Exegetical Polemic of ‘Uzayr in the Qur’an
Muhammad Mahir Nayl Habib
1
and Kusmana
2
1
Faculty of Ushuluddin, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN), Ciputat, Jakarta, Indonesia
2
Graduate School, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University (UIN), Jakarta, Indonesia
Keywords: ‘Uzayr, Ezra, Jewish, Judaism, Exegetical Polemic.
Abstract: This paper attempts to answer the exegetical polemic, regarding Uzayr, a figure found in the Qur’an 9:30.
The interpretation of this figure is quite diverse and controversial. Generally, Muslim exegetes identify
‘Uzayr as Ezra. While there is a exegete who identifies ‘Uzayr as Eliezer like al-Biq’. Western sources,
including Jewish scholars identified ‘Uzayr more variously, among them there were authors who identified
‘Uzayr as Uziel, and as Azariah, or Idris. By using descriptive analytic method, this literature research attempts
to trace the differences of opinion above, through the identification of the figure of ‘Uzayr mentioned in the
classical and modern exegesis. The study finds that ‘Uzayr was more inclined towards Ezra in the Jewish
tradition, because through the comparison of the historical chronology of Ezra in Jewish literature and the
story of ‘Uzayr in the exegeses both have many similarities. In addition, the two names have similar letter
structure and also have similar meanings.
1 INTRODUCTION
The Qur'an often mentions names such as names of
known figures in certain traditions. There are figures
whose identities are clearly identified, and there are
also people whose identities are not clearly known, so
that it becomes areas of differences among scholars.
One reason for these various opinions is due to the
rarity of the figure his or herself found in the Qur'an
or Hadith. This happens to a figure called 'Uzayr. The
Qur'an only meantions it once, in Qur'an 9: 30 (‘Abd
al-Bq, 1364 H).
Hadith also mentions the figure rarely, it even
does not explain the identity of ‘Uzayr at all. Among
the hadiths which mention the name ‘Uzayr, there is
nothing that clearly explains the identity of ‘Uzayr.
Hadiths which mention his name is hadiths which are
included in the theme of the ‘aqīdah (creed). There is
no explanation as to who is ‘Uzayr, and what caused
Israelites to respect him so much. These hadiths can
be seen in the book a al-Bukhr: hadith no. 4581
and 7439 (al-Bukhr, 1422 H), a Muslim: hadith
no. 302 (Muslim), and Musnad Amad: hadith no.
20694 (Amad, 2001).
‘Uzayr's figure has been extensively studied by
many scholars from Jewish and Western scholars.
Some Jewish literatures criticize the identification of
of ‘Uzayr as Ezra. Identification ‘Uzayr as Ezra is
not found in the Qur'an, but found in the work of
Quranic interpretation. Some exegetes identify
‘Uzayr as Ezra, stating that ‘Uzayr was ‘Izr () as
mentioned by al-Margh (
al-Margh, 1946), Ibn
‘shr (Ibn ‘shr, 1984), and many others.
There is also an exegete who does not mention
the name Ezra, but the story of 'Uzayr which is
resemblance to the chronology of the story of Ezra
narrated in Jewish literature, as ecplained by Ibn
Kathr (Ibn Kathr, 1999).
Therefore, it becomes a
general view that ‘Uzayr is Ezra. Because the verse
speaks of Jews, there are objections and criticisms
from some Jewish and Western scholars. Before
entering the discussion about these objections, here
is a quote from the Qur'an al-Tawbah verse 30:
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the Son of Allah.
These are the words of their mouths. They imitate
the saying of those who disbelieved before. May
Allah destroy them. How they are turned away!
(Shakir Translation, p. 333-334).
This verse states "The Jews say:" Uzayr is the son
of Allah", and according to this verse we can mention
that there are Jews who have said this. However,
some Jewish scholars disprove the statement from
the verse, because as adherents of Judaism they also
believed in the concept of Monotheism like Islam.
Disclaimers regarding this verse are expressed by
Abraham Geiger and John Walker in his book.
Nayl Habib, M. and Kusmana, .
Exegetical Polemic of ‘Uzayr in the Qur’an.
DOI: 10.5220/0009929803090316
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2018), pages 309-316
ISBN: 978-989-758-458-9
Copyright
c
2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
309
Rabbi Abraham Geiger argues that the
information in thisverse has understood differently
and merely misunderstanding, and for more details
Geiger stated his argument like this:
We find more in the Quran about Ezra, if not about
his history, yet about the way in which the Jews
regarded him. According to the assertion of
Muhammad the Jews held Ezra to be the Son of God.
