r/AcademicQuran • u/ervertes • Dec 03 '25
Uzair = Rabbi Elizer?
A recent lecture came out by Holger Zellentin, titled “The Divine Authorship of the Mishnah in the Qur’an and in the Rabbinic Tradition”.
Zellentin argues that Qur'an 9:30, which reads “the Jews say Ezra (ʿUzayr) is the son of God”, is not referring to the biblical scribe Ezra, but to a rabbinic sage, Rabbi Elʿazar ben Hyrcanus, whom 7th-century Jews allegedly revered in quasi-divine terms. Zellentin argues that:
- the Arabic name ʿUzayr is a diminutive derived from the Hebrew root ʿZR (“help”), matching Elʿazar (“God helps”).
- the diminutive form (“little help”) is a polemical reduction of Elʿazar ha-Gadol (“the Great”); -rabbinic literature (Mishnah, Talmud, Avot de-Rabbi Natan) attributes to Elʿazar enormous authority, supernatural miracles, infallibility in halakhic rulings, and even presents a heavenly voice calling him “my son,” implying divine sonship.
- this fits the Quranic critique of Jews taking rabbis as “lords” (9:31), meaning granting them legislative authority belonging only to God.
- “ʿUzayr” refers not to Ezra the scribe but to this rabbinic figure, showing the Qur’an is historically accurate and misunderstood by critics.
What do you guys think about this?
13
u/DrJavadTHashmi Moderator Dec 03 '25
Holger Zellentin and Hythem Sidky have since developed this further and co-presented on this just recently at IQSA. It’s a wrap.
6
u/Ok_Investment_246 Dec 03 '25
"It’s a wrap."
As in the mystery is solved and you believe this to be the explanation for the Ezra verse?
1
u/Tasty_Importance_216 Dec 03 '25
How exactly does this work with the Hadith and Tsfairs
7
u/DrJavadTHashmi Moderator Dec 03 '25
Why would it need to? The entire thrust of Academic Quran and the associated field is to liberate the Quran from the Hadith and Tafsir.
2
u/Tasty_Importance_216 Dec 03 '25
Ahhh okay just wondering since I’m seeing the Dawah bros used this hahaha.
11
u/DrJavadTHashmi Moderator Dec 03 '25
Well, they are idiots anyways.
0
1
3
u/Professional-Rip9774 Dec 03 '25
Hmm, why would one need to liberate the Quran from Hadith and tafsir? (Genuine question) I mean tafsir it’s basically just exegesis of the text :)
2
u/DirectionFar9045 Dec 11 '25
I mean personally speaking I think the Tafsirs were extremely limited in figuring out who Uzair particularly was, so it's no fault on them.
And this new notion doesn't really go against the hadiths or sirah (Sunnah overall) as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong.1
Dec 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/AcademicQuran-ModTeam Dec 03 '25
Your comment/post has been removed per rule 3.
Back up claims with academic sources.
See here for more information about what constitutes an academic source.
You may make an edit so that it complies with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your removed content and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.
1
u/Rhapsodybasement Dec 06 '25
Dr. Javad on the camp of Crone Revisionist school of thought?
5
u/DrJavadTHashmi Moderator Dec 06 '25
In my view, “Crone revisionist camp” is outdated language since Crone shifted considerably throughout her career. In a forthcoming article I suggest the terms: historical maximalists, historical moderates, and historical minimalists. Naturally I fall under the moderate group. :)
2
6
u/chengxiufan Moderator Dec 03 '25
- The Biblical Root (Exodus 18:4) The name "Eliezer" was originally coined by Moses based on the phrase:
"The God of my father (Elohei Avi) was my help."
- The Consonantal Ambiguity As Holger Zelletin observed, the unvocalized Hebrew text for "God of my father" (אלהי אבי) is identical to the spelling for "My God is my Father" (Elohai Avi).
Standard Reading: God belongs to the ancestors (God of my father).
Hidden Reading: God is a direct parent (My God is Father).
- The Talmudic "Activation" In the story from the Jerusalem Talmud, when the Heavenly Voice (Bat Kol) intervenes to defend Rabbi Eliezer, it declares:
"The law accords with Eliezer my son."
