Who was the Pharaoh in the Quran and Bible?

The verse we are looking at not only says that the Israelites were oppressed, but that Ramses II (assuming you believe he was the Exodus Pharaoh) was the one who made the people in Egypt into factions.

28:4

Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.

If the persecution of the Israelites was started by the Egyptian kings who threw out the Hyskos, then the Egyptian people were divided into �factions� by them, not Ramses II.

In fact, your own sources state that the Egyptians had been using Semitic slaves since the mid-18^th century!

"There is textual evidence...that shows that since the middle of the 18th century BCE Semitic slaves were employed by the Egyptians - a practice that continued throughout the next 1,500 years. [...]

One well-known piece of evidence from the New Kingdom comes from the tomb of Rekhmire, one of the viziers of Tuthmosis III (1504-1450 BCE).  It is a scene of laborers making bricks for a temple in Karnak and a text describing the workers as captives.  There are a number of inscriptions that confirm the continuation of the practice of bringing captives from West Asia to Egypt as slaves." ("The Mystery of Israel in Ancient Egypt", pp. 86-87). 

If Semites were being used as slaves since the middle of the 18^th century, then it is not true that Ramses II divided the society into different factions.

OK, thanks for explaining.

Killing off most of the male population would be bad for any labour force. Doing it twice, within a 20 something year period, would make no sense.

The same atrocious act was apparently committed when Moses (peace be upon him) was preaching to the Pharaoh.  The tyrant threatened anyone who believed in Moses with this terrible punishment.  It was not a continuous practice. 

In contrast, the Pharaohs would have been able to do whatever they wanted and if they felt the need to cover up their crimes, they certainly could have.  There is a precedent in Egyptian history of covering up evidence of the Hyksos period as well as Amenhotep IV's attempted "reform" of the Egyptian religion.

If the plausibility of some other elements is going to be a factor in determining whether a described event is true or not, then the account in the Gospel of Matthew is also �plausible�.

Matthew 2 mentions the existence of Herod, and we have evidence he was real. Bethlehem was in Judea. The West Bank in fact is still called by the settlers �Judea and Samaria�. Herod was the king, and his headquarters was in Jerusalem.

Of course, none of this would constitute �proof� that the massacre of babies happened.

Likewise, that Ancient Egyptians used slaves in no way is �proof� that Ramses II had Jewish kids murdered� twice, in his lifetime.

The fact that other sources mention the alleged massacre makes little difference, since they all contain historical mistakes, and were written centuries afterwards.

If the Apiru were the Hebrews, then they were in �the Promised Land� throughout the reign of the Pharaohs� and were making raids into Ancient Egypt and probably fighting off raids from them, throughout.

There was no �promised land� for them to go back to after some alleged 40 years of wandering in the desert� they were there the whole time.

If the Apiru were not the Hebrews, then their existence is in no way any �confirmation� of the slavery of the Israelites in Ancient Egypt. You brought up two examples, one of the Apiru, the other of the Hyskos, and claimed they could have been the Hebrews.

In fact, if you had read some of the sources I posted a few days after this response, you will have seen that archaeological evidence points to the fact that the �newcomers� who began expanding in Canaan were none but Canaanites themselves.

Perhaps the most memorable event of the Israelite conquest was the destruction of Jericho, where Joshua famously brought down the walls with the mere blowing of a horn, having marched around the city for 10 days. Excavating Jericho in the 1930s, John Garstang (1948) believed he had uncovered evidence of a violent destruction, thereby confirming the Biblical account. However, subsequent excavations by Kathleen Kenyon (1979) turned up Mycenaean pottery  within Garstang�s destruction layer, more than a century after Joshua�s campaign is thought to have occurred� Although there is evidence for the destruction of some sites at the end of the twelfth and during the eleventh century BCE, the Egyptians and Sea Peoples, who were present at the time, seem more likely culprits.

In addition to the problem of datable destruction layers, a number of scholars have pointed to the evidence for cultural continuity, with little in dramatic changes in material culture that might be expected with the sudden incursion of a new people. For instance, the Bull Site in northern Mannaseh reflects an ongoing Canaanite influence on religious practices, and the same may be said for the linguistic evidence. (Smith 2002). As an alternative to the tale of violent conquest, models suggesting a more peaceful infiltration (Alt 1925) and stressing social theory (Mendelhall 1973; Gottwal 1979) have been advanced.

Thus, considering the evidence for cultural continuity during the Late Bronze Age-Iron Age I transition, and the lack of evidence for securely dated destruction layers, the literal truth of the Biblical narrative concerning the conquest becomes increasingly difficult to support.

Indeed, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Amber Silberman have reviewed a good part of the archaeological evidence from this period and concluded: �the process we describe� is the opposite of what we have in the Bible: the emergence of an early Israel was the outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause� There was no violent conquest of Canaan. The early Israelites were- irony or ironies- themselves originally Canaanites!� (2001, 118)

In other words, there was no invasion or entrance of some outside people group from Egypt. The �Israelites� were none but Canaanites who were always there to begin with, and adopted a new religion.

