The following article answers Sam Shamoun "A MONK WONDERS: WHO DOES ALLAH PRAY TO?"
Sunday, November 29, 2020
Sam Shamoun "Revisiting the Issue of Allah’s Divine Corporation"
The resurrection in the hereafter is described in the Quran as a physical reality. Many arguments are given, which are beyond the scope of this article.
The Quran also says the resurrection is a moral necessity that will allow the judgement in truth of the creatures endowed with freewill and moral responsibility 10:4. Our activities are not confined only to the physical world but have tangible, physical effects in the hereafter which is shaped and formed with our current deeds.
The Quran uses the reality of man's development from lifeless matter, foetus in the womb, child, youth, old age and death to point how the process of change from one state to another is evolutionary as well as retrogressive, similarly to the cycle of the universe till the Resurrection; birth, degeneration, destruction and rebirth 22:5. There is continuity, coherence and progression in divine creation. It then gives the reason why this evolutionary cycle of life has been decreed
22:6"This is because Allah is the Truth"
Allah is the supreme embodiement of Truth and all truth originates from Him
3:60"The truth is from your Lord, so be not of the doubters".
This is among the finest Quranic expressions, using from/min to describe God's relation with Truth. It denotes origin and starting point. When the purest truth is from Allah, how could He then indulge in vain and puposeless activities? Everything Allah creates therefore stems from an inner purpose based on Truth, and He is the Ultimate Truth
22:62,45:22"And Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth and that every soul may be rewarded for what it has earned and they shall not be wronged".
Falsehood, or a system devoid of higher purpose is bound to cease and perish, nor can it be the origin of things 34:49. Divine creation obeys to higher laws in which no human could have had a hand in
23:71"And should the truth follow their low desires, surely the heavens and the earth and all those who are therein would have perished".
That depiction of the purpose and meaning of the universe, and the place it ultimately leads to, is treated by the Quran like such an undeniable truth, observable within and outside of man, that any other system is deemed intellectually inconceivable
7:185"Have they, then, never considered [God's] mighty dominion over the heavens and the earth, and all the things that God has created, and [asked themselves] whether, perchance, the end of their own term might already have drawn nigh? In what other tiding, then, will they, after this, believe?".
When everything in the observable or intellectually conceivable universe is obviously caused as well as interdependant, it must have had a beginning and will eventually end. This leads us to predicate the existence of an Independant Primary Cause which is beyond the limits of our experience and the needs of the universe it created. The absence of external needs necessitates that creation must be for a higher purpose that does not affect the Primary Cause. When falsehood appears in that system, it is an anomaly that disrupts the truth. And since truth is never fully restored in this world, and falsehood always remains in conflict with it, then there must come a place where the conflict will end and only truth remains. As the above verse says, no other tiding is possible given God's dominion over all things.
The creation of the universe was therefore not the outcome of chance, nor the result of a purposeless activity from a superior Being
38:27"And We did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them in vain; that is the opinion of those who disbelieve".
The universe's creation was not done for mere amusement 44:38-40. Its creation is for a higher purpose that shall fully unfold once this world ceases to exist and another world is ushered where the Creator imposes perfect justice. The Self-Sufficient created a system that does neither add nor increase in His glory, no matter the outcome. It is for our own sake to give us the opportunity of spiritual betterment and consequent reward 67:2. That is why Man cannot be left unaccountable for rejecting the evidence that surrounds him and that attests to a higher purpose of existence, nor for being ungrateful to God's mercy by turning the world into a place of oppression and injustice 11:7. On the other hand he cannot be left unrewarded when he fulfills the upright role for which he was created, and recognizing the supreme Creator's work. If such a day of retribution does not come and this world continues without end or ends abruptly such that neither its pious are fully recognized nor the evil ones justly punished, then this means that its Creator is one that indulges in falsehood and purposeless activities. Like a spectator, He is witnessing a drama of the oppression and the oppressed, and when gets bored, dismantles this world. He might as well leave this drama continue unabated forever.
Being the Self-Sufficient above all the needs of the worlds, if God's wish was to "indulge in a pastime", meaning to satisfy a hyptothetical need, He would have found it within Himself without any necessity to create this universe, the heavens and all that inhabit it
21:16-17"And we did not create the heaven and the earth and what is between them for play. Had We wished to make a diversion, We would have made it from our side/presence/LADUNNA: by no means would We do (it)".
LADUNNA is composed of LADUN, pointing to an entity, place or time and NA means Us. The passage excludes any kind of created entity whether in the heavens or the earth, as capable of satisfying God's need for amusement. That is why such amusement can only exist within God. The end of the verse also shows that the Creator's absolute uniqueness and independance of any need reaches such extent, that even though amusement could be found within His own self, and thus answering his need for entertainement without compromising His unity and self-sufficiency, it remains out of the question. This is because the mere existence of a "need" contradicts Allah's supreme essence.
The passage speaks of people that deny the resurrection and ensuing moral accountability. The implication of that position is a situation as the one described earlier, with God indulging in purposeless activities just for the sake of entertainement. But when Allah's Self-sufficiency contradicts that notion, and that such hypothetical need could be found within His own self, then that very universe would not even exist in the first place.
The reality however is that the sentient beings -men and jinn- are referred to as the 2 weighty things who shall be attended to 55:31, pointing to their central role in the higher purpose of creation. This universe is running its course leading to an appointed time where these 2 weightiest issues will be dealt with. As the prophet Solomon states when speaking of the higher realities of the universe, in a context where great stress is laid on the necessity of spritiual improvement
Prov3:19"The Lord founded the earth with wisdom, established the heavens with discernment".
The very ability to speak with soundness and clarity, the utmost evidence of a conscious and intelligent aptitude, is proof for a purposeful universe 51:23. When intelligent minds speak and act to express a purpose, then this universe which is the manifestation of God's creative speech, must also be an expression of purpose.
Further reading on the subject;
Our universe was and is continuously created with wisdom and purpose. Such wisdom and purpose are always tied to God's mercy; from the alternation of the day and night providing us with periods of rest and activity 30:23, down to the very clothes we wear which the Quran refers to as "coming down from heaven", everything around us is filled with obvious signs of His power, providence and wisdom. The vastness and complexity of the universe are among the evidences put at mankind's disposal, of the might and all encompassing knowledge of the supreme Creator, as well as the relative insignificance of the human being from the point of view of creation and consequent resurrection
40:57,79:27,65:12"It is Allah Who has created the seven heavens and the earth and from the later the like thereof. His Command descends between them at all times that you may know that Allah is Omnipotent over all things and His Omniscience encompasses surrounds all things"
The Quran treats contemplation on that amazing creation as a means by which one may worship the Creator
3:190-1"Verily in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day, there are signs for the possessors of intellects. Those who remember Allah while standing, sitting and lying on their sides, and mediate on the creation of the heavens and the earth, (seriously saying) 'Our Lord! You have not created (all) this in vain! Glory be to you! Save us then from the torment of the Fire'".
Besides size and complexity, beauty itself is a factor the Quran stresses as an equally important sign pointing to the Creator. Evidently, things could have looked much different than they do and yet even the most common things like an ant or the moon, when observed closely fill us with awe.
Each of God's attributes manifests itself in some way in our world, to provide mankind with indications of a superior being. If we take His attribute of power for instance, among the most compelling and mind-blowing manifestations of it is the physical universe, unceasingly amazing and confusing the greatest minds that ever lived the deeper they observe and ponder upon it
67:3-4"Who created the seven heavens one above another; you see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent Allah; then look again, can you see any disorder? Then turn back the eye again and again; your look shall come back to you confused while it is fatigued".