This is certainly a mere misunderstanding which
arose from the great esteem in which Ezra was
undoubtedly held. This esteem is expressed in the
following passage (Sanhedrin 21:2): “Ezra would
have been worthy to have made known the law if
Moses had not come before him.” Truly Muhammad
sought to cast suspicion on the Jews' faith in the unity
of God, and thought he had here found a good
opportunity of so doing. (Geiger, 1898).
In addition, John Walker explains that this
information is understood differently and falls into
an accusation. The following is a quote from the
walker statement regarding the verse:
The Jews Say Ezra is the son of God.” The only
known occurrence of this statement is to be found
here in the Koran. If the idea did not originate in
Mohammed’s own mind, it is obviusly a slanderous
accusation against the Jews, made by enemies,
perhaps the Samaritans, who hated Ezra most bitterly
because he changed the sacred law and its script
(Walker, 1931).
In these quotations, they translated ‘Uzayr as
Ezra. Then, is it true that Uzayr is Ezra? Did Prophet
Muhammad ever identify ‘Uzayr as Ezra? And from
where origins Uzayr identified as Ezra?
Although the verse says the negative side of the
Jews, the Qur'anic view does not generalize to Ahl al-
Kitāb; from Jews or Christians. Because among of
them there are people who still cling to the original
teachings brought by the prophet Previously. As
mentioned in Srah li ‘Imrn verses 113-114:
[113] They are not all alike. Of the followers of the
Book there is an upright party; they recite Allah’s
communications in the night time and they adore
(Him). [114] They believe in Allah and the last day,
and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong,
and they strive with one another in hastening to good
deeds, and those are among the good. (Shakir
Translation, p. 112 - 113).
It clearly state that Ahl al-Kitāb, is not as alleged
by Geiger andWalker, or others, it actually states that
there are Ahl al-Kitāb who really do the right
teaching, and even so we cannot deny that there are
those who deviate as described in Qur’an 9:30.
2 LITERATURE REVEIEW
Among the Muslim scholars (other than the Mufassir
or Exegete) who first discussed ‘Uzayr in their
writings were ‘Al bin azm al-hir (d. 456 H /
1064 AD) in al-Faṣlu Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-Niḥal,
Ab Manur al-Jawliq (d. 540 H / 1144 AD) in al-
Mu‘arrab min al-Kalām al-A‘jamī, and al-Samau’al
al-Maghrib (d. 572 H / 1180 AD), in Ifḥām al-Yahūd.
Based on the references from the work of these
authors ‘Uzayr figure is not explained in detail, and
in it they only allude to ‘Uzayr in a concise manner.
Ibn azm in al-Faṣlu Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-Niḥal,
which discusses various groups, like religions and
sects, and in this book related to Jewish discussion,
there is a brief discussion about ‘Uzayr. Whereas al-
Jawliq in the book al-Mu‘arrab min al Kalām al-
A‘jamī, discusses the foreign vocabulary found in the
al-Qur'n, one of which includes the name ‘Uzayr. al-
Samau’al al-Maghrib in Ifḥām al-Yahūd, discusses
the criticisms of Jews relating to issues that arise
between them.
Whereas among Western scholars discussing
‘Uzayr in their writing, Abraham Geiger in Judaism
and Islam, John Walker in Bible Characters in the
Koran, Arthur Jeffery in The Foreign Vocabulary of
The Qur’an in the letter ‘Ayn: ‘Uzayr, Hava Lazarus-
Yafeh in Intertwined Worlds Medieval Islam and
Bible Criticism, Mikhail Piotrovsky, in Historical
Legends of the Quran: Word and Image, Lisbeth S.
Fried, in Ezra and the Law in History and Tradition.
The writings of Abraham Geiger, John Walker,
and Mikhail Piotrovsky use a similar theme, namely
writing Jewish figures found in the Qur’n, these
writings discuss the figures accompanied by various
criticisms. Then, the writings of Arthur Jeffery lead
more to the entry of foreign vocabulary in the Qur’n,
this is because he was inspired by the writings of al-
Jawliq and al-Suyu who had discussed this before,
and Hava Lazarus-Yafeh discusses medieval Muslim
writings , including the discussion of Uzayr which is
discussed in its own Sub-theme. Among the
weaknesses of the discussion contained in the books
mentioned above, is due to the less detailed
explanation of ‘Uzayr.
Then, the author also found writing whose core
research was specifically about Ezra, like the book
written by Lisbeth S. Fried. In the book Lisbeth
discusses Ezra with a fairly extensive discussion,
from the discussion of history, the laws brought by
Ezra, geographical location, and the issues found in
several religions that pertain to Ezra, such as
Samaritan, Christian, and Islam.