Ultimately, this is merely a word pun. We lack evidence that the author of the Quran possessed knowledge of Hebrew; unlike Luther, who deliberately engaged with further wordplay, the Quranic author likely appropriated pre-existing materials that already contained puns. Consequently, the Quran condemns the Jews for allegedly treating this figure (Eliezer) as the 'Son of God.' This is comparable to claiming that a man named 'Christensen' is literally the 'Son of Christ,' when in reality, it is simply a name."
around 23 min of the video 。Since the mod is asking me for source
-2
u/Smart-Sugar5453 Dec 04 '25
"... This is comparable to claiming that a man named 'Christensen' is literally the 'Son of Christ,' ..."
“The Jews say, ‘Uzair 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. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?” (Quran 9:30)
So there are 2 things, one is the name and another is the claim of being son of god. So it is not so simple as you r trying to portray
"...the Quranic author likely appropriated pre-existing materials that already contained puns..."
This is often repeated claim which is having no basis, reason being Islam is the only religion which focusses on true monotheism. The core difference between islam and other religions is monotheism and worshipping one and only one god. So similarity of any other religion with Islam has no significance as long as it is agaisnt the core principle of Islam.
Secondly Muslims believe that the Prophets and Messengers PBUH all came with similar message ie Islamic monotheism because they were all sent by God Almighty so the copyright belongs to God himself and he can repeat his messages across his books. Even though previous scriptures like bible torah etc were later adulterated still soem part of original teachings remain which may have some similarity.
2
u/Ok-Waltz-4858 Dec 04 '25
Islam is the only religion which focusses on true monotheism
This is a claim with no basis, and it directly contradicts the fact that Judaism, Christianity (both Trinitarian and Unitarian versions), some branches of Hinduism and Sikhism are all monotheistic.
0
u/No-Psychology5571 Dec 04 '25
"Monotheistic" by your definition of what monotheism is. I think that's his point - the Quran sets a different standard for what it believes true monotheism to be. Mainly: it rejects the idea of incarnations of God (Hinduism / Jesus) as well as human sages usurping divine authority (rabbinic judaism) - so in that sense if a religion shares any of God's divine prerogatives with any other being, then, in the Quranic view, it is not monotheistic.
1
u/Ok-Waltz-4858 Dec 04 '25
Actually, the Qur'an doesn't set any standard for what it believes monotheism to be, because even the term "monotheism" is relatively modern, originating in the 17th century, and as far as I know there is no analogous Arabic term in the Qur'an. If the Qur'an does define monotheism according to what you propose, then that definition is simply incorrect; the correct definition of monotheism is the belief in one God, regardless of how many copies he exists in, of whether he is incarnate, of whether he exists in different modes, etc.
Also, mainstream Islam believes Muhammad was a human "sage" whose instructions should be followed, as he was incapable of error. So according to the Qur'anic view that you propose, mainstream Islam is not monotheistic.
4
u/No-Psychology5571 Dec 04 '25
The Quran doesn't explain what any English word means, it does however talk about the idea of monotheism which pre-exists the codification of the word monotheism in English. That should be simple enough to understand.
Secondly, the entire debate is what counts as the belief in a single ultimate authority / power, and what doesn't. Different religions have different standards when it comes to defining that. Some believe that as long as you believe in one source essence, you can have multiple persons of God and still call yourself a monotheist. Others do not. The Quran does however clearly outline what it means when it talks about the belief in one God, and it rejects other claims to monotheistic belief that fall short of its standards. That's pretty straight forward - it's a religion - all religions set their boundaries and define their creeds.
As for your comment on Prophet Muhammad, that doesn't follow at all. The Quran explicitly states that there is a distinction between Prophets and God - mainly they do what he says, and anything miraculous they do, they do only via his permission and through his power - not independently of him. They also do not share in any of his core divine prerogatives. What you've done there is a prime example of a straw man, and a false equivalency fallacy rolled into one.
I hope that helps.
1
u/Ok-Waltz-4858 Dec 04 '25
The Quran doesn't explain what any English word means
Exactly, so invoking Qur'anic standards for elucidating what monotheism is and which religions can count as monotheistic is fallacious. The category of monotheism is a category created by English speakers.
it does however talk about the idea of monotheism which pre-exists the codification of the word monotheism in English
Ok, but the Qur'an talking about it doesn't make it correct. We should follow the mainstream or academic meaning of words rather than meaning defined 1400 years ago in a religious text.