The discovery of countless worlds beyond our solar system, all stranger than the other in terms of their inner conditions, enhance even further the significance of the signs of nature man is repeatedly told to ponder upon, testifying to God's bounty. When one sees how improbable it is for life to be sustained in this seemingly boundless universe, and yet how flourishing it is in our world, how could one negate intent and purpose in creation? And when one adds the element of ease and all encompassing control over originating and sustaining the universe, then how could someone argue that our relative insignificance entails disinterest from the Creator? The more we look into the universe, the more there is in fact indication that we are not insignificant.
Looking closer to us is the moon. It controls the length of the day and ocean tides, which affect the biological cycles of lifeforms on our planet. The moon also contributes to Earth's climate by stabilizing Earth's spin axis, offering an ideal environment for life to develop and evolve. The size ratio between the earth and its satellite is unique from all the worlds observed until now, and it is this ratio that allows these vital phenomena to occur
25:2"It is He who has created all things and ordained them in due proportions".
The self-evident truth in the cosmos of intelligent design is among the major arguments stressed by the messengers. Casting doubt on this clear truth is at odds with human nature 14:10"Their messengers said, "Can there be doubt about Allah, Creator of the heavens and earth?". The passage continues, saying that this reality is self evident to the extent that one can literally see God's imprint in the universe 14:19"Have you not seen that Allah created the heavens and the earth in truth?"
The existence of a Creator is now clearer than it ever was. In this age we live in, miracles in the sense of occurrences that bend the expected laws of nature are obsolete. Although the general scenery of creation described in the Quran as a sign to reflect upon is enough to alert the conscious heart to the miracles surrounding us, the advanced tools at our disposal have magnified these miracles to an unprecedented degree, ironically the very tools of those who are often the first to deny God's existence. Those whose minds are bent at denying it are left with nothing more than engaging in sophistry, pushing the boundaries of probabilities to unreasonable extent so as to allow for the most infinitesimal chance for doubt.
In the meantime, anywhere mankind concentrates its most advanced scientific observation, the more the signature of an intelligent design is apparent. This reality applies to the vastness of the universe down to machine like programming of the DNA. An entity capable of initiating massively complex information must have preceded all things. That entity must, as a consequence be transcendental ie beyond matter, as well as unbound by time and space which both had a beginning.
There is an impressive amount of theories to explain the great mystery of how the very first gene and self replicating molecule originated, among them one that focuses on montmorillonite clay. This abundant, inorganic blend of minerals is known to be a chemical catalyst, the crucial precursor to RNA formation, as well as a means by which chemical reactions can be confined and protected until the possible development of cellular membranes. But until now science has been unable to test and repeat any of those suggestions, including the clay model, to produce the first living cell. Even on a theoretical level, the attempts to explain the pathway from non-living to living matter have so far not achieved the states of complexity that are anywhere near that of the simplest known living systems. In fact some have began arguing that the "p-value" (calculated probability for a hypothesis to be true) for nature to produce the complexity of the genetic code is so small that it should be soundly rejected by science. The only counter to this inevitable conclusion is the multiverse theory, the existence of an infinite number of unseen, untestable entities, which is actually just a way of conceding that the only alternative to obvious reality is utter absurdity. Only intelligent minds can produce significant levels of functional information. Since even the simplest lifeforms require high levels of information, the scientific evidence for intelligent design becomes impressive. Even then, one still has to explain how does intelligent design initiate an information without any previous examples, references, experiences. This, the Quran answers through the phrase
2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth".
The connotation of the word is that, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience. He does so through His word "and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is". This is why God is the "best of creators".
This vast universe is a highly complex entity that will keep on evading man's grasp despite his ability to observe it and physically test it. Its complexity is such that God even swears by
91:5"the building of it"
as denoted with the impersonal "ma". That complexity however does not entail difficulty to Allah, who brought it to existence through His creative word "Be". Neither did the process tire Him in the least. If that is true, as repeatedly affirmed in the Quran, then how relatively insignificant is man's initial creation 79:27?
These allusions to difficulty and simplicity are all from the human being's viewpoint. The idolaters ackowledged God as the Originator of the Cosmos, and yet denied the concept of resurrection of that same universe, more particularily of mankind. This denial was rooted in the argument of difficulty, complexity
17:49-51"And they say, "When we are bones and crumbled particles, will we [truly] be resurrected as a new creation?" Say, "Be you stones or iron or whatever you think is harder to bring to life".
But if, as they thought, God was able to originate creation, then it logically follows it should be easier to repeat that task 30:27. This is clearly speaking from their perspective as is the case in 17:49-51, using an imperfect example that denotes mutability to God; a hard task becoming easier the second time. The Quran denies elsewhere the flawed logical deduction from the point of view of God's might
50:15"Were We then fatigued with the first creation? Yet are they in doubt with regard to a new creation".
This is the correct logical way to look at creation vs re-creation from the angle of difficulty. It wasnt hard the first time, why will it be the second time
46:33"Have they not considered that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth and was not tired by their creation, is able to give life to the dead? Yes indeed, He has surely power over all things".
Again
31:28"Neither your creation nor your raising is anything but as a single soul"
Clearly both creation and re-creation are as easy to Allah, the Supreme.
The verse 30:27 ends by stating that the loftiest example/mathal is with Allah. This is because the previously mentioned example that implies mutability from the human perspective, was an imperfect simile, adressed to imperfect minds that can never grasp the true extent of the divine. No wordly process can accurately describe God's attributes of might and creation. He may give us examples to illustrate how His attributes manifest in our world, but these examples are bound to be deficient, none of them can even come close to describing God's reality
42:11"nothing is like a likeness of Him".
Man's own conscience, his self-reproaching, chiding inner self, his quest for justice and his awareness of good and evil 75:1-15,91:8 should be a more than enough rational evidence for the necessity of a day of perfect, complete, moral and material justice
16:39"So that He might make manifest to them that about which they differ, and that those who disbelieve might know that they were liars".
That perspective constitutes the inner/abstract evidence of an intelligent design, in contrast to the outer/physical evidence depicted above.
If within the microcosm of his own self, his own nature demands moral equity and justice, reward and punishment, how may one imagine that the macrocosm with all its majesty be deprived of a great just tribunal? And if one knows that this justice cannot be met totally and perfectly in any other way than at the hands of a perfect judge able to restore the balance of justice, and that this judge cannot be found in this world, then no sensible man can deny that there must exist a place where these demands will be fulfilled, leading to the inevitable gathering of all morally accountable entities before their Creator 10:4.
That is the underlying wisdom behind the oath sworn in 95:1-8; The 2 places most associated with the prophets, testify to mankind having been created in the best of molds, one that can rise to the highest spiritual rank, that of a prophet of God. This sense of morality which is the special feature of man logically implies that it should be found to perfection in the One who originally instilled them. And thus man's very nature is what testifies to the existence of the Wisest of all Judges and of a day of ultimate justice. The HB refers to that concept with the following
Prov20:27"Man's soul is the Lord's lamp, which searches out all the innermost parts".
Something inside of man acts like a lamp to help him discern right from wrong among his impulses and desires.
Therefore, unless one comes to believe in the absurd idea that a rational being like man has stumbled into an irrational system of the universe and a moral being like man has happened to be born in a world which basically has nothing to do with morality, he cannot deny the life hereafter
Therefore, unless one comes to believe in the absurd idea that a rational being like man has stumbled into an irrational system of the universe and a moral being like man has happened to be born in a world which basically has nothing to do with morality, he cannot deny the life hereafter
75:14-5"man is evidence against himself, Though he puts forth his excuses".
This is the underlying idea behind the oaths in 75:1-2,91:7-10.
Even at a superficial, strictly physical sense, mankind overwhelmingly seeks perpetuality, biological or material, while disliking perdition and mortality. This tendency, well illustrated in Adam and Eve's failure at the garden where Iblis played precisely upon their desire for immortality to make them err, also provides hints and indications, within man himself for a Hereafter and everlasting life.