You are simply picking and choosing sources.  There is a considerable debate on the Israelite presence in Canaan and three competing theories (the conquest model, the peaceful migration model and the peasant revolt model).  As a Muslim, I am indifferent to each of these theories because the Quran does not elaborate on the post-Exodus story.  It only states that the Israelites were forced to wander the desert for a long time, but it does not say what happened afterwards, except that they eventually "inherited" the land.  All we can assume is that they eventually settled in the Holy Land. 

As John Bright notes regarding the post-Exodus events:

"...Israel's encounter with the Edomites and Moabites...unless one declare the tradition unhistorical , forbids a date for Israel's arrival before the thirteenth century (when these two people first appear in contemporary texts) and might be held rather to suggest a date in the twelfth, since these areas do not seem to have an appreciable sedentary population earlier.  We can set no fixed date for the exodus, nor can we be sure in the reign of which Pharaoh it took place.  But a date rather well on in the thirteenth century, perhaps late in the reign of Ramesses II, seems plausible" ("A History of Israel, pp. 123-124).

Unless it was ignored because there were other, more horrific crimes happening at the time, being committed both by the Romans and Herod. According to CARM, Bethlehem was a small town with some 600 people in it, so there would have been probably a small number of children who were that age.

http://carm.org/why-isnt-there-other-evidence-massacre-babies

I am not saying that the massacre did happen- but it is just as �likely� to have happened as Pharaoh�s alleged massacre of Israelite children.

The earth is not a pendulum, but my point is that a hanging object can move, and does not have to be motionless.

Earlier, you wrote:

A hanging object would imply that it does not move

A pendulum is a hanging object, yet it moves.

This is what 7:137 states:

And We caused the people who had been oppressed to inherit the eastern regions of the land and the western ones, which We had blessed. And the good word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel because of what they had patiently endured. And We destroyed [all] that Pharaoh and his people were producing and what they had been building.

Nowhere does it say that God destroyed what the Pharaoh and his people produced in the land of Canaan. It just says He destroyed what they produced and built.

Yusuf Ali in his tafsir states that the �destroyed buildings� are the pyramids and the Great Sphinx� which are found in Egypt, not Canaan.

The splendid monuments-temples, palaces, tombs, statues, columns, and stately structures of all kinds-were buried in the sands. Even monuments like the Great Sphinx, which seem to defy the ages, were partly buried in the sands, and owe their rescue to the comparatively recent researches of archaeologists.

As late as 1743 Richard Pococke in his Travels in Egypt (p. 41), remarked:

"Most of those pyramids are very much ruined." (R).

http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/007%20Araaf.htm

Of course, none of these were �destroyed� by God, but that�s beside the point. Stating that these buildings that God allegedly destroyed were in Canaan and not Egypt is an understandable attempt to explain away an error in the Quran.

Also, when did according to Fatoohi and D�Argazelli, the �militant conquests� in the Holy Land take place? Who carried them out?

Earlier, you claimed that they gave the example of settlements that they dated to 1174 BC as �evidence� of the Israelites in Canaan.

"The fact that the Israelites entered into the holy land forty years after teh exodus, which occurred in 1212 BCE, means that we can date their entry into the holy land to exactly 1172 BCE. [...]

Significantly, this dating fits well with the archaeological discovery of the 'proliferation of small sites in the highlands regions' of Palestine in the 12th century.  Scholars almost unanimously agree that 'this wave of settlement is to be association in some sense with Israel's arrival or emergence in Canaan...'  Bimson not only stresses that the settlement in the hill country could not have been a 13th-century but a 12th-century phenomenon, he goes further to state that 'it is quite probable that it did not begin until the second quarter of the century...'  This matches perfectly well our dating of the entry of the Israelite [sic] to the holy land to 40 years after Ramesses II's death!" ("The Mystery of Israel in Ancient Israel", p. 158).   

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31276&PN=2

Are they claiming these people were the ones who carried out the �militant conquests�? If not, who?

Islamispeace wrote: We know this is a reference to the holy land in Canaan and not Egypt because of other verses in which God refers to the land he had blessed and which He gave to Abraham (peace be upon him): "But We delivered him and (his nephew) Lut (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations" (Sural Al-Anbiya, 21:71)

This is what 7:137 states:

And We caused the people who had been oppressed to inherit the eastern regions of the land and the western ones, which We had blessed. And the good word of your Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel because of what they had patiently endured. And We destroyed [all] that Pharaoh and his people were producing and what they had been building.

Nowhere does it say that God destroyed what the Pharaoh and his people produced in the land of Canaan. It just says He destroyed what they produced and built.

Yusuf Ali in his tafsir states that the �destroyed buildings� are the pyramids and the Great Sphinx� which are found in Egypt, not Canaan.