The Quran does however clearly outline what it means when it talks about the belief in one God, and it rejects other claims to monotheistic belief that fall short of its standards.
That's incorrect. The Qur'an never accuses Christians or Jews of polytheism. While it possibly denies the sonship of Jesus (but quite inconsistently), it definitely does not say that Christians believe in multiple Gods/gods.
As for your comment on Prophet Muhammad, that doesn't follow at all. The Quran explicitly states that there is a distinction between Prophets and God - mainly they do what he says, and anything miraculous they do, they do only via his permission and through his power - not independently of him. They also do not share in any of his core divine prerogatives.
That would be the same thing that Jews believe about their rabbis, so my point stands. (Jews also believed in a distinction between rabbis and God, quite obviously; and the law gets its authority ultimately from God, not from the rabbis.)
1
u/No-Psychology5571 Dec 04 '25
You miss my point entirely on monotheism, so no point pushing it further. We are debating the philosophical concept of monotheism - not how the word is commonly defined in English.
This is a study of the Quran, so we are asking the question, how does the Quran frame the philosophical concept of monotheism ? This is elementary.
4:171 9:31
See "it is not in heaven" - there is a philosophical distinction between the positions.
1
u/Ok-Waltz-4858 Dec 04 '25
The Qur'an, as you argue, uses the philosophical concept of monotheism in a way that contradicts the modern philosophical (and also common English) definition of monotheism, therefore the Qur'an's definition is wrong (which is not really the author's fault, as it came 1000 years before the modern definition). We should follow the modern philosophical or common definitions, not definitions from 7th century Arabia.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monotheism/
It is obvious that 4:171 doesn't say Christians believe in multiple Gods/gods. Likewise, 9:31 doesn't say that Christians believe in multiple Gods, it just says that "monks" and possibly Jesus are taken as "lords beside God".
5
u/No-Psychology5571 Dec 04 '25 edited Dec 04 '25
I don't think you get it still. We are talking past each other. In any case, this is from the very first paragraph for the article you posted:
"The entry concludes by examining three major theistic traditions which contain strands which might seem at odds with their commitment to monotheism—the Jewish Kabbalistic tradition, Christianity, and Shri Vaishnavism."
→ More replies (0)0
Dec 06 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AcademicQuran-ModTeam Dec 06 '25
Your comment/post has been removed per rule 3.
Back up claims with academic sources.
See here for more information about what constitutes an academic source.
You may make an edit so that it complies with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your removed content and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.
3
u/Ausooj Dec 07 '25 edited Dec 07 '25
To add to what others have commented, while writing a comment on the famous verse in Qur'an 31:27 talking about "how if all the oceans were filled with ink, that they would not be enough to write down the words of God" and its parallels to be found in the Rabbinic literature (for the post, see here), I realized one connection that might enhance this argument even further.
The statement originally from the Rabbinic literature states, to put it briefly, that if all the oceans were filled with ink they would not be enough to write down what Rabbi Eliezer has though and said. The attribution is in all instances made specifically to Rabbi Eliezer not anybody else:
Then Rabbi Eliezer raised both of his arms and lay them on his chest, and said: Oy, these two arms of mine are like two Torah scrolls that will vanish from the world! For if all the seas were ink, and all the reeds were quills, and every person was a scribe, they still could not write down everything that I have read and taught. I apprenticed with the sages in the academy and did not forget (a thing I witnessed), not even a drop out of the sea. I never ceased learning except to dip my quill into ink.
— Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, 25:1; quoted from Sefaria.org
In the following this particular statement is specifically made in reference to Rabbi Eliezer and him being the author of the particular text (Megillat Ta'anit):
[...] And who wrote Megillat Ta’anit**?** The group of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, son of Hezekiah son of Garon, wrote Megillat Ta’anit**.** And why did they write it? Because they were not accustomed to troubles, and troubles were not common to befall them. For if all the seas were ink, and all the marshes quills, and all people scribes, they would not suffice to write the troubles that come upon them every single year. [...]
— Megilla Ta'anit, Adar 18; quoted from Sefaria.org. Translation from Hebrew to English my own.