God does not indulge in vain and purposeless activites 21:16-18,23:115 as already stated above, and there is therefore no rationality in denying the Hereafter. Those who do so have distorted their own nature and common sense 83:12 and are following base desires to continue roaming this world at will 75:5.
Living a life where misdeeds do not always have consequences if one is able to outsmart the system, and where one does not have to morally answer for the way in which he makes use of his advantages, is an attractive idea. It appeals to man's base desire and hasty nature. But the reality is that man owns nothing, that whatever he has came by way of a trust and will one day return to the true owner. The judge will then assess the manner in which His trustee made use of what came under his dominion
14:32-33,17:70,14:34"And He gives you of all that you ask Him; and if you count Allah's favors, you will not be able to number them; most surely man is very unjust, very ungrateful".
So with the privilege of vicegerency on Earth comes the accountability for good and evil actions
75:36"Does man think that he is to be left to wander without an aim?".
This mercy of God is repeatedly treated as unavoidably leading to a court of justice
27:83-90,50:6-11,78:6-17,102:8"Then, on that Day, you shall certainly be called to account for the blessings and comforts of life".
The Hereafter is therefore a direct consequence of the perfect attributes of the creator, including Him being Al-Rahman (the Most Gracious) and Al-Rahim (the Ever Merciful), bringing about a day to judge between the good and the evil
6:12"He will certainly gather you together on the day of Resurrection, the coming of which is beyond any doubt whatever".
The notion of freedom without responsibility is the negation of divine justice and wisdom, a slander against Allah
39:9,38:28,32:15-20,45:21,68:35-36"Shall We then treat the People of Faith like the People of Sin? What has happened to you? How do you judge?" 55:60"Is the reward of goodness aught but goodness?" 95:8"Is not Allah the best of the Judges?" 4:147"Why should Allah chastise you if you are grateful and believe? And Allah is the Multiplier of rewards, Knowing".
Or as stated in the Hebrew Bible
Ezek18:30,Prov24:12"Is it not so that He Who counts hearts understands, and He Who guards your soul knows, and He will requite a man according to his deed?"
None except those who lack understanding of the ultimate spiritual realities refuse that concept
Prov28:5"Men of evil do not understand judgment, but those who seek the Lord understand everything".
It is considered by the Prophet Solomon as the greatest evil to think that the ultimate end for all of humanity is the same, regardless of each individual's spiritual condition and deeds Ecc9:2-3. The idea flows throughout the Hebrew Bible, that the deeds, good or bad, will eventually meet their corresponding consequences
Ecc3:16-17"I saw under the sun, [in] the place of justice, there is wickedness, and [in] the place of righteousness, there is wickedness. I said to myself, "God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every deed there".
Accountability and a perfect seperation between good and evil is a natural consequence of the order of a universe whose basis is the Truth.
And so the righteous, throughout the Quran, are spoken of as the "inheritors" of the Paradise because just as it is fair and expected for the rightful heir to receive his due in this world, and to deprive him of it would be a great crime and injustice, so too are the righteous to receive their due share in the hereafter, of the payment they have been promised in exchange of leading a certain way of life.
Therefore there must be a place where Truth will manifest itself in absolute sovereignty and since it isnt in our world the existence of another place where Truth can demonstrate itself fully is necessary
Therefore there must be a place where Truth will manifest itself in absolute sovereignty and since it isnt in our world the existence of another place where Truth can demonstrate itself fully is necessary
14:48"On the day when the earth shall be changed into a different earth".
It is among the most repeated promises in the Quran, that judgement will be perfect and all dues given accordingly
40:20"And Allah judges with the truth" 53:31"that He may reward those who do evil according to what they do, and (that) He may reward those who do good with goodness" 4:123"(This) shall not be in accordance with your vain desires nor in accordance with the vain desires of the followers of the Book; whoever does evil, he shall be requited with it, and besides Allah he will find for himself neither a guardian nor a helper".
The Quran repeatedly treats this reality as self-evident and a natural demand of human reason, no one can deny the Day of Judgement on the basis of reason and rationality. In the Hebrew Bible, the prophet Malachi lamented to his people who had lost that reality from sight, thinking that because the wicked prospers, and the righteous are afflicted and stumble then it means the former are God's favored, and if it isnt the case then it means God's judgement is defective
Malachi2:17"You have wearied the Lord with your words, and you say, "How have we wearied [Him]?"-By your saying, "Every evildoer is good in the Lord's sight, and He desires them," or, "Where is the God of judgment?""
They thus reasonnned that it is useless to worship and dedicate themselves to God, and turned to other deities
Mal3:14-15"You have said, "It is futile to serve God, and what profit do we get for keeping His charge and for going about in anxious worry because of the Lord of Hosts?" And now we praise the bold transgressors. Yea, those who work wickedness are built up. Yea, they tempt God, and they have, nevertheless, escaped".
Saturday, November 28, 2020
Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 1" (3)
The Quran speaks of nine signs given to Moses 17:101,27:12 divided into 6 signs to Egypt in general and 3 signs to Pharao in particular;
1)rod into serpent 7:107,20:20-1,27:10
2)shining white hand without any evil 20:22,27:12,28:32
3)capacity to ward off fear by drawing his arm to himself 28:32, an impressive feat to achieve if one considers how ruthless the Egyptian leader was, and how dreaded were his cruel punishments. An interesting linguistic observation is in the image the Quran uses to describe that ability; it says janah/wing instead of ‘hand’ to liken the state of man’s tranquillity and calmness to the state of a bird that when it observes a frightening thing, it flies, but when it regains its calmness, it gathers its wings.
4)drought resulting in shortage of thamaraat (used for product of anything conceptually) 7:130
5)overwhelming, encompassing, circling event/tufan stemming from t-w-f. In the context of a deadly event this could refer to any physically overwhelming calamity, as in a deluge 29:14, or even the thick enveloping impenetrable darkness which extinguished all lights and gripped the Egyptians with fear. The phrase tufan al dhalam refers to the intensity of the darkness of night.
6)locusts
7)lice
8)frogs
9)blood 7:133
The account and listing of the plagues in the HB is convoluted. The Torah mentions 10 signs to Egypt in general and 2 signs to Pharaoh specifically. It also says that the Israelites in particular were shown 3 of those total 12 signs to make them believe in Moses' prophethood Ex4-14; rod into serpent, Moses' hand turns leprous then is instantly healed, water of the Nile turns into blood when Moses sprinkles it on the dry land (also if he touches it with his staff, the whole river turns into blood Ex7), frogs, gnat, flies, death of livestock, boils (skin disease), hail and lightening, locusts, three days of darkness, death of all firstborns except those of the Israelites. The books of Psalms in ch78 and 105 however seem to be drawing on different traditions, as both the number and details of the plagues differ with what is stated in the Torah.
The leprous hand was, according to Jewish oral tradition partially an expression of God's reprobation for Moses "slanderously" doubting God's assurance that the Israelites will believe in his prophethood Ex4:1.
Some of the signs mentioned in the Quran are general and may include several specific ones listed in the HB, hence the difference in total number. For example hail and lightening could be, along with the three days of darkness, a sub-category of tufan. The death of livestock could be included as a consequence of the severe drought resulting in loss of produce.
In the Quran Pharao's power and dominion were destroyed in answer to his repeated rejection of the signs, including the 9 manifest signs 7:133,17:101. Moses was warned to flee the land by night so as to escape those bent on murdering him and his people. God this way caused Moses and those with him to bait Pharao and his army into their site of final retribution
26:52-68,43:49-56,44:23-30,7:134-6"if you remove the plague from us, we will certainly believe in you and we will certainly send away with you the children of Israel. But when We removed the plague from them till a term which they should attain lo! they broke (the promise). Therefore We inflicted retribution on them and drowned them in the sea because they rejected Our signs and were heedless of them".
