.

[7] al-Shawkānī, Irshād al-Fuḥūl ilā Taḥqīq al-Ḥaqq min ʿIlm al-Uṣūl, ed. Aḥmad ʿAzzū ʿInāyah, Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1419 AH / 1999 CE, 2:197.

[8] Qur’an, al-Tawbah 9:31.

[9] Reported by al-Tirmidhī (3095), al-Ṭabarānī (17/92, no. 218), and al-Bayhaqī (20376). Classified as ḥasan by al-Albānī in al-Silsilah al-Ṣaḥīḥah, no. 3293.

[10] al-Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, commentary on al-Tawbah 9:30.

[11] Gordon Newby, “Uzayr,” in A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p. 209.

[12] Reuven Firestone, Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims, Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 2001, p. 36.

[13] Gordon Darnell Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia: From Ancient Times to Their Eclipse Under Islam, Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2009, p. 59.

[14] al-Samawʾal ibn Yaḥyā al-Maghribī, Badhl al-Majhūd fī Ifḥām al-Yahūd, ed. ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Ṭawīlah, Damascus: Dār al-Qalam, 1410 AH / 1989 CE, p. 134.

[15] Ibn Ḥazm, al-Faṣl fī al-Milal wa-l-Ahwāʾ wa-l-Niḥal, Cairo: Maktabat al-Khānjī, 1:148.

[16] Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Mafātīḥ al-Ghayb, commentary on al-Tawbah 9:30.

[17] Reported by al-Bukhārī (125) and Muslim (2794).

[18] Paul Casanova, “Idris et ‘Ouzair,” Journal Asiatique, vol. 205 (1924), p. 358.

[19] Qur’an, al-Mā’idah 5:64.

[20] Qur’an, Āl ʿImrān 3:181.

[21] Qur’an, al-Aʿrāf 7:138.

[22] Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāyah wa-l-Nihāyah, al-Saʿādah edition, 1:276.

[23] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-Bārī Sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, Dār al-Maʿrifah, Beirut, 1379 AH, 3:359.

[24] Reported by al-Bukhārī, Kitāb Tafsīr al-Qur’ān, no. 4305, and Muslim, Kitāb al-Īmān, no. 183.

[25] Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 11:449.

[26] Samuel Youssef, Introduction to the Old Testament, Cairo: Dār al-Thaqāfah, 1413 AH / 1993 CE, p. 73.

[27] Reuven Hammer, The Torah Revolution: Fourteen Truths That Changed the World, ReadHowYouWant, 2014, p. 2.

[28] Ibid., p. 223.

[29] al-Qirqisānī, Kitāb al-Anwār wa-l-Marāqib, ed. Leon Nemoy, New York, 1939, p. 15.

[30] Gordon Darnell Newby, A History of the Jews of Arabia: From Ancient Times to Their Eclipse Under Islam, p. 60.

[31] C. H. Box (trans.), The Apocalypse of Ezra, London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917, p. 114.

[32] Qur’an, al-Baqarah 2:259.

[33] Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qur’ān al-ʿAẓīm, commentary on al-Baqarah 2:259.

[34] Qur’an, al-Naml 27:76.

[35] Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 8.

[36] Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 59b (The Oven of Akhnai).

[37] Reported by Abū Dāwūd (4674), al-Bazzār (8541), and al-Ḥākim (2174).

[38] Reported by al-Bukhārī (3442), Abū Dāwūd (4675), and Aḥmad (9975), with minor variations in wording.