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
310
3 METHOD
Using a descriptive-analytic method, this study
discusses the exegetical polemic of 'Uzayr identity
found in the works of Qur’anic interpretation in the
classical period such as Jāmi ‘al- Bayān fī Ta’wīl al-
Qur’ān by Ab Ja’far al-abar, and the exegesis of
Naẓm al-Durar fī Tanāsub al-Āyāt wa al-Suwar by
al-Biq’, and modern one such as Tafsīr al-Marāghī
by Amad bin Muafá al-Margh, Taḥrīr al-Ma’ná
al-Sadīd wa Tanwīr al-‘Aql al-Jadīd min Tafsīr al-
Kitāb al-Majīd by Ibn ‘shr al-Tnis. Another
sources were also consulted, i.e. Jewish literature.
The secondary relevant sources were also used
such as books and journals.
3.1 Exegesis View of ‘Uzayr
Identity ‘Uzayr is often not clearly explained in the
works of tafsīr, particularly on the narration of the
cause ‘Uzayr was called the son of God by the Jews.
al-abar brings two narrations originally quoted
from ibn ‘bbas and al-Sudd with a slight different
chronology of stories. However, both of these
narrations still have several important points in
common. Like the disappearance of the Torah on the
side of Israelites, ‘Uzayr prayed to God to give the
Torah back to the side of Israelites, the Torah was
returned through ‘Uzayr, the Torah was rewritten
by ‘Uzayr, and ‘Uzayr called as the son of God by the
Jews (al-abar, 2000).
The above narrations do mention the two
narrations, those points do refer to the story of Ezra
mentioned in Jewish literature, one of them rewriting
the Torah which used Assyrian language by Ezra, as
mentioned in the Talmud on the passage of
Sanhedrin 21b (William Davidson Talmud).
Then other exegetes like al-Biq’, in contrast to
al-abar who did not identify ‘Uzayr to one
particular figure found in Jewish literature, al-Biq’
in his exegesis identified ‘Uzayr with a figure named
al-‘zar/Eliazar (al-Biq’).
al-Biq’ opinions was
derived from the opinion of a ex-Jewish Rabbi
Sama’ul al-Maghrib, who also stated that ‘Uzayr
was not Ezra because he thought Ezra was only a
Rabbi (al-Maghrib, 1964).
Furthermore, among modern exegeses such as al-
Margh's exegesis and Ibn ‘shr's exegesis.
Regarding the explanation of the interpretation of
who 'Uzayr was meant in the verse, both had the same
interpretation because both referred Uzayr to the
figure of Ezra known in the Jewish tradition, and both
also stated that the words of "the Jews" used meant
not all Jews said that, but only a part of them.
However, both provide different explanations for the
general use of the word “Jew”, while the verse goes
down only to respond to statements from some of
them.
al-Margh explained that the general use of the
word Jews in the verse has a meaning like the
statement in Surah al-Anfal verse 25, which explains
to keep oneself from torment that not only afflicts the
wrongdoers in particular, and then he likens that it
is the same as an epidemic that infects a people
caused by filth, which not only attacks dirty people,
but clean people are also afflicted by the plague (al-
Margh, 1946).
Whereas Ibn ‘shr explained the reason for the
Qur'n attributing it to the Jews as a whole, even
though only a few of them said it, it was because of
their silence against the heretical words that emerged
from some of them, even they agreed to let that (Ibn
‘shr, 1984).
3.2 Scholars View over the Figure of
‘Uzayr
In spite of the dominant view which sees ‘Uzayr as
Ezra in the discourse of Quranic hermeneutics, some
scholars identify him as another figure whom he
might also be traced in the source of Jewish literature.
Their efforts in identifying ‘Uzayr have several
different reasons. One of them is like Cassanova who
views ‘Uzayr is one of the fallen Angels named Uziel
or Azazel, because the figure is often called the son
of God in Jewish literature (Jeffery, 1938;
Wassersom, 1995).
Another opinion came from Gordon Newby. He
suspected that in pre-Islamic times some Arab Jews
equated ‘Uzayr with Enoch. They said that because
Enoch was assumed into heaven, stripped of his
humanity and transformed into heavenly creature
called Metraton. This creature is often regarded as a
b’nê ‘elôhîm or son of God in Jewish literature
(Newby, 2004).
Furthermore C. C. Torrey assumes that Uzayr is
Idris, because he thinks the name Idris is a form of
the Arabic name Esdras. While Esdras is the Latin
form of the name Ezra. Thus Torrey had assumed that
Ezra, Uzayr, and Idrs were the same person (Torrey,
1933).