The Quran makes it clear, the Egyptians never truly considered releasing the Israelites. Their repeated rejection of the signs led them to a point where they were planning on inflicting mass slaughter upon them. It was at that culminating point that Moses received the command to escape by night. The Quran therefore does not give credence to the events of passover where God, frustrated with the Egyptians' disregard of His signs, resorted to the mass killing of all Egyptian firstborn. This isnt a case of divine punishment falling on a nation and resulting in the collateral deaths of innocents. In this case, God's wrath is so intense, His desire for vengeance is so deep, that he purposefully targeted the innocent and left the guilty alive so as to witness the massacre of their progeny. It is important to emphasize, the criteria for death was not unrighteousness, rejection of the prophet or any type of evil behavior. The criteria was simply, being the firstborn, human or animal, and living in Egypt.
Killing was to be indiscriminate and included the Israelites' firstborn too, hence God's secretly sharing the protective ritual with them only. They were to mark their doors with the blood of a sacrificed animal, as a sign which the angel of destruction would recognize so as to spare them. But to the unfortunate who did not know the protective ritual, including "the firstborn of the maidservant sitting behind the mill", death was inevitable. Desperate, Pharao agreed letting the Israelites free temporarily, until he came back to his senses and pursued them to the seashore where he was drowned together with his army Ex13. The plague would have decimated the Israelites themselves. Passover thus later commemorated the event as a thanksgiving celebration. In the biblical account, the Israelites were saved by God from God. In the Quran, they were saved by God from Pharao. There is a reason why this 10th plague gave rise to controversies, and why the Quran doesnt give any importance to that legend retrospectively grafted unto the story. In the Quran, Pharao was the baby killer from whom the Israelites needed saving.
As a side note, in sura qasas it says the Egyptians' initial decree to mass slaughter the newborn Israelite males was due to fear 28:6. It further says that Moses' rescue and adoption by Pharao's household was divinely decreed
28:8"that he (Moses) might be an enemy and a grief for them".
We are thus given the background for that fear of the Egyptians, which led to the cruel decree as regards the infant Israelites; a newborn male was destined to become a formidable foe to the Egyptian elite. They knew it somehow and wanted to prevent it by systematically slaughtering all newborn males as well as cutting off the Hebrew lineage by taking their women to themselves. Other places where reference to that slaughter is made 2:49,7:141,14:6. Later on, when Moses returned to Egypt as a prophet, Pharao threatened to repeat that violent crime 7:127,40:25. It must have been a dreadful news to the enslaved Israelites, a powerful deterrent for anyone contemplating to join Musa.
In the Quran thus, no credence is given to the events of passover as depicted in the Bible where God decides to slaughter all firstborns, frustrated by the Egyptians' denial of the miracles and plagues. The order came from Pharao and was aimed at punishing those that rebelled against him.
In the HB Ex1 the Egyptians' fear was due to the enslaved Israelites' increasing demography, swelling to the extent that they "became so numerous that the land was filled with them", which is a historical inaccuracy. In their oral tradition however it says
"Pharaoh cared only about the males, because his astrologers told him that a son was destined to be born who would save them (Exod. Rabbah1:18)".
These "astrologers" were probably just echoing what the Israelites themselves were rumouring amidst their intense suffering, a saviour is bound to rise and take them to the land promised to their forefather.
This 10th plague is obviously one that left the Jewish thinkers uneasy throughout the centuries, to the point they came up with a way to shift the blame away from God by arguing that the firstborn were executed for murdering their own fathers
"When God sent the plague of the firstborn ... all the firstborn Egyptians went to speak to their fathers and said “Everything which Moses has said has come true, don’t you want us to live? Let us get the Hebrew slaves out of our homes now. Otherwise we are dead.” The fathers answered “even if all of Egypt dies they are not leaving.” All the firstborn gathered in front of Pharaoh and screamed “Please remove the Hebrews, because of them evil will befall us and you.” Pharaoh said to his servants, “Remove the protesters and break their knees.” What did the young Egyptians do? Each took a sword and killed his father". (Midrash Tehillim 136:6; Tanchuma, Parshat Bo 18).
Recent scholarship has unearthed evidence associating the passover ritual with Canaanite theology, which heavily influenced the Israelites' own religion. This may be a case where pagan tradition was fused with historical events. The name itself, "pesach", before its retrospective application to the event of death "passing over" the Israelites' houses, is found in semi-nomadic rituals of protection from a malevolent deity and demons during spring time (Leonhard Rost/Martin Noth).
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 1"
Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 1" (2)
Although in the HB, Abraham is called Avram/exalted father until his 90s before his name change to Avraham, the Quran calls him since his youth "Ibrahim" 21:60 the Arabic equivalent of "Avraham", and all throughout his life, including after the trial of the sacrifice and consequent blessings, without ever speaking of a name change. "Ibrahim" and "Avraham/father of nations" are both respectively the Arabicised and Hebrewcised forms of the name he had in the language of his native area of Iraq, which was neither Arabic nor Hebrew. The same goes for the Phillistine warrior Goliath/Jalut. What the Jewish scribes did in Abraham's case, was to retrospectively Hebrewcise the native name in a manner that would fit the event of God's promise to his descendants. They simply embellished the story.
Further, it is a known Biblical style to have one and the same character with several names whose convenient etymologies are relevant to the context, or the intent of the writer. A quiet blatant example is that of Sha'ul/Saul which carries a negative connotation, but whom the Quran names Talut, implying height. The Arabic Talut is derived from t-w-l implying a high stature. This name was known since pre-islamic times as mentioned in a poem by al-samaw'al. It could have been one of the names by which that king was known to the Jews. But the name the Biblical scribes gave him was Sha'ul, implying "to ask". This retrospective appellation was aimed at negatively comparing Sha'ul/Saul to both David and Samuel. Samuel was asked of God 1Sam1 while Saul was asked of the people. Then God answers David while Saul is answered with silence 1Sam14:37,28:6. There is a clear play on the questioning motif by the Biblical writers, who, like their predecessors, frowned upon the election of a Benjamite as their king.
Yahya and Isa, among other prophets singled out in the Quran similarly are Arabicised versions of the native names of those whom the Greek NT calls Ioannes/John or Iesou/Jesus. John the Baptist, whose Hebrew equivalent is Yohanan, is called up to this day Yahia or Yahia Yuhanna by the Mandaeans who claim to be his disciples, and is referred to as such in their ancient writing the Ginza Rba. It is interesting that the Quran uses a word for him that isnt used for anyone else. It describes Yahya as
19:13"hananan min ladunna/tenderness from Us"
which is a paraphrase of the Hebrew Yuhanna/YHWH is gracious.
As to Jesus, the exact name he had in his original tongue can only be speculated, based on the earliest writings with his name in Koine Greek and translations from Greek. The Greek Iesous is closer to the Aramaic Yeshu. There is also a very close sounding name in Hebrew, derived from the Biblical Yehoshua/Joshua. It was progressively shortened to Yeshua then Yeshu after the exiles returned to Judah from Babylon. In the time of Jesus, this name was common and a person named Yeshu may not have been named by the original Joshua/Yehoshua. The writers of the NT in Matt1:21 attempt to retroproject their Christologies unto Jesus using the etymology of the name. It is used throughout the HB to connote salvation from imminent physical danger but is now widened to include salvation from sin. Christologies aside, through his prophetic function he did save those among his people (the tribe of Israel only) from sin by calling them to he straight path and reforming their mishandling of the law.