The splendid monuments-temples, palaces, tombs, statues, columns, and stately structures of all kinds-were buried in the sands. Even monuments like the Great Sphinx, which seem to defy the ages, were partly buried in the sands, and owe their rescue to the comparatively recent researches of archaeologists.

As late as 1743 Richard Pococke in his Travels in Egypt (p. 41), remarked:

"Most of those pyramids are very much ruined." (R).

http://www.quran4u.com/Tafsiraya/007%20Araaf.htm

Of course, none of these were �destroyed� by God, but that�s beside the point. Stating that these buildings that God allegedly destroyed were in Canaan and not Egypt is an understandable attempt to explain away an error in the Quran.

Also, when did according to Fatoohi and D�Argazelli, the �militant conquests� in the Holy Land take place? Who carried them out?

Earlier, you claimed that they gave the example of settlements that they dated to 1174 BC as �evidence� of the Israelites in Canaan.

"The fact that the Israelites entered into the holy land forty years after teh exodus, which occurred in 1212 BCE, means that we can date their entry into the holy land to exactly 1172 BCE. [...]

Significantly, this dating fits well with the archaeological discovery of the 'proliferation of small sites in the highlands regions' of Palestine in the 12th century.  Scholars almost unanimously agree that 'this wave of settlement is to be association in some sense with Israel's arrival or emergence in Canaan...'  Bimson not only stresses that the settlement in the hill country could not have been a 13th-century but a 12th-century phenomenon, he goes further to state that 'it is quite probable that it did not begin until the second quarter of the century...'  This matches perfectly well our dating of the entry of the Israelite [sic] to the holy land to 40 years after Ramesses II's death!" ("The Mystery of Israel in Ancient Israel", p. 158).   

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31276&PN=2

Are they claiming these people were the ones who carried out the �militant conquests�? If not, who?

Islamispeace wrote: We know this is a reference to the holy land in Canaan and not Egypt because of other verses in which God refers to the land he had blessed and which He gave to Abraham (peace be upon him): "But We delivered him and (his nephew) Lut (and directed them) to the land which We have blessed for the nations" (Sural Al-Anbiya, 21:71)

Yet Yusuf Ali stated that �the Holy Land� was Palestine or Canaan. So did many other tafsir scholars.

TG12345 wrote: Maududi translates the verse as stating that God destroyed �all� that the Pharaoh and his men constructed, though I�m not saying 7:137 states this.

Islamispeace wrote: Here is what Maududi wrote in a footnote to this verse: "That is, "The Israelites were made the inheritors of Palestine". Some commentators infer from this that the Israelites were made the masters of Egypt. But we hesitate to accept this version for there is neither any direct reference to it in the Qur'an nor is there any historical evidence to support it. (Sec E.N. 57 of XVIII and E.N. 45 of XXVI)." So, there is no reason to believe that the verse was referring specifically to Egypt but rather to Egyptian control of Canaan.  The Israelites "inherited" the land as Egyptian power began to wane.  We know the Egyptians were routinely going into Canaan and bringing back slaves.  Eventually, that status quo changed.

Where did Maududi state that what was destroyed were Egyptian buildings and produce in Canaan specifically, as you allege? I see him stating that the Israelites were the inheritors of Palestine, not Egypt. Where did he write that Egyptian buildings and produce in Canaan were destroyed, but not those in Egypt?

TG12345 wrote: However, from the tafsirs, it is safe to assume there was allegedly some massive destruction of his buildings.

Islamispeace wrote: That is possible, especially during the period of the plagues, but the verse was specifically referring to Egyptian influence Canaan, not Egypt.

That is a theory, nothing more. None of the 6 tafsir scholars we have studied claimed this to be the case. Yusuf Ali gave examples of buildings that were in Egypt. So does Islamic-Awareness.

TG12345 wrote: It shows there was no massive destruction of his buildings. He left more behind him than did any other Pharaoh.

Islamispeace wrote: There are no major Egyptian monuments still standing in Canaan, unlike in Egypt where the pyramids and the Sphinx still stand.  But artifacts have been found by archaeologists attesting to the Egyptian presence and its eventual decline in Canaan.  As the "Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt" states: "Egyptian presence in Canaan is attested by many small artifact, such as scarabs and vessels.  Monuments were also erected in Canaan by Egyptian monarchs and administrators.  For example, a fragment of a stela of Tuthmose III, or Amenhotep II, mentioning a defeat of the army of the kingdom of Mitanni (in northern Syria), was found at Tell Kinroth overlooking the Sea of Galilee. [...] Egyptian military activity in Canaan during the 19th dynasty is attested not only in inscriptions in Egypt, but also in Egyptian monuments in Canaan.  Stelae of Seti I, Ramesses II and Merneptah have all been found there" (pp. 188-189). It also explains that Egyptian influence declined in the "Levant" by the time of the 20th Dynasty.

According to Yusuf Ali, the monuments that were �destroyed� were in Ancient Egypt. This opinion is also stated by the �Islamic-Awareness� article about Ramses II, who give Pi-Ramses as an example of Pharaoh�s buildings that were �destroyed�.