Then, Viviane Comerro assumed that Uzayr was
Azaryah, he assumed that there was still confusion
from Muslim traditionalists themselves, regarding
the difference from the two Hebrew names between
Ezra and Azaryah, because the two names came
from the same root. Comerro also stated that in the
Arab Christian tradition Ezra was called Azra like
Exegetical Polemic of ‘Uzayr in the Qur’an
311
pronunciation in Syriac, while difference between
Azra and Azaryah because there was a lowercase
letter ‘yod’ in the composition of his words. So he
thought is not impossible if Uzayr mentioned in the
Qur'an referred to Azaryah figure (Comerro, 2005).
In other side, there are some scholars who
assumed that ‘Uzayr appeared because of an error.
Like Finkel's opinion which states there was an error
in reading the text, he assumed the reading of the text
supposed to be Azz not ‘Uzayr (Jeffery, 1938).
Bellamy also stated that there was a misinformation
regarding ‘Uzayr as the son of God, because the
mentioned name is not directed at Ezra as found in
the Apocrypha 2 Esdras 2: 42-48 (Bellamy, 2001).
Instead it was aimed at a handsome young man
whom Ezra had seen in the hills of Zion, and in the
Christian tradition the young man was often
interpreted as Jesus (The New Oxford Annotated
Bible; New Revised Standard Version With The
Apocrypha, 2010).
Then Bellamy also said that
there had been a writing error during the codification
process, which supposed to be ‘Azrābnu changed to
‘Uzayrun ibnu (Bellamy, 2001). In addition to
Western scholars view, there are other opinions that
arise from Muslim scholars. Like the opinion of Dr.
Salah ed-Dine Kechrid, he assumed that ‘Uzayr was
‘Uzziy (Kechrid, 1990). Then the view of ex-Rabbi
Sama'ul al-Maghrib who assumes‘Uzayr as Eliazar
(al- Maghrib, 1964).
3 DISCUSSION
Having visited several sources regarding the figure
of Uzayr, we find that each of them has an argument
to prove their opinion. Finkel and Bellamy, who
found that there had been an error in writing and
reading the text in the Qur’an. This view does not
have a strong basis because many of the companions
of the Prophet memorized the Qur’an, and the Qur’an
has been collected into one Muṣḥaf before the
Prophet died (al-Ghifr, 2010). While the
codification effort carried out by ‘Uthman was only
to make one qirā’ah (Quranic Recitation Method) in
one manuscript. Because the difference qirā’ah
spread at that time, caused Muslims to accuse each
other of infidelity (al-Ghifr, 2010).
Then Newby’s opinion assumes ‘Uzayr as Enoch
or Metraton,and Torrey assumes that ‘Uzayr as Idris.
This argument seems also weak, because ‘Uzayr was
called a Jew, whereas Idris or Enoch were not Jews,
and they lived long before Jews formed as an ethnic
community. Thus the confusion was also directed to
Finkel's assumption of Uziel or Azazel, because based
on the story Azazel was an angel who was expelled
into earth and became a Devil, which in the Islamic
tradition was known as Iblīs.
The same thing also found on Sama’ul’s opinion
about Eliazar, because Eliazar was living in the time
of prophet Ibrahim and also known as his slave.
Whereas the prophet Ibrahim was not a Jew,
because Jewish term used as an ethnic group name
after his grandson period; Ya'qub/Jacob. As for
Kechrid's assumptions about ‘Uzayr as Uzziy, he
just stated it without giving convincing arguments.
His opinion might refer to Azaryah, because the
name Azaryah appears instead of Uzziy’s name,
which is according to Driscoll opinions probably due
to a copyist's error (Driscoll, 1911). Comerro's
statement about Azaryah also did not provide a
more convincing argument.
Then, when Uzayr was connected to Ezra there
seemed to be more compatibility and similarity. By
language the name ‘Uzayr is a diminutive form
(taṣghīr) from the word ‘azr () which one of its
meanings is help (Ibn Manur). Likewise the name
Ezra comes from the word ‘azr () which also has
the meaning of help (Jackson, 1909; Smith, 2002;
Lee, 1840; Klein, 1987; Tal, 2000).
In addition the
two names also have a word form that only consists
of one word, unlike the names Eliazar and
Azaryah which are names derived from two words;
El + Azar and Azar + Yah. El and Yah means God.
Therefore, the name Eliazar means “God is my
helper” and Azaryah means “God has helped.”