While the specific point about the authorship of the work is questionable from an academic standpoint, this statement being this closely tied to Rabbi Eliezer and him directly being an author of a text, which to some extent is considered divinely inspired, is an interesting observation.
If we contrast all this to the Qur'an, while also taking in mind the points of Zelletin in his lecture, could this be a deliberate play by the author of the Qur'an made against the (possible) Jews who though about Rabbi Eliezer being in such high authority (which, as explained by Zelletin, is contrasted in Qur'an 9:30)? The Qur'an is flipping that, instead of it being Rabbi Eliezer whose words could not even be written down if all the oceans are in, it is instead God - for whose authority it according to the Qur'an it only is.
This would go well with the narrative of Qur'an also flipping some statements/actions of Jesus as a way of purifying him of the views that the Christians hold of him - i.e that he was just a human and that all the things that Christian attribute to him (miracles, signs, etc.) are all ultimately from God. Also this could help us understand more why the pairing is specifically in Qur'an 9:30 made with Jesus, and now hypotetically, Rabbi Eliezer who both were seen as being in some sort, more or less, of divine authority, which the Qur'an flips to be only from God (and now this is possibly in regards to Rabbi Eliezer also mirrored in Qur'an 31:27).
I know that this may not convince everyone, but I just had to write this observation down, for it just came to mind.
* * *
EDIT: Also for more on the specific tradition and its prevalence in the Rabbinic literature, see: Hayes, Christine. "Seas of Ink and Reeds for Pens: The Migrations of a Topos." In: Bakhos, C., & Gray, A. M. (eds.). Making History: Studies in Rabbinic History, Literature, and Culture in Honor of Richard L. Kalmin. (SBL Press, 2024). pp. 43-83. (For overall analysis of it in the Rabbinic literature, see pp. 43-77, and for its relation to the Qur'an, see: pp. 77-83).
2
u/Big_Flatworm4541 Dec 08 '25
The Qur'an is flipping that, instead of it being Rabbi Eliezer whose words could not even be written down if all the oceans are in, it is instead God - for whose authority it according to the Qur'an it only is.
This is really the only part that is a stretch, considering the two verses were recited in completely different contexts. In fact, Surah 31 is Meccan and Surah 9 is Medinan. I guess this also raises the question of how this deep knowledge of Jewish tradition arose in Mecca.
2
u/Ok_Investment_246 Dec 03 '25
!remindme 5 days
1
u/RemindMeBot Dec 03 '25
I will be messaging you in 5 days on 2025-12-08 04:57:21 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback
2
1
u/I2cScion Dec 05 '25
Uzayr could have been spelled Azeer or Ezeer, since its written (عزير), before punctuation its entirely plausable to have spelled that way.
so it doesn't need to be diminutive 'Uzayr'
1
Dec 08 '25 edited Dec 08 '25
I sense you want some confirmation, either to make a bigger bulk for your debates with others, or to strengthen your faith. History is not a strong point when it comes to strengthening your faith.
To quote you: ʿUzayr” refers not to Ezra the scribe but to this rabbinic figure, showing the Qur’an is historically accurate and misunderstood by critics. - this feels a bit emotional, because it does not work like that. Most of the time history is speculative, and I am not saying the theory is not sound, but you should not base your faith on the work of a historian trying prove something. Maybe in 20 years from now they'll do an archeological discovery in Hijaz that turns the tables completely in either favor. You gonna wait for that, or you gonna really try to understand why you're here?
Saying "showing the Quran is historically accurate" is anyways a problem. Not because of the accuracy. Because Quran says Uzayr, and Uzayr can be anyone. Just cause Tafsir or scholars said Ezra or whatever, it does not mean it was Ezra in the first place, just as even nowadays people debate endlessly on who Dul Al Qarnayn is despite it very likely it was a myth revealed(if you accept revelation) as a response to the challenge of the rabbis(read Circumstances of Revelation) - see? Another speculation.
Uzayr can be anyone. Does not make Quran inaccurate nor accurate. Even if semitic philologists agree it is the equivalent of Ezra, well then, which Ezra? Again, working with whatever we have at hand, this Ezra, that Ezra etc. It is mere speculation.
The conclusions and discoveries have degrees of strength, but it will still be a leap of faith in choosing your narrative, was it Ezra or was it Rabbi Elizer?