Apart from the Great Temple at Abu Simbel, the city of Pr-Ramesses founded by Ramesses II must stand out as one of the most ambitious construction efforts the world has ever known. Previously Pr-Ramesses had been variously placed at Tell er-Retabeh, Pelusium, Tanis and Tehel in Lower Egypt.^[64] However, archaeological excavations by the Egyptian scholars Labib Habachi and Mahmoud Hamza identified modern day city Khatana-Qantir as the prime candidate [Figure 10].^[65] Subsequently due to the joint cooperation of the Egyptian Antiquities Organisation, the Austrian mission headed by Manfred Bietak of the university of Vienna and the German mission headed by Edgar Pusch of the Pelizaeus Museum, modern archaeological investigations also converge on the city of Qantir/Tell el-Dab�a^[66] which is in agreement with the descriptions of Pr-Ramesses gathered from the literary evidence and other primary and secondary sources from that period.

Uphill noted the following nine key features of Pr-Ramesses from said sources including: a city containing monuments naming Pr-Ramesses, a central position for royal residence and governance, access route to Asia for the armies, suitably large area for correspondingly large population, suitable for the core functions of the Army such as headquarters etc., monuments of Ramesses II, relevant deities present, scale of site and monuments adequate and containing a river port.^[67] In the timeline of the ancient near east, the construction of Pr-Ramesses is certainly unprecedented as Uphill informs us,

Per Ramesses was probably the vastest and most costly royal residence ever erected by the hand of man. As can now be seen its known palace and official centre covered an area of at least four square miles, and its temples were in scale with this, a colossal assemblage forming perhaps the largest collection of chapels built in the pre-classical world by a single ruler at one time.^[68]

With the use of a caesium magnetometer, the first geophysical measurements of Pr-Ramesses took place in 1996.^[69] Using the data gathered from the recent magnetometer inspections, the latest projections have shown the city centre/royal residence comprised at least 10 square kms, around 3.5 square kms more than had been previously estimated. It is hoped that continued magnetic investigation will eventually lead to a map of Pr-Ramesses covering at a minimum the city centre/royal residence.^[70] With all the focus on the city centre/royal residence, one should also not forget to consider the large suburban zone, which, when factored into the calculations, shows the ancient city of Pr-Ramesses comprised at least 30 square kms.^[71] Sometimes numbers alone do not convey the sheer scale of the construction. If we consider the area of Pr-Ramesses in comparison to other celebrated cities in the ancient near east such as the famous ancient Mesopotamian cities of Khorsabad, Nimrud, Nineveh and Babylon, the area bounded by Pr-Ramesses easily eclipses them all.^[72] Commenting on such a gigantic feat of human engineering Uphill further remarks,

The unique feature about Per Ramesses is that it is the only city of imperial size in the ancient near east, rivalling Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes in splendour, known to have been entirely planned, built and fully completed under one King.^[73]

Pr-Ramesses, which once had magnificent splendour, now lies in ruins. Most likely, the destruction of this magnificent city is alluded to in the Qur'an 7:137 and God knows best:

And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel , because they had patience and constancy, and We levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride) [mā kāna yaṣnaʿu firʿawna wa qawhumū wa mā kānū yaʿrishūn]. [Qur'an 7:137]

God says that He levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected. It is interesting this verse is tied to the period of weakness of the Children of Israel which they endured with patience and steadfastness; the time when they were under Pharaoh, toiling for him. From the discussion, it is undoubtedly clear that Ramesses II fits the description of the Pharaoh of the awtād.

 http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mosespharaoh.html

The verse doesn�t say where the buildings that were destroyed were located. How did God �destroy� Pharaoh�s buildings in Canaan (if you believe this is what the verse is referring to, though it does not give a location), and when?

TG12345 wrote: The Ipuwer papyrus shows us also something else that is quite significant- namely, that the Ancient Egyptians did also record calamities that befell them. The lack of any mention of Ramses IIs alleged drowning or destruction of what he and his men built by any Egyptian source is another helps factor that helpss cast the Exodus events into doubt.

Islamispeace wrote: Not quite.  The papyrus describes natural disasters, not a "calamity" that was brought as a result of a foreign nation's invasion.

The invasion of a foreign nation? Where does the Quran say that Ramses II invaded another country? Weren�t the Israelites already in Egypt when he enslaved them?

Islamispeace wrote: You can "doubt" as much as you want.  The fact remains that the New Testament authors clearly believed in it, and so did Jesus (peace be upon him).  If even the highest authority in Christendom believes in it, then where do you really have left to go?  And how can you still refer to yourself as a "Christian" and still keep a straight face?  If the New Testament authors made a mistake about Jesus' belief in the Exodus, then there is no telling what else they got wrong about him.

To be honest, I don�t know what to make of a lot of what is even in the New Testament anymore.