(McGough, 2006).
Regarding the name, Ibn ‘Ash
r also stated that
the name of‘Uzayr was from the Jews of Medina
who called his as Ezra, they called his name in
diminutive form and called him so because they liked
calling so (Ibn ‘shr, 1984).
The following is a table about the forms of those
names:
Language Name
Origin
Word
Meanings
Arabic
(‘Uzayr)
(‘Azr)
Help,
assist, aid.
Hebrew
(Ezra)
(‘Azr)
Help,
assist, aid,
helper.
(Eliazar)
+
(El +
‘Azr)
God is my
Helper.
(‘Azaryah)
+
(‘Azr +
Yah)
God has
helped.
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
312
Then, if we look at some derivative names of the
name Ezra, there are some names that are indeed close
to the name ‘Uzayr in the naming tradition of Jewish
names. There are personal names and Jewish
surnames that are pronounced close to the
pronunciation of the name ‘Uzayr, the name is Ozer
or Oyzer, which also has the meaning “helper” and is
also referred to as another mention of the name Ezra.
(Hanks, 2003).
Seeing the form of the name Ozer with the name
‘Uzayr both have close forms, although there are
slight differences in terms of pronunciation, this can
also be a clue that maybe the name ‘Uzayr was born
among Arab Jews because of the closeness of its form
to the name Ozer, which was then intended to call
Ezra and the pronunciation changed to 'Uzayr in the
Arabic dialect.
Related to that, al-Tawbah verse 30 which states
that ‘Uzayr has been called the son of God by the
Jews, and in that verse in the text clearly uses the
name ‘Uzayr and not the name ‘Azr ( ). It might
also be to show that the perpetrators who had called
Ezra the son of God were Arab Jews, or certain
Jewish sects that existed in Arabia.
Although there are some western scholars who
doubt the existence of a group of Arab Jews or Jews
who think so, but apart from sources of Muslim
scholars there are also western scholars who justify
the existence of a group of Arab Jews who have
regarded Ezra as the son of God. This assumption
arises from the views of Mark Lidzbarski and
Michael Lodhal, who stated that there might have
been a Jewish sect in the time of the prophet
Muhammad who had raised Ezra as the son of God.
(Sirry, 2014).
This may also be related to Hirschberg's opinion,
which states that there was a group of Yemeni Jews
who were reluctant to name their children by the
name of Ezra, arguing that they believed that Ezra had
cursed them with poverty, because they did not want
to follow Ezra's invitation to return to Israel. (Fried,
2014). Then the belief in the curse caused excessive
cult to Ezra in some of the Arab Jewish sects. This
opinion is also in line with Ibn azm's opinion about
the addqiyyah sect in Yemen, which states that
‘Uzayr is the son of God. (Ibn azm, 1348 H).
The similarity of the stories contained in Jewish
literature and Muslim exegesis literature is also very
supportive, although the narrations carried by the
exegetes are the stories of Isrā’īliyyat (historical
narrative allegedly made by Jews or Christians) and
in it also contains odd things. Comparing the
narrations of Uzayr story in Muslim exegesis
literature with Ezra story in theTorah is not exactly
the same and accurate, because there are some
stories in the narrations of ‘Uzayr that did not occur
at the time of Ezra. Like the moral decadence and
loss of Torah that occurred in the King Manasseh and
King Amon period [Nevi’im; Malachim II. 21: 1 - 3,
19 – 23] (Hebrew-English Tanakh The Jewish Bible,
2009),
and Torah found by Hilkiah (Ezra's ancestors)
in the period of King Josiah [Nevi’im; Malachim II.
22: 8] (Hebrew-English Tanakh The Jewish Bible,
2009).
While the narations in the exegesis states that
all happened in the time of ‘Uzayr. It seems like the
oddity is due to the messed up narrations content
delivered by narrators.
The following is a table about the sequence of
stories contained in the Bible which has a connection
with the story of 'uzayr:
Period Event
The Role
of Ezra
Source
King
Manasseh -
King
Amon
Moral
decadence
and loss of
Torah
-
Nevi’im;
Malachim
II. 21: 1 -
3, 19 - 23.
King
Josiah
Torah
Scroll
founded
The Torah
Scroll found
by Hilkiah,
and Ezra
was not
involved at
all.
Nevi’im;
Malachim
II. 22: 8.
King
Jehoiakim
- King
Cyrus
Babylonian
captivity
-
Nevi’im
(Malachim
II. 24: 1 -
17),
Nevi’im
(Malachim
II. 25: 8 -
12).