More clues as to what his name sounded like can be gleaned from the Peshitta, a Syriac rendition of the Greek NT. The name Isho is used for Jesus which cannot be a transliteration of the Greek Iesous. Syriac sprung from Aramaic, which was spoken in the time of Jesus and most probably his native tongue. The Syriac Isho might have been pronounced the same way, or slightly differently as compared to the Aramaic original. Even in Syriac, the name Isho closely resembles the Arabic Isa. The name, as written in Syriac letters, can be both read as Yeshu and Isho. This might have been a deliberate device by the 2nd century Syriac authors of the Peshitta who sought to represent both Hebrew and Aramaic traditions of Jesus' name. The reason however for Christians to associate Iesous with Yeshua is because of the existence of a Hebrew noun which they think sounds similar and means "salvation"; y'shu'ah. Besides being a feminine word, it isnt even pronounced the same as Yeshua because of the muted first letter "yod".
Recently in Harra (southern Syria and northern Jordan) a safaitic inscription (1st century BCE to 4th century CE) believed to be by desert Christians addresses Jesus as ISA with the triliteral root Ain-Sin-Ya, corresponding to his name in the Quran (al-Jallad). A more fundamental question to ask is why would the Quran re-invent the name of a known figure out of thin air? The Quran is identifying Jesus by the name his audience was familiar with, before, during, and after Islam. The Arabic Isa is a known phenomenon in linguistics called phonosemantic matching. When 2 languages refer to the same thing with a word that is very close phonetically. Isa is a preislamic name which in addition connotes redemption. These 2 factors are what facilitated the identification of the Syriac Isho with the preislamic Isa by Arab Christians. Once more, the character presented in the Quran as Isa cannot be anyone else than the historical, biblical, traditional Jesus. Why would the Quran go out of its way and refer to the main figure of Christianity, while addressing Christians, with a name they never heard of? Pre Islamic Arab Christians adopted Isa because of its etymology as well as close match with the Aramaic Isho. The Quran is addressing these Christians of the Hijaz, not some Christian of the Greco roman world.
We find this pattern of morphing a name for theological reasons in other cases. For example Jesus' brother is called James. One of the 27 books of the NT was supposedly authored by him. It was opposed by many Christians, including Martin Luther due to its different Christology than Paul's writings, emphasizing the necessity of deeds for salvation. James was part of the small nucleus of Jewish followers of Jesus, centered around Jerusalem, who were in conflict with Paul and who advocated full Torah observance even after Jesus' crucifixion. James' name is in fact, in the original Greek, Jacob. In an effort to erradicate the Jewishness of that movement, the church, in all non-Greek translations of the name have changed Jacob to James.
Similarly Musa's original name isnt Moshe, a word hebrewcised in a way so as to fit a convenient etymology (to pullout/deliver) which is relevant to the context of the story (Musa's deliverance/pulling out from the water). Musa was named in Egypt, by his Egyptian adoptive family according to the HB itself Ex2:10, who would certainly not use the language of their Hebrew slaves for naming one of their own, especially so when the child was to be part of Egyptian nobility. Rabbinic commentaries speculate between several opinions surrounding the event of Musa's appellation, among them that his original name was Munius, later Hebrewcised into Moshe in the HB. It is highly unlikely that Avraham (father of nations) and Moshe (pull out) iterate into the respective originals, since they clearly follow Hebrew etymologies.
At other times, the Hebrew etymology is derived from a foreign name. Adam's whose language could not have been Hebrew, fits the Hebrew word adamah for earth/ground/dust from which he was created
Gen2:7"min ha’adamah". When Adam is preceded by ha/the it means "the man" in a generic sense but always with the earthly origin implicitly intended but if it isnt preceded by the preposition then it refers to a proper name with a meaning directly related to the history of the person in question, as is many times the case in the HB (contrast Gen2:7 with 3:21). The HB also uses ish, enosh, and gever for the human species besides "ha adam".
Understandably, most of the HB was redacted by Israelites who wanted to focus on the history and origins of their own people. From that perspective, the most significant aspect of Abraham's life is his travel to the land of Canaan. The HB doesnt even speak of Abraham's monotheism prior to that time. The only allusion to his life pre-migration is when it says it is God who inspired him to leave his native land of Ur in Mesopotamia, which historically was a great center of idol worship, unto a land where he and his descendants after him will be blessed Gen11:30,12:1,15:7,Acts7:2.
Although the circumstances are obscure, he convinced his father Terah to come along, as well as a few other family members including Lot. Just like Noah before him, or Moses and Muhammad after him, Abraham was divinely ordered to migrate out of a land of evil, sin and oppression
37:98-100"Surely I go to my Lord; He will guide me: My Lord! Grant me of the good ones" 21:70-2"And We delivered him as well as Lut (removing them) to the land which We had blessed for all people".
Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 1" (1)
The person who bought Yusuf is named Potiphar Gen37:36 in the Bible (meaning in Egyptian "the gift of the god Re") while the Quran refers to him with the honorary title 12:30"the aziz". That same honorific title would later be attributed to Yusuf himself as he reached a high status 12:88. The word is derived from the very commonly used root Ain-Z-Z to denote dominance and strength. The story also praises the humanitarian attitude of seeking to adopt an individual in distress or danger.
As to the pharaoh of Moses' lifetime, like the Bible, the Quran does not name him. It simply refers to him with his royal title firaawn, the Arabized form of per-aa. The Quran, like the Bible, uses Pharao/Firawn as a proper name, without the definite article. In the course of history, the word shifted from title to proper name, due to its very close association with a specific character. This is what happened with the title Christ/Messiah which became a proper name for Jesus. Whereas the Bible erroneously uses the title Pharao as a proper name for 2 distinct persons, the Quran uses it for a single person, the same ruler throughout Moses' life. Given the descriptions made in the Quran of that ruler, no historical Pharao fits better than the greatest of them all, RamesesII, which makes the use of the title as a proper name highly appropriate.
A major distinction between the Quran and Bible is the fact that the Bible uses the title Pharaoh to kings of ancient Egypt during the time of Abraham Gen12:10-20 and Joseph Gen41 while the title was not yet in use at this period. The Quran refers to the sovereign of Egypt in Joseph's time as malik/king and only starts speaking of a "pharaoh" in Moses' period. Therefore, the setting of the Quranic story of Moses is from the time when rulers of ancient Egypt were addressed as Pharaohs, corresponding to the 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom Period 1539-1077BCE until the Third Intermediate Period 1076-746BCE. It is to be noted that the word MSR refering to Egypt in the Quran was also used in antiquity going back to the prophet Joseph's time in the Old Babylonian Period (1950–1530 BCE).
The Bible states Moses saw parts of the reigns of two Pharaohs Ex2:23. This is understandable considering the Biblical depiction of him beig 80 years old when he confronted Pharao Ex7:7. The implication is he had been leading the hundreds of thousands of Israelites, through the physically, emotionally, spiritually grueling experience of the exodus well into his 100s years old. His life was taken by God at 120 years old Deut34:7.
Without getting into the issue of having an old man doing what Moses is supposed to have done, the Quran mentions only one Pharaoh who ruled Egypt before the birth of Moses until the Exodus and his death by drowning 28:7-9,26:18-22. This implies a period of reign of about a minimum of 48-50 years based on the Quran's implicit statements concerning Pharaoh reigning before Moses was born, the age of Moses when he left for Midian, the number of years he stayed in Midian and the length of Moses second stay in Egypt with the display of various miracles after returning from Midian 28:14-29,7:127-137.
Among the rulers of the New Kingdom and the Third Intermediate Periods, only 3 pharaohs reigned for approx 50 years: Tuthmosis III (+-54 years), Ramesses II (+-66 years) and Psusennes I (+-45 years). Tuthmosis III can safely be ruled out due to several factors including the fact that his actual reign was for about 30 years due to the appointment of a regent in his youth when he succeeded to the throne of Egypt after the death of his father. Ramesses II on the other hand ruled for the longest period of time as compared to any other Pharaoh and the 66-68 years period fits well with the Quranic account that requires about 50 years of the pharaoh's reign in Moses' time. He was appointed prince regent at 14 by his father, believed to have taken the throne in his late teens and is known to have ruled Egypt at approximately 24 years old.