TG12345 wrote: Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli forgot to point out that according to Bimson, the Israelites were already in Canaan as early as the 15 century BC. He claims they fled hundreds of years earlier, and began building these particular settlements in a part of Canaan around 1170. He also, like many other historians, accepts the Menerptah Stele as stating that the Pharaoh encountered the Israelites in Canaan, so they were obviously there already as early as the thirteenth century.

Islamispeace wrote: That's because he was basing it on the Biblical account found in 1 Kings 6:1.  In an effort to harmonize 1 Kings with archaeology, he has no choice but to argue for a 15th-century date.  But the argument that the evidence of the destruction of Canaanite settlements in the 15th century points to Israelite activity makes little sense for a couple of reasons.  First, it was right around this time that the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt and pursued into Canaan.  It is hard to believe that the Israelites would have been responsible for the destruction instead of Egypt, which was at the height of its power.  In fact, as previously mentioned, there are many Egyptian artifacts in Canaan pointing to Egyptian activity during that time, such as the military victory at Tell Kinroth during the reign of Tuthmose III.  In fact, we have a surviving account of the campaign against the Mittanis in the temple at Karnak.  We also have an account of Tuthmoses' campaign against the city of "Joppa", which is the modern city of Jaffa in Israel.  Hence, it was the Egyptians who were responsible for the destruction in Canaan.  If Israel was also active during that time and responsible for the destruction, why don't Egyptian records mention it?  Why is the Merneptah stele the earliest to mention it?  Wouldn't Egypt and Israel have been competitors in Canaan? Furthermore, the Merneptah stele indicates that "Israel" was not yet settled into major cities like the other Canaanite nations such as Gezer.  If Bimson is correct, that would mean that the Israelites were not living in city-states for more than 200 years!  How could such a tent-dwelling people become so powerful as to destroy so many Canaanite cities? Finally, as Bright has pointed out, the theory espoused by Bimson has generally been abandoned by scholars: "The Bible, to be sure, explicitly states (1 Kings 6:1) that it was four hundred and eighty years from the exodus to the fourth year of Solomon (ca. 958).  This would seem to fix the exodus in the fifteenth century and thus to support the view that the conquest took place in the Amarna period.  But this view has now been rather generally abandoned, chiefly because it is difficult to harmonize with other evidence bearing on the problem..." ("A History of Israel", p. 123).

So if Bimson is wrong, what is the use of quoting him as an authority to make a point?

Also, aren�t D�Arganzelli and Fatoohi basing their findings on what the Quran says? Why else would they claim 1174 BC as the time the Israelites entered Canaan, instead of what the other scholars were saying about this happening in 1200 BC or earlier? They clearly sided with one opinion, not the other. You don�t believe their faith had anything to do with it?

TG12345 wrote: Also, the statement that the Early Iron Age began in the third quarter of the 12th century is disputed by other historians, who claim it began in 1200 BCE, which is when they say the Israelites began building the settlements (oh, the irony of this, especially after having recently been to the West Bank) if not earlier, in the thirteenth century. I�ve cited them already, so I see little need to do it again but of course I can if you would like.

Islamispeace wrote: Yeah, I know it's "disputed".  There are all sorts of theories, all of which have some strengths and weaknesses. 1200 BCE would be right at the end of the 13th century and the beginning of the 12th century, so I don't see what the problem is.  You are talking about a difference of at most a couple of decades.

1200 BC would have been several decades before the 40 years that went by after the death of Ramses II.

TG12345 wrote: Not at all. He was alone by himself in his alleged divine power, and without equal, since the other fake gods didn�t measure up to him. That didn�t make him the only god, though.

Islamispeace wrote: What are you basing this on?  Why would he be referred to as "alone" if there were other gods as well (and there were of course), even if those gods "didn't measure up to him"?  It wouldn't make sense for the Egyptians to say that while simultaneously acknowledging other gods.  It would be like the Greeks saying that Zeus was "alone" and "without equal", even though they believed in other gods as well.  You could perhaps make the argument that the phrase "without equal" means that the other gods "didn't measure up", but to use the word "alone" signifies that there were no others, even though there were.

Again, he was alone in his supreme power. There were others, but they were less powerful and important than him. He was �alone, without equal� in the level of power he had. There is no contradiction.