King
Cyrus -
King
Artaxerxes
Returnig
from the
captivity
and
rebuilding
Holy
Temple
When the
reign of
King
Artaxerxes,
Ezra led the
exodus from
Babylon to
Jerusalem,
and he was
also ordered
to teach the
law to the
Israelites.
Kethuvim
(Ezra. 1: 1
- 8),
Kethuvim
(Ezra. 7: 1
- 27).
Rewriting
Torah
Ezra
rewrote the
Torah using
Ashurit and
Aramaic.
Talmud
(Sanhedrin
21b).
Exegetical Polemic of ‘Uzayr in the Qur’an
313
Then, the next link between Ezra and 'Uzayr,
which is the location of his grave, Michael R.
Fischbach in his writing in a journal about the
claims of Jewish community property in Iraq, he
mentioned that there was a village in Iraq called al-
'Uzayr, and in the south of the city from the village
of al-'Uzayr there is the tomb of Ezra which is
located close to Basra in Iraq, where the area is
inhabited by Shiite Muslims and they also honor the
tomb of Ezra. (Fischbach, 2008).
However, regarding the location of Ezra's tomb
there are a number of records stating its location in
Iraq, and also there are several other records stating
that the location is not in Iraq. In the Islamic
tradition the tomb of Ezra (‘Uzayr) is located on the
edge of the Tigris river near Basra, and the tomb is
also a pilgrimage site for Jews and Arabs. A similar
opinion was also found in the records of an
Andalusian poet in the 13th century Judah al-Harizi,
who mentioned the location of Ezra's tomb in a
village in Basra. And in the 12th century a Jewish
traveler; Petahiyah of Regensberg stated that Ezra's
tomb was at the boundary of the Babylonian land.
(Fried, 2014).
While the opinion stating its location is not
located in Iraq emerged from Rabbi Yishaq Elfarra,
he noted when the pilgrimage to Jerusalem he saw
Cloud appear from the tomb of Ezra in the village
of Allepan (Allepo) Taduf (Tadef) Syria. (Fried,
2014). Another opinion arises from the record of
Josephus who recorded after the reading of the law
read by Ezra, he mentioned that Ezra died and was
buried in Jerusalem. (Fried, 2014). Here is a table of
opinions that mentions the location of Ezra's tomb.
No.
Source of
Opinion
Ezra Tomb
Location
1.
Michael R.
Fischbach
al-‘Uzayr village,
Iraq.
2.
The Majority of
Muslims
al-‘Uzayr
Village/ a village
in the edge Tigris
river, Basra -
Iraq.
3. Judah al-Harizi
A village in
Basra, Iraq.
4. Petahiyah
The
b
oundary of
the Babylonian
land.
5.
Rabi Yishaq
Elfarra
Allepo-Tadef,
S
y
ria.
6. Josephus Jerusalem.
Based on these records we cannot immediately
ascertain the exact location of Ezra's tomb, whether
the tomb is in the al-‘Uzayr village in Iraq, or
located in Syria or located in Jerusalem. But if we
connect with its location located in Iraq, in a village
called al-'Uzayr as Fischbach has said, it may not
necessarily indicate that Ezra was' Uzayr, because it
could be that the naming of the village to be al-
'Uzayr occurred when the area was under Muslim
rule, and because of the location of the village there
was the tomb of Ezra which was highly respected by
the Jews, so as to honor one of those who were
known to be pious among the Jews, and because in
the Arab tradition there was a widespread story that
' Uzayr is Ezra, so the village is named the village
of al-'Uzayr.
But if it is observed about the location of Ezra's
tomb based on these records, in general the location
of Ezra's tomb is known to be located in the Basrah
region or in Iraq, or maybe people would say that
the location is still in the Babylonian region, as
Petahiyah said. However, if we look at it from a
view that states its location only in Babylon, then
Josephus view that states its location is in
Jerusalem, with the opinion of R. Yishaq Elfarra
stating its location in Syria, can still be classified
within the Babylonian region, as Basrah-Iraq also
still included in it.
In addition, in the author's view, it is possible
that Ezra did indeed live and live in Jerusalem, after
the massive Exodus of the Israelites from Babylon
to Jerusalem. But Ezra was not always in Jerusalem,
given his role as the HaSofer (Scribe) of the
kingdom, which enabled him to enter Jerusalem in
the interests of the kingdom. So it is not impossible
Ezra died and was buried outside the Jerusalem area,
and also based on the search of the author of a
picture on one website, showing that the tomb of
Ezra in the village of al-'Uzayr in Iraq clearly wrote
the name Ezra in the text the Hebrew language on
the tombstone, beside which there are writings that
are partially unreadable. The only part that reads
HaSo which is most likely is HaSofer (Scribe),
which is the title for Ezra. (Salman, 2008).