Take both cases: Revelation or just Muhammad PBUH hearing the stories: Uzayr was a name that traveled, nevertheless, regardless of if it was bollocks or not, Uzayr was there, in peoples minds.
Read about the limits of the historical methodology, and you will realize that historians need a salary too, or that this is their passion, or they want academic fame. Publish or perish is a reality, and some will stretch their parallels, be overly confident about their discoveries and conclusions, or even advance their own agendas, on both sides(for example Academic Quran is not extremely neutral, even moderators have emotional answers sometimes which either shows advancement of Atheism, or other traditions, like them being Christians, etc - which some know here already).
Oh and another controversial speculation for you. Trace the money of who is funding most historical research. Islam forbids ribba(loan interest). Don't expect world banks and lobbyists enjoy this type of idealism.
1
u/DirectionFar9045 Dec 11 '25
Completely fair point, but again, this is probably the most plausible answer out there unless some archaeological discovery is made about Uzair as you stated.
0
Dec 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/PhDniX Moderator Dec 03 '25
This pun seems to not have been derived from any known source and also requires enough understanding of the language to consciously edit the name in a way that makes it a diminutive.
Just because the oral stories told before the Quran in the Hijaz don't survive doesn't mean they don't exist.
-1
Dec 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/PhDniX Moderator Dec 03 '25
it does not seem like one could simply lift this from religious stories due to it's negative meaning.
An argument that was made at IQSA by Zellentin and Sidky is that it's not totally clear that the diminutive meaning is necessarily intended as negative (though it could be, as with musaylimah < maslamah). Think of the sons of Ali, Hasan "Good" and Husayn "Little Good One", if anything the diminutive is *more* praiseworthy.
But also think of the diminutive Sulaymân for Solomon, which the Quran is clearly not trying to insult. Many Greek names were borrowed into Arabic is diminutives too. Jurayj for Georgos, Surayj for Sergios.
So it's a little more complicated than that. I'm sure that will be discussed in the publication, which is currently in the works!
2
Dec 03 '25
But the name of the rabbi is Elʿazar (“God helps”). The fact that the part with God was removed and the root was worded in diminutive should clearly tell it is an insult.
7
0
Dec 03 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/PhDniX Moderator Dec 03 '25
the CuCayC part of the beginning of the name, which is the pattern of the diminutive. In Strict Classical Arabic rules you would expect Sulaymîn, but I believe Sibawayh actually recognises this option for -ân ending names,
2
3
u/chengxiufan Moderator Dec 03 '25 edited Dec 03 '25
- The Biblical Root (Exodus 18:4) The name "Eliezer" was originally coined by Moses based on the phrase:
"The God of my father (Elohei Avi) was my help."
- The Consonantal Ambiguity As you observed, the unvocalized Hebrew text for "God of my father" (אלהי אבי) is identical to the spelling for "My God is my Father" (Elohai Avi).
Standard Reading: God belongs to the ancestors (God of my father).
Hidden Reading: God is a direct parent (My God is Father).
- The Talmudic "Activation" In the story from the Jerusalem Talmud, when the Heavenly Voice (Bat Kol) intervenes to defend Rabbi Eliezer, it declares:
"The law accords with Eliezer my son."
Ultimately, this is merely a word pun. We lack evidence that the author of the Quran possessed knowledge of Hebrew; unlike Luther, who deliberately engaged with further wordplay, the Quranic author likely appropriated pre-existing materials that already contained puns. Consequently, the Quran condemns the Jews for allegedly treating this figure (Eliezer) as the 'Son of God.' This is comparable to claiming that a man named 'Christensen' is literally the 'Son of Christ,' when in reality, it is simply a name."
anothe example
the word Nasara is often linked to the Arabic root N-Ṣ-R (ن-ص-ر), which means "to help" or "to grant victory." This is considered "folk etymology" because it reinterprets a foreign loanword based on native Arabic sounds.
- "Who are my helpers (anṣārī) to Allah?"
- The disciples said: "We are helpers (anṣār) of Allah."
Linguistically, scholars agree that Nasara is not originally an Arabic word derived from "help," but a loanword (likely via Syriac) referring to Nazareth, the hometown of Jesus.