Islamispeace wrote: I think we need to take another look at the Quranic verses in question because I think you are once again misinterpreting what they are actually saying and then persuading yourself that there is an "error".   But first, let us examine a few more Egyptian inscriptions. 1.  Relief depicting Ramesses II with his mother - In this inscription, Ramesses II and his mother make offerings to Osiris.  It states: "1) Osiris, [Lord] of Rosetau, the Great God, Lord of heaven. (2) Lord of the Two Lands, User-Maat-Re Setep-en-Re, (3) Lord of crowns Ramesses, beloved of Amun, god and ruler of Heliopolis. (4) The lady (?) of the Two Lands Tuya." 2.  Painted wooden chest of Tutankhamun - This chest contains an interesting description of Tutankhamum, which is akin to the inscription about Ramesses II as "alone" and "without equal".  It states: "The good god, the Son of Amon, the Valiant one, without his equal, A Possessor of strength who tramples hundreds of thousands, who makes them into a pile of corpses." 3.  Letter to Amenhotep IV - In this letter, Amenhotep IV is described by phrases commonly used for all Pharaohs, such as "king of Upper and Lower Egypt" and "lord of the two lands".  In addition, he was also referred to as "the god, ruler of Thebes". Now let's look at the Quranic verses which you have erroneously declared to be in "error" along with some others which will help alleviate your confusion: "Said the chiefs of Pharaoh's people: "Wilt thou leave Moses and his people, to spread mischief in the land, and to abandon thee and thy gods?" He said: "Their male children will we slay; (only) their females will we save alive; and we have over them (power) irresistible."" (Surah Al-Araf, 7:127) Regarding this verse, Mufti Shafi Usmani commented: "The above statement of Pharaoh's people, 'Even when he abandons you and your gods' makes us understand that Pharaoh himself used to worship other gods, even though he claimed to be the god of his people" ("Maariful Quran, Volume 4, p. 22).

So far, so good. Except that the painted wooden chest of Tutankhamun doesn�t say he was �alone�, simply that he was �without equal�.

Islamispeace wrote: Interestingly, Ibn Kathir deduced from this verse that the Pharaoh commanded his people to worship cows as their gods.  Whether this is true or not, we can see that the Quran never stated that the Pharaoh was the "only god".  It also stated that they had other gods.  So, why would Pharaoh say that he knew of no other "god" for his people?  Let' see:  "(Moses) said: "Lord of the East and the West, and all between! if ye only had sense!" (Pharaoh) said: "If thou dost put forward any god other than me, I will certainly put thee in prison!"" (Surah Al-Shu'araa, 26:28-29) In these verses, we can see that the Pharaoh threatened Moses (peace be upon him) with prison for putting forward "any god other than [him]", but only after Moses referred to Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) as the "Lord of the East and the West, and all between".  We saw earlier how the Pharaohs had titles like "lord of the two lands", "king of upper and lower Egypt", "the god, ruler of Thebes" and "god and ruler of Heliopolis".  This is important as we see from the following verse: "And Pharaoh proclaimed among his people, saying: "O my people! Does not the dominion of Egypt belong to me, (witness) these streams flowing underneath my (palace)? What! see ye not then?" (Surah Az-Zukhruf, 43:51) So, the Pharaoh considered himself the ruler of the land, claiming that Egypt belonged to him.  He didn't say that Egypt belonged to the gods.  He said it belonged to him.  That is why he said what he said in verse 26:29. But what about verse 28:38? "Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay, and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: but as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!"" (Surah Al-Qasas, 28:38) The answer is that the Pharaoh was not claiming himself as the sole deity in the Egyptian pantheon, but as the sovereign ruler and god of the land of Egypt, a fact testified by Egyptian records (as already seen): "By this Pharaoh did not, and could not, mean that he was the creator of his people and the earth and the heavens, for such a thing be uttered only by a madman. Likewise; he also did not mean that they had no other deity besides him for the Egyptians worshiped many gods, and the Pharaoh himself had been made the incarnation of the sun god. The Qur'an testifies that the Pharaoh himself worshiped many gods: "The chiefs of Pharaoh's people said, `Will you leave Moses and his followers free to spread disorder in the land, and to discard you and your deities'?" (Al-A`raf: 127) Therefore, inevitably, the Pharaoh had not used the word "god" here for himself as a creator and deity, but as an absolute and supreme sovereign. What he meant was this: "I am the owner of this land of Egypt: I alone will rule here: My law will be the law of the land; I alone shall be accepted as the fountainhead of all commands and prohibitions here. None else is entitled to give commands in this country."

That is an interesting theory. However, if Pharaoh wanted to say he was the absolute and supreme sovereign, he could have just used the title �Lord�, like he did in 79:24.

79:21-24

But Pharaoh denied and disobeyed.

Then he turned his back, striving.

And he gathered [his people] and called out

And said, "I am your most exalted lord."

If he wanted to say that Egypt is his, he could have said:

43:51

And Pharaoh called out among his people; he said, "O my people, does not the kingdom of Egypt belong to me, and these rivers flowing beneath me; then do you not see?

According to 79:24 and 43:51, Pharaoh stated that he is the owner of Egypt, and that he is it�s �most exalted Lord� - which would mean only he would be accepted as leader. He said all these things already that he allegedly was really saying when he stated he knew of no god for his people but him.

Secondly, are you aware of evidence of Ancient Egyptians using the word �god� in a non-religious way, but a political way?

Find me one piece of evidence from Ancient Egypt in which a Pharaoh is described �the only god�, or any Ancient Egyptian text which comes even remotely close to stating there is no god but Pharaoh, as allegedly Ramses II believed his followers believed.