As for R. Yishaq Elfarra's statement stating the
location of his grave in Allepo-Tadef, according to
the author's view it is still quite difficult to prove the
truth, and there are only two possibilities that still
may be concerning the location of his tomb, namely
between Iraq and Jerusalem. Whereas if viewed
from the number of opinions, among the opinions
that state its location in Iraq and in Jerusalem, based
on the data that the authors have most opinions tend
to indicate that the location of the tomb is located in
Iraq rather than Jerusalem, because the opinion
stating the location of the tomb in Jerusalem comes
only from Josephus' record .
The fitness between the figure of ‘Uzayr and of
Ezra does make more sense when comparing them
through the form and meaning of word in names,
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
314
related histories, as well as the general views of
linguist and exegetes. As for identification efforts
that gave rise to various opinions about ‘Uzayr's
identity, it seems that most of these opinions are still
presumptive, because there is a desire to respond that
the Jews did not consider Ezra as the son of God.
However, it becomes unnecessary when we know
that the verse came down because of the statements
of only a few Jews of Medina, and the verse came
down to respond to the statement. If it is related to
Bellamy's statement about the misinformation of the
Apocrypha, then the confusion came from the Arab
Ahl al-Kitab (People of The Book), because among
them there were also those who were illiterate like
most Arabs at the time (Qur’an 2: 78),
and perhaps
they (Arab Jews) had received information from
Christians and then suspect that the intended son of
God was Ezra.
Then, regarding the general use of the word “Jew”
while only a few of them said so. al-Qurub stated
that it was similar to the interpretation of “the people
said” on li ‘Imrn: 173, which means that not
everyone said so, similarly to the word “the Jews
say” at al-Tawbah: 30 (al-Qurub, 1964). Thus, this
verse does not aim to respond to Jews as a whole, and
when we know the context of this verse the
translation of ‘Uzayr as Ezra will not be a problem.
4 CONCLUSIONS
In the end, the author argues that the ‘Uzayr figure is
more appropriate when identified as Ezra than other
figures, and the statement from the Qur'an 9: 30 does
not apply to accusing all Jews of having said that.
Likewise, it is not appropriate for Jews to accuse
the prophet Muhammad or Muslims of using this
verse without understanding the context. It would be
nice as a religious community that we respect and
decorate the earth with mutual love even though we
embrace different religions, and it is our duty to be
together as religious students to clarify existing
religious issues.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This article which arrived at its current form is the
result of my collaboration with Kusmana. He has
helped me in referring to relevant sources, how to
read them, data analysis and language editing. This is
a fruitful academic collaboration indeed.
REFERENCES
‘Abd al-Bq, Muammad Fu’d. 1364 H. Al-Mu’jam al-
Mufahras lil-Alfāẓ al-Qur’ān al-Karīm. Dr al-Kitb al-
Miriyyah. Cairo.
al-Bukhr, Muammad bin Ism’l. 1422 H. Ṣaḥīḥ al-
Bukhārī. Dr q al-Najh. Beirut.
al-Biq’, Ibrhm bin ‘Umar. Naẓm al-Durar fī Tanāsub al-
Āyāt wa al-Suwar. Vol. VII. Dr al-Kitb al-Islm.
Cairo.
al-Qur’ān al-Karīm: Traduction et Notes. 1990. Dr. Salah
Ed-Dine Kechrid traduction. Dar el-Gharb el-Islami.
Beirut, 5
th
edition.
Coogan, Michael D. (Ed.). 2010. The New Oxford
Annotated Bible; New Revised Standard Version With
The Apocrypha. Oxford University Press. New York,
4th edition.
Comerro, Viviane. “ESDRAS EST-IL LE FILS DE
DIEU?.” Arabica 52. No. 2. April, 2005.
Davidson, William. The William Davidson Talmud.
“Sanhedrin 21b.” [online] Available at:
http://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.21b?lang=bi
[Accessed 12 Oct. 2017].
Driscoll, James F. 1911. “Ozias,” The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. XI. [online] Available at:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11379a.htm
[Accessed 10 Apr. 2018].
Fischbach, Michael R. “Claiming Jewish Communal
Property in Iraq,” Midle East Report. No. 248. Fall,
2008.
Fried, Lisbeth S. 2014. Ezra and the Law in History and
Tradition. University of South Carolina Press.
Columbia.