There is a reason why the Quran corrects the HB which talks of Pharao's daughter finding Moses and later raising him, by stating it was to Pharao's wife that the infant Moses was brought to, and that she was the one to raise him 28:8-9. RamessessII would have been too young to have a grown up daughter at the time of Moses' infancy. This is how consistent and precise the Quran is in its presentation of facts.
Besides the above points suggesting that the Pharaoh in question is RamessesII, other Quran clues equally point to this specific ruler;
In answer to the calls for spiritual reform and the worship of the only one God, and despite seeing, along with the notables, the signs sent with Moses and Aaron, Pharaoh turns away, collects the attending assembly and reminds them through a proclamation that he is their Lord, most high 79:15-24. That is why he then says in 28:38 that
"I do not know of any god for you besides myself".
The verse 7:127 then speaks of Moses' victory over the magicians possibly leading to the abandonement of Pharao and HIS gods in favor of Moses' God. The 2 verses together show that Pharao considered himself to be the god of Egypt and its people. His exclusivism was that there is no other god that directs his people's affairs, hence they should worship him exclusively. But as regards his own self, he did not negate the existence of other gods ruling over different realms of creation. They were Pharao's gods, not the Egyptians.
In the time of the "new kingdom" which is the corresponding period as already seen above, the deification of kings had become an established practice that had in fact reached its peak during the time of Ramesses II who was the supreme divine and political undisputed authority, who did not waste any extravagance to promote that image as seen from the colossal monuments that he built throughout Egypt, which he furnished with numerous large-scale images of himself
10:83"And indeed, Firon was arrogant in the land; and indeed, he was of the extravagant".
The Egyptian elite and nobles around the Pharaoh in that period ascribed to that belief, considered their ruler as a supreme deity with no equal in divine attributes such as omniscience and creation. Not only did the pharaos of that period exalt themselves as gods, they adopted a practice according to which the pre-existing gods had to reciprocate to the offerings made by the pharaos to them if they wanted exaltation and worship in return otherwise they got demoted in status and were supplanted by other deities chosen by the pharaos. Thus, the gods of Egypt were not truly independent gods; rather they were pharao's gods. Their rise or decline was dependent upon the ruler of Egypt. It is with this principle in mind that the Pharao of Moses' time, most probably Ramesses II, in his folly, requested for one of his leading notables whom he calls "Haman" to build a tower for him 28:36-8,40:36-7. The Bible too, mentions unnamed helpers around Pharaoh.
On the micro-level, every single element of the Pharaoh and Moses story can be confirmed historically in a purely Egyptian context. From the Pharaoh being the supreme god, to the Egyptian mythology of rulers desiring to ascend to the gods through a structure. That belief, that gods may be reached by going up a high building was common to other ancient middle eastern cultures as well, including Mesopotamian and Assyrian. For example Nebuchadnezzar is reported in the HB itself as haughtily declaring
Isa14:14-16"To the heavens will I ascend, above God's stars will I raise my throne, and I will sit on the mount of the assembly, in the farthest end of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will liken myself to the Most High".
Haman is the Arabized version of the ancient Egyptian title amana that was used for a High Priest as well as an architect that impersonated the deity IMN pronounced amana in ancient Egyptian. This fits well with the character described in the Quran who was assigned to build a project loaded with theological significance, a kind of builder-priest or someone who was involved in construction as well as priestly activities. The Arabized Haman for "amana" would be akin to the king who ruled during the time of Moses being called firaawn which is the Arabized form of "per-aa", the title used to refer to Egyptian kings. In fact the high priest of Amun named Bakenkhons was well known for his architectural works and happenned to have managed several religious building projects during the time of Ramesses II and at his direct request.
The idea that the Haman of the Quran is the prime minister of the Persian King Ahasuerus found in the Book of Esther is untenable for several reasons. Assuming for argument's sake that the Quran is indeed referring to a name, rather than a title, why wouldnt it be possible for 2 persons living in different space, time and circumstances to have the same name? Ample examples of that are present within the Bible itself. Further, does it necessitate that the Quran's mention of a person must have biblical precursors in the same context, or that the Bible represents the standard of authenticity and historical accuracy? In fact the book of Esther, absent from the Dead sea scrolls, whose canonicity was and still is hotly disputed by both Jews and Christians as well as their sub-groups, in which a Haman is mentioned, is known for its many historical problems and impossibilities making it anything but a standard of truth. The characters spoken of in the book have no historicity and connection with any Persian king. Therefore, the presence of a Haman in ancient Egypt cant be considered unhistorical on the basis of a fictious person named Haman in the unreliable Book of Esther. It is highly probable that in the process of writing this fiction, the authors, used references going back to their period of Egyptian captivity, including the Eygptian sounding name "Haman".
To those claiming that even if Esther and its characters have no historical basis then the Quran has merely misappropriated a fictional character from an unhistorical setting, they still need to answer first and foremost why would anyone copying a narrative, only select and mention a secondary character among others and not only ommit his original role then change it entirely but also place him in a different setting of time and space? Some have tried arguing that the Quran's author interposed the Ahiqar's story with that of Pharaoh and Haman. In the story, Ahiqar the wise chancelor of the Assyrian king Sennacherib is asked to meet the challenge issued by pharaoh to build a tower in Egypt suspended in the air in exchange of much wealth. The story also contains mention of a Nadab/Nadin/Nadan (called "Aman" in only one verse of some -not all- Greek versions of the book of Tobit) who was Ahiqar's enemy whom he had originally adopted and raised. No literary connection or comparative basis exists between the 2 stories, not even regarding the nature and purpose of the building project. Why would the Quran's author change the name Ahiqar, for Haman?
The purpose of the building in pharaoh's words was to have access to the heavens and verify whether this God of Moses who was challenging him and performing wonders through His messenger truly existed. That God whom Moses claimed deriving his miracles from had additionally humiliated him by surpassing the greatest Egyptian magicians and descended calamities all throughout the land which Pharao could not stop. It is natural that Pharao had to find any way to save face in front of his notables and people, deviating their attention, which is what grandiose projects, whether accomplished or not, have always and still do nowadays, attempted to achieve by rulers.
If that God were true, he most probably thought he could demote Him as he had the authority to do with Egyptian deities. He ordered the construction to be done with a particular material that further points to the Pharaoh being Ramesses II. He asked for burnt bricks which was a construction method known and used in ancient Egypt at all times, whether for monumental or more basic buildings, but rarely prefered over unbaked bricks for economical convenience until the Roman period. It was however notably used for the construction of funerary structures by the pharaohs of the 19th Dynasty in the New Kingdom period which is precisely the period associated with Ramesses II. It is to be noted that the request most probably remained at the status of wild, on the moment, project as there is no mention of its construction in the Quran. The manner in which pharaoh made the request
"build me a tower..although i know him to be a liar"
conveys a sense of bluff or deception. It was a means of impressing upon the attendance that Pharaoh was capable of surveying and accessing even to the gods if he wishes. The above however is based on the assumption that what pharaoh had in mind was the actual fabrication of baked bricks, but upon closer attention, the literal rendering of the verse, free from any preconceived notion states
"..ignite for me, O Haman, (a fire) upon the clay and make for me a building, perhaps I may look at the God of Musa.."
Based on Moses' first communication with God, revelation was connected with fire. Pharaoh, who was now in competition with Moses and was always seeking to humiliate him in a spectacular fashion (such as the grand gathering of the magicians) could thus have been seeking to associate 2 concepts of communication with the divine by building a tower made of bricks on fire, or a tower upon which there would be clay and fire, the tower being the known way by which egyptians thought gods could be accessed, and the fire which was present during Moses' first encounter with God.