TG12345 wrote: The Pharaoh was the principal god, but not the only god. Amenhopis IV, as you noted, tried to remove the other gods in favour of Aten. Ramses II didn�t do this. He kept the other gods around, but believed he was the most powerful one of them.

Islamispeace wrote: In the case of Amenophis IV, he was the "only god" that the Egyptians would worship.  He was their god.  The gods were his.  I still don't see what the problem is.  Moreover, the fact that the Pharaoh was known as the "son of Re" implies that he was at least less powerful than Re.  But he was still considered the sovereign "god" and ruler of the land of Egypt, as the earthly manifestation of Re.

TG12345 wrote: The Pharaoh was not the only god in the eyes of his people. He was the supreme, but not the sole deity.

Islamispeace wrote: And the Quran never said that.  That is your own unique interpretation, which as we have seen in the past, is always due to you making generalizations based on faulty research and misinterpretations.

The Quran does have the Pharaoh quoted as saying he is unaware of his people having any god but him.

The source you provided tries to claim that �god� meant not a deity but someone in complete control.

The only problem with this is that elsewhere, Pharaoh used the word �most exalted Lord� to describe his position, and stated that he is the owner of Egypt.

I am also unaware any Ancient Egyptian usage of the word �god� in a non-religious way. If you can find such evidence and present it, I look forward to seeing it and discussing it with you.

Also, earlier in the debate, you claimed that 28:38 and 7:127 showed that the religion of the Ancient Egyptians was �contradictory�, now you are saying that �god� in 28:38 did not mean deity. Which is it?

TG12345 wrote: According to their religion, was Allah alone in His supremacy? If not, who shared it with Him?

Islamispeace wrote: They believed He was the supreme deity, but they did not believe that He was the "only" deity worthy of worship.  He was not "alone by Himself" as far as they were concerned.

If Allah was supreme in their minds, He was alone by Himself in His supremacy.

TG12345 wrote: How is that relevant to the discussion?

Islamispeace wrote: It is quite relevant, since you are trying to compare the Arabs' belief in Allah as the supreme deity and their worship of multiple gods, to the Egyptian belief in many gods but the Pharaoh as the "principal god".  The Pharaoh was not only worshiped by the Egyptians.  He also worshiped himself.  And he made requests of the other gods, something Allah never did, even according to the pagan Arabs.

There were some differences between in how the Ancient Egyptians saw Pharaoh and how the pagan Arabs saw God, but what they had in common was that they both believed that Pharaoh and Allah were alone in the supreme power they held and that they were without equal, which would follow from that. Despite this, they believed in the existence of other gods.

TG12345 wrote: Yet Rekhmere worshiped the Pharaoh as well as the other gods, and called on other Egyptians to do the same.

Islamispeace wrote: Yeah, I know that.  I never denied it.  The Quran also never denied that the Egyptians had other gods.

Then using him as an example makes no sense. Rekhmere wrote that Pharaoh was �alone, without equal� but not that he was the only god. He also never wrote that Pharaoh told his subjects they had no god but him, as Ramses II allegedly did.

TG12345 wrote: Not at all. Pharaoh was �alone by himself� as being the only supreme god, and he was �without equal� because all the other gods were inferior to him. The Egyptians believed this, as well as believing in the existence of other, inferior gods. They supplicated to these gods as well as to the king, as Rekhmere�s �prayer� shows.

Islamispeace wrote: Not at all.  You are not making any sense.  To say that Pharaoh was "alone by himself" meant that he was the "only supreme god" is nonsensical.  To be "supreme" would already imply that there is only one.  By definition, you can't have more than one "supreme" deity, because it would imply that they are equal to each other.  Therefore, to say that he is the "only" supreme god is repetitious.  It's like saying he is the "supreme" supreme god, which makes no sense.

Are you sure that all things repetitious are �nonsense�?

Let�s look at 59:23 in the Quran.

He is Allah , other than whom there is no deity, the Sovereign, the Pure, the Perfection, the Bestower of Faith, the Overseer, the Exalted in Might, the Compeller, the Superior. Exalted is Allah above whatever they associate with Him.

If God is �the Perfection�, it is obvious that He is also �the Superior�, since �perfection� would mean being superior to anything else.  

TG12345 wrote: You have not proven that the Pharaoh was the only god that the Egyptian people had, or that Ramses II believed that to be the case. You have shown that the Pharaoh was the supreme god, but that isn�t the only thing that the Quran is saying. The Quran says he believed himself to be the only god that his people had. As history shows us, that is clearly false.

islamispeace wrote: I have shown that the Quran never said that the Egyptians did not have other gods.  It says very clearly that there were other gods as well.  As history shows us, you jump to conclusions based on your own authority, only to be proven wrong time and time again.

The Quran does not say that the Egyptians had no other gods, but it states that Ramses II said he was unaware of his people having any god but him. Clearly, this was not something an Egyptian Pharaoh would ever say, since he knew, as the Quran itself admits, that there were other gods also.