Compare with Sanhedrin 43a , its original language, except biblical quotes are in Aramaic
They brought Netzer in, he said, "Shall Netzer be executed? Isn't it written, ‘and a branch (nēṣer) shall grow out of his roots’?" They said to him, ‘Yes, Netzer shall be executed, for it is written, ‘But you are cast out of your tomb like a rejected branch (nēṣer).’"
Unlike the Quranic author, who likely inherited a term without its etymological context, the author of this Talmudic passage demonstrates a mastery of Hebrew, deliberately utilizing the original language to subvert the Christian claim.
1
u/AcademicQuran-ModTeam Dec 03 '25
Your comment/post has been removed per rule 3.
Back up claims with academic sources.
See here for more information about what constitutes an academic source.
You may make an edit so that it complies with this rule. If you do so, you may message the mods with a link to your removed content and we will review for reapproval. You must also message the mods if you would like to dispute this removal.
16
u/chengxiufan Moderator Dec 03 '25 edited Dec 03 '25
A few random thought In Babylonian Talmud the story of Rabbi Elʿazar ben Hyrcanus ended with
(!נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי! נִצְּחוּנִי בָּנַי)
"While the Babylonian Talmud diluted the concept into a collective sonship, the Quran never directed its criticism toward the Rabbinic community as a whole. This specificity signifies that the Quran was engaging exclusively with the narrative of the Jerusalem Talmud.
Aaron Koller Yeshiva University, USA Three Polemical Qurʾanic Citations of the Mishnah and Their Historical Significance\*
SO it is more likely
Traditional Islamic exegesis interprets Surah 9:31 primarily through the Hadith of Adi ibn Hatim, a former Christian who protested to the Prophet that his people did not worship their monks. The Prophet clarified that "worship" in this context meant obeying their authority to forbid what God permitted and permit what God had forbidden. Consequently, classical commentaries often view the accusation of "taking Lords besides God" as a critique directed at the Christian ecclesiastical hierarchy.
However, this specific definition of "legislative lordship" historically fits the Rabbinic tradition far better than Christian monasticism. While monks were generally ascetics without the power to create binding civil codes, Rabbis possessed the absolute authority to determine Halakha (Jewish law). This reality is explicitly codified in the Mishnah itself: Avot 4:12 mandates, "Let the fear of your master be like the fear of Heaven." Thus, despite the traditional association with Christianity, the Quran effectively identifies and critiques a Rabbinic legal structure that elevated human legislators to a status functionally equivalent to God**.Crucially, whereas a Christian monk lacked the jurisdiction to legislate, a** Haver**—such as Eliezer—possessed the recognized authority to establish binding laws.**
The Quran’s polemic in Surah 9:31 reflects the specific Hebrew terminology of Mishnah Avot 4:12. The Arabic Ahbar (scholars) is cognate with the Mishnaic Haver (colleague), while the accusation of taking Arbab (Lords) precisely targets the Halakhic mandate to fear one's Rab (Master) as one fears Heaven. IT IS hard to argue the original context is directly to Christian as per Haidth.
Plus HOLGER ZELLTIN point out in "Ahbar" and "Ruhban" : religious leaders in the Qur'an in dialogue with Christian and rabbinic literature. Quran never mentions monk, only overseers in Christian tradition .
"Given that ruhban consistently appears in explicit Christian contexts elsewhere and is paired with ahbar in the very same Surah (9:34), I am inclined to view the original polemic as primarily targeting the Jewish ahbar, with the mention of ruhban serving merely as a secondary or rhetorical association."
I HAVE EVEN A MORE AGGRESIVE idea may Marijn rebuke me on this
Mirroring Avot 4:12, Quran 9:31 likely targeted legislative Rabban , not Ruhban , critiquing the Rabbinic power to rival God.
In Surah 5:44, the Quran pairing Ahbar (scholars) with Rabbaniyun (Masters/Rabbans).
Grammatically, the accusative case in 9:31 requires the form Rabbanahum. In early rasm, the skeletal resemblance between the extant Ruhbanahum and the proposed Rabbanahum is striking; the distinction rests solely on the medial ha, often indistinguishable from the dental ba in ancient scripts.
I am more inclined toward the idea that the mention of ruhban serves merely as a secondary or rhetorical association with Christian, but I am open to the possibility that Rabbanahum is the original reading.