Further on with the issue of identifying the Pharao of Moses' time, other clues pointing to Ramesses II is the building of huge structures. The Quran's description of the Pharaoh in 38:12,89:10 is dhul-awtad lit. "of the awtad". Besides the meaning of "pegs", used for mountains in 78:7, another meaning of awtad is buildings and this is most appropriate in describing Ramesses II who was involved in more building projects than any other Pharaoh throughout the history of ancient Egypt. It is also worth noting that the phrase "Pharaoh, Lord of the awtad" appears next to nations that were known for their monumental building achievements 89:6-14, who were precisely admonished by their prophets for their boastful and wasteful pursuits, and who were finally uprooted and their constructions flattenned. This is not to mention what can safely be termed the most ambitious construction efforts the world has ever known when Ramesses II founded the splendid royal mega-city of Pr-Ramesses. The magnificient city now lies in ruins
7:137"and We utterly destroyed what Firon and his people had wrought and what they built".In one of his temples, engravings mention the construction of a temple dedicated to one of his wives. Astonishingly the Quran in 66:11 relates how his unnamed wife (Asiya according to tradition) makes a prayer whose wording is unique, asking Allah to build her a house in paradise. It seems one of his wives (either one of the queens or lesser queens) was not interested in such worldly considerations, rather desiring the good of the hereafter. Subtly, she asks for a house in exchange of a temple, showing how even a humble position with God is better in exchange than a temple in a world of sin. It is expected that this humble woman is not found mentioned among his wives, Ramessess could have even killed her for rejecting his way of life and religion.
Another unique description that the Quran makes of the Pharaoh of Moses is that following his death
10:92"We will this day deliver you with your body that you may be a sign to those after you".
His dead body will be preserved and become a sign for future generations, probably as it washed ashore after drowning and was embalmed by his subjects. This correlates with another peculiarity of Ramesses II, which is that his mummified remains can be seen up to this very day. This allows the interpretation of the verse to be a long term projection, contrary to other instances where an ancient thing or person with a miraculous aspect or experience are similarly made "a sign for future people" 2:259,21:91,29:14-15. In these verses it could mean the sign is meant for a short or long-term future depending on the concrete evidence available. For example should the ark of Noah be discovered today then the verse could be applied for the long term but until then, as in other cases it was only a physical, tangible sign until it was lost from sight, although the implications of the sign do remain forever so long as the story is preserved and truthfully transmitted.
RamessesII's body was protected from complete destruction by the crushing waters, something already miraculous in itself, and secondly its physical preservation made it possible to see in concrete the powerful tyrant that once defied God, vividly remembering his humiliating end. The historical and religious records in themselves remind us of his punishment but the additional presence of the body amplifies the impact of the story and attests to it, with the mummified remains being a sign "embodying" God's power to overcome the most ruthless ruler should He desire.
When the verses 10:90,11:96-8,38:42 speak of Pharao's "salvation", the only "salvation" that pharaoh experienced was the preservation of his lifeless body. This is why the verse mentions specifically "bibadanika". He became a sign for generations to come 10:92, of the will and law of God, even upon the most powerful figures of this world. He requested the salvation of his soul, but it was refused. Instead his body was saved and his soul sent to the punishment of the hereafter. For the Israelites who had been subject to enslavement, humiliation and torture for centuries, a condition that reached its peak under Pharaoh, the preservation of his lifeless body was an important reassurance to them that their ordeal was truly over.
The most relevant explanation here would be that the body of the Pharaoh washed ashore to be seen by the Israelites. That defeat must have struck hard among the Egyptians who then collected the body and embalmed it as a way of honouring it while they were in fact inadvertently exposing him further to humanity thanks to the Quran and its account of what happens to even the mightiest worldly leaders when they reject God, His messengers and the signs sent with them. The humiliation the Egyptians felt was so great that they attempted rewriting history. Merneptah, the son and successor of Ramessess II wrote on a stele that
"Israel is laid waste; his seed is no more".
Yet it is clear that the Israelites were not exterminated. This Quranic emphasis on the preservation of Pharaoh's body departs from what is expected both in terms of Quranic pattern where the rejecters are entirely destroyed, especially the leaders of sin, and the information found in previous scriptures and traditions clearly mentioning that none of the Egyptian pursuers remained Ex14. The prophet here, as is the case in many other instances including the negation of the crucifixion, had no reason to depart from what was known and established while retelling past narratives. The fact is Muhammad was a receiver of information who had no say in whatever he was conveying
46:9"Say, "I am not something original among the messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am not but a clear warner".10:15 "And when Our verses are recited to them as clear evidences, those who do not expect the meeting with Us say, "Bring us a Qur'an other than this or change it." Say, [O Muhammad], "It is not for me to change it on my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me. Indeed I fear, if I should disobey my Lord, the punishment of a tremendous Day".
Although Pharao rejected Moses' calls and the manifest signs, some Egyptians, including the magicians he summoned to defeat Moses' miracles believed. They were consequently punished in the most humiliating fashion 7:120-7,20:70-3,40:25. To Moses' contemporaries, magicians were very popular and prominent personalities, and their appearances attracted large crowds. One can only imagine the kind of audience that came to watch the nationwide gathering in one spot, of Egypt's most renowned magicians. In addition the Quran speaks of the event as happening on a special day, at Moses' own clever request, called yawm al zeena which lit. means the day of pompous decoration 20:58-59.
This is yet another clue pointing to the Pharaoh of Moses' time being Ramesses II. He ascended to the throne in his teens, and his reign lasted more than 60 years. He must have celebrated the famous Heb-Sed Festival, also called a jubilee, which usually occurred every 30 years after a king's rule and thereafter, every three years. Ramesses II celebrated a record 11 or 12 (some say 14) of these after his Heb-Sed festival in year 30.
Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 2"
The verse 5:116 is not concerned with warning Christians against the Trinity.
5:116 is a warning against shirk, with the veneration of Mary and Jesus specifically being a very big part of the roman and orthodox variants of Christianity. Both personalities are particularly tied up together in Catholic prayers as the most significant means of salvation and the Quran's mention of them together as objects of worship besides Allah is very appropriate from that perspective.
Saying that Christians take Jesus and Mary as gods besides Allah, and saying that Allah is 'third of three' are not 2 mutually exclusive statements if taken exactly as they are; 2 warnings to 2 different kinds of shirk Christians are guilty of. A discrepency starts appearing only if a passage not concerned with the trinity doctrine is read with that concept in mind, as is most often the case when the critics of Islam approach the text.
Allah being third among three distinct entities, as stated in 5:73, is found in the NT. In 1Cor8:6 God is equated with the father, one of three personalities in the trinitarian godhead. Note here that it doesnt say Allah is the third fraction of a whole/thuluth, but a third of 3. So to a trinitarian reading 1Cor8:6, God is a third of 3 distinct entities. Neither does it place Allah in a hierarchy among three. Thalith, as already noted means A third in the sense of one of three, not AL thalith or THE third in a hierarchical sense. Trinitarians perceive God the Father as the first person of their godhead. Had the verse negated Allah being alawwal/the first of three, its argument would have remained incomplete, opening the possibility that Allah might be the second or the third in a triune godhead. Through its linguistic precision, the Quran negates the overall concept of Allah being a third among three, regardless of whether He is thought to be the first, the second or the third.
As a final note regarding the charge of the Quran supposedly misrepresenting the trinitarian doctrine in 5:116, when the Quran speaks of deifying the religious leaders, and Jesus besides Allah, nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is misrepresenting the trinity because it mentions 2 worshipped entities besides God in one sentence. This exposes the shallowness of Islam's early critics among the orientalists who tried claiming that the Quran falsely represents that concept in 5:116.
This raising of their religious leaders as having divine authority, is yet another aspect of Christian transgression, in terms of partnering with God and compromising the divine unity. Followers of all religions easily fall into that sort of transgression, including Muslims when they give divine authority to that which God never sanctioned through His messengers 42:21. This type of shirk is so pervasive, prioritizing anything abstract or concrete over Allah, within humanity, that some islamic narrations have likened its stealth to the movement of an ant on a black stone at night.