The statement that by �god� Pharaoh meant something other than deity is I believe an attempt to cover up an obvious error, unless you can show me evidence that the Ancient Egyptians used the word �god� in a non-religious sense.

TG12345 wrote: The error in the Quran about Ancient Egyptian religion remains.

Islamispeace wrote: Not at all.  The error in your reasoning remains.

Nope. The Quran is in error here.

Islamispeace wrote: And of course, the (actual) errors in the Bible remain, regardless of whether the Quran has "errors" or not.

True.

TG12345 wrote: LOL. No thanks.

Islamispeace wrote: Why not?  What difference does it make?  You are currently following a religion that cannot possibly be true, given its reliance on an error-filled book.  Does it really make a difference what religion you follow, especially if they all have errors?

TG12345 wrote: If I �believe in God� and don�t follow any particular religion, there are no standards or morals for me to live by. I might as well become an atheist. I refuse to do that. If you want to become a Deist, go ahead.

Islamispeace wrote: You can live by the morals that pretty much everyone agrees on.  No one disagrees that being kind to people is a good thing, regardless of what religion (or no religion) they follow.

Living by morals �that pretty much everyone agrees on� is not the best idea, if you really think about it. In 1930s Germany, �pretty much everyone� agreed that Jews were evil and should be mistreated. In Ancient Greece, �pretty much everyone� agreed that sickly babies should be left out to die. In my country, more or less �pretty much everyone� I know who is not a Christian or Muslim (where I live, the majority) believes that abortion is a �right�. If you want to base your morality on what �pretty much everyone agrees on�, go ahead. Killing an unborn child is not seen as the opposite of being �kind�. Neither is sleeping around, which is another thing most people I know who are not Christians or Muslims don�t have a problem with.

I�d rather not take that route, but thanks for the advice anyways.

Islamispeace wrote:  Anything is better than believing in a religion that is clearly wrong.

Really? Even atheism?

Islamispeace wrote: By the way, let me just make it clear that I don't care what you choose to do or believe.  I also don't care if you choose to lie to yourself and remain a Christian.  I am simply showing the nonsensical reasoning and contradictions in your approach.

OK

TG12345 wrote: Sounds like that is your second choice after Islam. Out of curiousity, if you were to be convinced that the Quran contains some errors, would you remain a Muslim?

Islamispeace wrote: No, I would not.  And yes, deism would be the only logical choice for me.  Christianity is not even on my list and neither is any other religion.  The only difference is that most of my research has been on Christianity, I know for certain, that it is false.  I can't necessarily say that about the other religions, since I have not researched them in the same detail.

Fair enough.

Why would you leave Islam, in favour of a �religion� where you don�t even know who God is?

TG12345 wrote: The Egyptians believed their Pharaohs became gods, and became fully assimilated with Osiris and Re. That still doesn�t mean they didn�t believe in any gods aside from their king. They believed in a pantheon of imaginary deities, while believing that the Pharaoh was the most powerful one of them all.

Islamispeace wrote: And the Quran never said that.

The Quran stated that Pharaoh said he was unaware of his people having any god but him. Obviously, he said no such thing.

TG12345 wrote: f he wasn�t a fictional character who believed he was the only god his subjects had, and who �made the people� who already were divided for centuries before he was born �into factions�, perhaps the story would be a bit more believable.

Islamispeace wrote: Perhaps if you didn't jump to conclusions based on your own hasty research and ignorance, you would see that the story is indeed quite believable.

You haven�t provided evidence that the Ancient Egyptians used �god� as a non-religious term. You also haven�t provided evidence that Ramses II �made� the people of Egypt �into factions�.

TG12345 wrote: Yet we know that Ramses II wasn�t the one who divided his people into groups. We also know that he did not believe that he was the only god that his

Islamispeace wrote: All of these misconceptions have been explained above.  Your conclusions are erroneous, not the verses in question.

Your explanations were faulty.

TG12345 wrote: Like the Bible�s Book of Exodus, the Quran�s account of Moses and the Pharaoh and the Israelites is inaccurate at best.

Islamispeace wrote: I would say that unlike the Bible's Book of Exodus, the Quran's account is accurate and agrees with established history.

It is not accurate. It avoids some of the Bible�s mistakes, and inserts other ones.

TG12345 wrote: There is as much �circumstantial evidence� for the slaughter of Israelite babies by Pharaoh was there is for their slaughter by Herod. The Quran claims Pharaoh believed he was the only his people had. We know that is false. They worshiped him alongside a multitude of other fake gods. It claims he �made the people into factions�. We know that also is false. The Egyptian society was divided long before he assumed power. The claim that there was destruction of his buildings is not backed up by any historical evidence whatsoever, as is the claim he drowned or that he had Israelite slaves. The claim that the Israelites came to the Promised Land from Egypt some 40 years after he allegedly drowned is also not true. The settlements found in the area are of Canaanites, not a foreign group of peoples.