We here at Free Thought Mecca are proud to bring about a new feature- Allah's greatest bloopers!  That cosmic Son of a Gun!  In this first blooper, ably exposed by the Dajjal, Allah has conceptual difficulty in understanding the creed of Judaism.  In addition, the Dajjal touches upon the tricky nature of claims upon ancient lands, seeing the many epochs of invasion and counter-invasion.    

In article <[email protected]>,
  [email protected] (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> "The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and
> the Christians call Christ the son of Allah."
 
The above is from the ninth chapter of the Koran. This is a *HIGHLY* incorrect statement. I have had much contact with Jews, and I have even been to Israel.  I used to work security at Yeshiva University in New York (before certain NYS laws got me removed) and I used to love talking with the Rabbis as well as the orthodox students. I have never met a Jew who has ever said or thought that Uzair was the son of God. This is an absolutely incorrect statement. Muslims always demand that non-Muslims show an error in the Koran, well the above is one! 

The only response to criticisms of this verse has been a vain attempt by some to try and find some vague mentioning of some heterodox Jewish sect around the Arabian peninsula that may have considered Ezra the "son of God". This is an incorrect statement as no mainstream religious Jew today, or ever, would say such a thing. Even if there was a group of Jews who said such a thing in the seventh century, the verse still discredits the Koran as being from God. Even if there were Jews who said such a thing, it is still just a general statement. For example, imagine a (offensive!) text that said "Muslims are terrorists" or "The Irish are drunks" or "Liberals are pansies". Would God make a statement like the three I just offered? Of course not, it's far too general! Lets say I had a religious text that said "The Muslims are terrorists which is why God's wrath is on them, and a new prophet is sent..." Such a statement would be absurd, because not all Muslims are terrorists, and it would not make any difference if somebody cited one or two examples of Muslim Terrorists. Thus one or two spurious examples of some heterodox Jews who may have thought Ezra is the son of God does not legitimize this statement. Thus this statement was *NOT* made by any all-knowing God, thus we can conclude that the Koran (at least this ayat) is of a wholly human origin.
 
> King Abdallah began the session by presenting
> the city of Jerusalem as a gift to the world. He
> allegedly said that this city is for everyone.
> However it is not strange from him to say such
> a thing because his father and grandfather sold
> it to the Jews and Christian's many times.
 
Correction, Jerusalem was taken by force in 1967. Should Israel give Jerusalem (a city it won in battle) back to the Muslims? If Mr. Mahdi thinks so, he should also petition the United States government to give Texas back to Mexico, and take apart all American "settlements". Consider that in 1967 different Arab states (falsely parading under the banner of Islam and pan-Arabism) attacked Israel, and were defeated. Israel took Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai (which was later given back to Egypt). If a city won in battle should be given back, then Muslims should be willing to give Mecca back to the Polytheists (if there are any left).
 
> All the people of the world do not own
> Jerusalem. The Muslims alone own
> Jerusalem even if occupied many times by
> Christians and Jews and it will
> eventually return to the Muslims.
 
Actually Jerusalem belonged to the Jews long before there was even such a thing as a "Muslim". It also belonged to the Romans, Persians, Babylonians, Assyrians, and Canaanites (assuming such a people ever existed) long before there was anyone known as "Muslim". How does Jerusalem belong to the Muslims alone? Because there are a few centuries old Masajeed there? There are Christian structures there that are *MUCH* older than any Mosque, so even the Christians can make a stronger claim to that land than the Muslims.
 
> Jerusalem is the place to where our
> beloved Prophet Muhammad travelled by
> night - to its mosque (al-Aqsa Mosque).
 
And then mentioned was the verse from the 17th surah that talks of Muhammad traveling to masjid al-aqsa (17:1). This is an interesting verse, considering that when the Koran was allegedly written that Mosque was not built yet. Could it be possible that the Koran (or at least that ayat) was written at a later date than we assume? When was Jerusalem captured by the Muslims, and when was the Koran written? Do these two dates match? This verse must have been written after the time of the second Caliph.  [Or the masjid was named to reference it- ed.]  Maybe the whole story about Muhammad's rise into heaven from that city was created long after his death.  [Cf. stories about Elijah- ed.]  It's conceivable, as we know the Gospels, which are stories about Jesus, were written long after his death, and stories were made up. Thus it is also possible that this story was made up long after Muhammad had died.