Geiger, Abraham. 1898. Judaism and Islam. Translated by
F. M. Young. M.D.C.S.P.C.K Press. Vepery.
al-Ghifr, Abd al-Rasl. 2010. Jam’u al-Qur'ān: Bahthun
Istidlālī fī Ma’ná al-Jam’u wa ‘Alá Yadi Man Jumi’a
Awwalan. Mu’asasat Anriyn li-ab’ati wa al-
Nashr. Qum.
Hanks, Patrick. 2003. Dictionary of American Family
Names. Oxford University Press. New York.
Hebrew-English Tanakh The Jewish Bible. 2009. Varda
Books. Skokie.
Ibn ‘shr, Muammad al-hir. 1984. Taḥrīr al-Ma’ná
al-Sadīd wa Tanwīr al-‘Aql al-Jadīd min Tafsīr al-
Kitāb al-Majīd. Vol. XVI. Al-Dr al-Tnisiyah.
Tunisia.
Ibn azm, ‘Ali. 1348 H. al-Faṣlu Milal wa al-Ahwā’ wa al-
Niḥal; wa bi-Hāmishihi al-Milal wa al-Niḥal, Jil. I.
Maktabat al-Salm al-‘lamiyah. Cairo.
Ibn anbal, Amad. Musnad al-Imm Amad bin anbal.
Mu’asasat al-Rislah. Beirut.
Ibn Kathr, Ab al-Fid’ Ism’l bin ‘Umar. 1999. Tafsīr al-
Qur’ān al-‘Aẓīm. Vol. IV. Dr ayyibah.
Ibn Manur, Jaml al-Dn Muammad. Lisān al-‘Arab.
Vol. IV. Dr dir. Beirut.
Jackson, J. B. 1909. A Dictionary of The Proper Names of
The Old and New Testament Scriptures, Being an
Accurate and Literal Translation From The Original
Tounges. The Plimton Press Norwood Mass. U.S.A.
Exegetical Polemic of ‘Uzayr in the Qur’an
315
Jeffery, Arthur. 1938. The Foreign vocabulary of The
Qur’an. Oriental Institute. Baroda.
Klein, Ernest. 1987. A Comprehensive Etymological
Dictionary of The Hebrew Language for Readers of
English. Carta. Jerusalem.
Lee, Samuel. 1840. Lexicon Hebrew, Chaldee, and English.
Alexander Macintosh. London.
al-Maghrib, Sama’ul. 1964. Ifḥām al-Yahūd, Moshe
Perlmann Translation. American Academy For Jewish
Research. New York.
al-Margh, Amad bin Muafá. 1946. Tafsīr al-Marāghī.
Vol. X. Shirkah Maktabah wa Muaba’ah Muafá al-
Bb al-Halab wa Awlduhu. Egypt.
McGough, Richard Amiel. 2006. THE BIBLE WHEEL: A
Revelation of The Divine Unity of The Holy Bible. Bible
Wheel Book House. Yakima, Washington.
Muslim. al-Musnad al-Ṣaḥīḥ. Dr Iya’ al-Turth al-
‘Arab. Beirut.
Newby, Gordon. 2004. A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam.
Oneworld Publications. Oxford.
al-Qurub, Muammad. 1964. Al-Jāmi’ liAḥkām al-
Qur’ān. Vol. VII. Dr al-Kutub al-Mi
riyah. Cairo.
Salman, Raheem. 2008, August 17. “IRAQ: Amid war, a
prophet’s shrine survives,” Los Angeles Times. [online]
Available at:
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/
08/baghdad-amid-wa.html [Accessed 16 Jul. 2018].
Shakir, Mohammad Saeed. The Glorious Quran with
Translation & Transliteration. Ansaryan Publication.
Qom.
Sirry, Mun’im. 2014. Scriptural Polemics: The Qur’ān and
Other Religions. Oxford University Press. United
States.
Smith,William. 2002. Smith's Bible Dictionary. Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
al-abar, Ab Ja’far. 2000. Jāmi’ al-Bayān fī Ta’wīl al-
Qur’ān. Vol. XIV. Mu’asasat al-Risalah.
Tal, Abraham. 2000. A Dictionary of Samaritan Aramaic.
Brill. Leiden.
Torrey, Charles Cutler. 1933. The Jewish Foundation of
Islam. Jewish Institute of Religion Press. New York.
Walker, John. 1931. Bible Characters in The Koran.
Alexander Gardner. Great Britain.
Wassersom, Steven M. 1995. Between Muslim and Jew:
The Problem of Symbiosis Under Early Islam.
Princeton University Press. New Jersey.
ICRI 2018 - International Conference Recent Innovation
316