5:116 is a warning against shirk, with the veneration of Mary and Jesus specifically being a very big part of the roman and orthodox variants of Christianity. Both personalities are particularly tied up together in Catholic prayers as the most significant means of salvation and the Quran's mention of them together as objects of worship besides Allah is very appropriate from that perspective.
The Trinity and other deviations that Jesus' followers and their descendants fell prey to are mentioned elsewhere in the Quran. Trinity is specifically denounced in 4:171 that says to Christians not to say "three" when speaking of Allah's nature, Allah is One. In this "trinity context", the verse mentions Mary's name twice without saying anything about her being a deity according to that doctrine, while it strongly refutes Jesus' deity who is believed to be part of it. He is Allah's messenger, born of a woman, having a ruh/soul created by Allah ie a human being like any other.
5:72-75 refutes another aspect of the trinitarian doctrine and starts by only mentioning Jesus' divinity in the context of the trinity. No other personality is described as divine. It denies Jesus' divinity by saying that he was a mortal, along with his mother who ate food like any mortal despite her exalted status. The implicit meaning is that; how then can God be born of a mortal woman whose essence is the opposite of Him? The whole set of verses 5:72-75 is centred around Jesus' divinity only so when his mother's humanity is emphasized, it is pointing to the absurdity of ascribing divinity to her son. This criticism, the necessity for mother and child to be of the same essence is highly appropriate in unveiling the true colors of the various Catholic Marian doctrines. Mary being the theotokos/deipara/mother of God means that she must be of the same essence as the child in her womb. Motherhood implies conception. Trinitarians are aware of that difficulty and so, just as their other doctrines compel them to do, they engage in sophistry
(Council of Ephesus 431CE)"Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh"
Such a convoluted explanation and ad hoc concepts attests to the Church authorities' unease resulting from their theologies. The same goes for other excesses directly resulting from Mary being the "mother of God", including her being the Queen of Heaven and Earth, (Pius IX), Queen and Ruler of the Universe (Leo XIII) and Queen of the World (Pius XII). Although they were toned down by successive authorities so as to avoid any "misunderstandings", these titles are still in use by Catholics. Mary is supposed to reflect in heaven the role of the king messiah's queen mother on earth, including holding an official position in the royal court, in which she shared in her son’s reign and served as an advocate for the people and a counselor for her son. No matter the euphemisms and sophistries, these titles and descriptions assign an intrinsic authoritative role to Mary in the "divine kingdom" together with the triune God. She is fully part of the process of salvation, inseparable from the divine son. Without her heavenly acceptance, nobody can access her son; she is in fact a divine doorkeeper.
Saying that Christians take Jesus and Mary as gods besides Allah, and saying that Allah is 'third of three' are not 2 mutually exclusive statements if taken exactly as they are; 2 warnings to 2 different kinds of shirk Christians are guilty of. A discrepency starts appearing only if a passage not concerned with the trinity doctrine is read with that concept in mind, as is most often the case when the critics of Islam approach the text.
Allah being third among three distinct entities, as stated in 5:73, is found in the NT. In 1Cor8:6 God is equated with the father, one of three personalities in the trinitarian godhead. Note here that it doesnt say Allah is the third fraction of a whole/thuluth, but a third of 3. So to a trinitarian reading 1Cor8:6, God is a third of 3 distinct entities. Neither does it place Allah in a hierarchy among three. Thalith, as already noted means A third in the sense of one of three, not AL thalith or THE third in a hierarchical sense. Trinitarians perceive God the Father as the first person of their godhead. Had the verse negated Allah being alawwal/the first of three, its argument would have remained incomplete, opening the possibility that Allah might be the second or the third in a triune godhead. Through its linguistic precision, the Quran negates the overall concept of Allah being a third among three, regardless of whether He is thought to be the first, the second or the third.
Further 5:72-75 doesn't say Mary is one of the 3. It doesnt even say Jesus is one of the 3 as the emphasis is not on who else is in the 3, but whether Allah is 1 of 3. Islam is not concerned in precisely defining Christian terminologies, which were different throughout time and geography, but to negate the concept of Allah being one among other divine entities altogether. Thus we find commentators of the Quran applying different Christian beliefs to that general statement. Mujahid for example said in relation to 5:73 that among the various competing beliefs is that the Father, the Son and the Word is one of those, while al Suddi saw in 5:73 a condemnation of taking Allah, Jesus and Mary as 3 gods. Christian objections that the Quran doesnt accurately depict their beliefs is the same as saying that the Quran doesnt describe confusion accurately. To even attempt to explain confused concepts results in more confusion and thus the best course of action is to point to the general idea out of which stems that confusion, then clarify it. One can also point to certain necessary implications of that confusion which point to the overall falsehood of the system. The Quran does both things. It is further hypocritical from Christians to raise that objection when their scholars are still trying to "refine" their terminologies in light of never ending logical, philosophical and scriptural difficulties.
Mary being a sadiqa/truthful woman in this verse is simply a quality stressed about her throughout the Quran and is not meant to refute her supposed divinity, and neither her son's, but meant at refuting those who doubted that pious woman's chastity and truthfulness, putting in question the miracle of the virgin birth. The Quran has quoted their accusations in sura Maryam and this is why Allah has stamped her here and elsewhere with words evoking her truthfulness, piety, submission to the Almighty.
The Quran doesnt define Trinity in details but in fact neither does so the Bible. What transpires at most from NT writings is a form of henoteism, a hierarchy of divine beings, with the Father on top, and then the subordinate divine son of God.
There is a reason why one finds that Trinitarianism's adherents, for the vast majority, are unable to properly formulate the identity of their God, even though they might be church-goers, Bible readers, and aware of the creed of their Church fathers. Defining that doctrine isn't important to the point the Quran is making. The position of the Quran simply is that any concept that puts up partners to God in worship and authority, any conjecture regarding the divine unity and singularity is an affront against the most basic notion of monotheism. The specific worship of the holyghost, which is an extreme rarity and almost nonexistant in all of Christianity is therefore omitted. The Quran has already made its point clear by rejecting the major concepts of Christian doctrine, like the worship of Mary and Jesus 5:116, the speculations on God's triune nature 4:171, or whether He is one of three distinct entities worthy of worship 5:72-75.
The trinity concept is one that developed through several councils and debates, wars and persecutions that gradually fashioned Christianity the way it is today. This why the Quran accuses Christians of taking one another and more specifically their religious leaders for lords besides/min doon Allah 3:64,9:31. Since Christianity's earliest days, church fathers, bishops and other saints were seen as divinely inspired so much so that their word was equalled to the word of God. Ignatius demanded of Christians that
"we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself".
Similarly the Syriac Didascalia attributes divine honor to the bishop because
"he sits for you in the place of God almighty".Perhaps there exists no better example than that of saint Paul who, through divine inspiration, completely falsified Jesus' teachings and clear instructions.
As a final note regarding the charge of the Quran supposedly misrepresenting the trinitarian doctrine in 5:116, when the Quran speaks of deifying the religious leaders, and Jesus besides Allah, nobody in his right mind would suggest that it is misrepresenting the trinity because it mentions 2 worshipped entities besides God in one sentence. This exposes the shallowness of Islam's early critics among the orientalists who tried claiming that the Quran falsely represents that concept in 5:116.
This raising of their religious leaders as having divine authority, is yet another aspect of Christian transgression, in terms of partnering with God and compromising the divine unity. Followers of all religions easily fall into that sort of transgression, including Muslims when they give divine authority to that which God never sanctioned through His messengers 42:21. This type of shirk is so pervasive, prioritizing anything abstract or concrete over Allah, within humanity, that some islamic narrations have likened its stealth to the movement of an ant on a black stone at night.
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 2"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)