A small but not insignificant detail in the Qur'an

[hamba2han]

THE WORD "PHARAOH" IN THE QUR'AN

In the Old Testament, the Egyptian ruler during the period of Prophet Abraham (pbuh) and Prophet Joseph (pbuh) are named "Pharaoh". However, this title was actually employed after the eras in which these two Prophets lived.

While addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh), the word "Al-Malik" in Arabic is used in the Qur'an: It refers to a ruler, king or sultan:

The King said, 'Bring him to me straight away!'… (Qur'an, 12:50)

The ruler of Egypt in the time of the Prophet Moses (pbuh) is referred to as "Pharaoh". This distinction in the Qur'an is not made in the Old and New Testaments nor by Jewish historians. In the Bible, the word "Pharaoh" is used, in every reference to an Egyptian monarch. On the other hand, the Qur'an is far more concise and accurate in the terminology it employs.

The use of the word "Pharaoh" in Egyptian history belongs only to the late period. This particular title began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the reign of Amenhotep IV. The Prophet Joseph (pbuh) lived at least 200 years before that time.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the word "Pharaoh" was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; B.C. 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730), after which this term of address became the title of the king. Further information on this subject comes from the Academic American Encyclopaedia, which states that the title of 'Pharaoh' began to be used in the New Kingdom.

As we have seen, the use of the word "Pharaoh" dates from a specific period in history. For that reason, the fact that the Qur'an distinguishes between the different Egyptian titles in different Egyptian eras is yet another proof that the Qur'an is Allah's Word.

In this way We give you news of what has gone before and We have given you a reminder direct from Us. Those who turn away from it will bear a heavy burden on the Day of Rising. ... (Qur’an, 20:99-100)

 

[ChildishFears]

THE WORD "PHARAOH" IN THE QUR'AN

In the Old Testament, the Egyptian ruler during the period of Prophet Abraham (pbuh) and Prophet Joseph (pbuh) are named "Pharaoh". However, this title was actually employed after the eras in which these two Prophets lived.

While addressing the Egyptian ruler at the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh), the word "Al-Malik" in Arabic is used in the Qur'an: It refers to a ruler, king or sultan:

The King said, 'Bring him to me straight away!'… (Qur'an, 12:50)

The ruler of Egypt in the time of the Prophet Moses (pbuh) is referred to as "Pharaoh". This distinction in the Qur'an is not made in the Old and New Testaments nor by Jewish historians. In the Bible, the word "Pharaoh" is used, in every reference to an Egyptian monarch. On the other hand, the Qur'an is far more concise and accurate in the terminology it employs.

The use of the word "Pharaoh" in Egyptian history belongs only to the late period. This particular title began to be employed in the 14th century B.C., during the reign of Amenhotep IV. The Prophet Joseph (pbuh) lived at least 200 years before that time.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that the word "Pharaoh" was a title of respect used from the New Kingdom (beginning with the 18th dynasty; B.C. 1539-1292) until the 22nd dynasty (B.C. 945-730), after which this term of address became the title of the king. Further information on this subject comes from the Academic American Encyclopaedia, which states that the title of 'Pharaoh' began to be used in the New Kingdom.

As we have seen, the use of the word "Pharaoh" dates from a specific period in history. For that reason, the fact that the Qur'an distinguishes between the different Egyptian titles in different Egyptian eras is yet another proof that the Qur'an is Allah's Word.

In this way We give you news of what has gone before and We have given you a reminder direct from Us. Those who turn away from it will bear a heavy burden on the Day of Rising. ... (Qur’an, 20:99-100)

Why doesn't the Qur'an name the actual Pharaoh during the time of the alleged Exodus?

 

[Rasta]

Why doesn't the Qur'an name the actual Pharaoh during the time of the alleged Exodus?

Probably because the exodus never actually happened.

 

[hamba2han]

Why doesn't the Qur'an name the actual Pharaoh during the time of the alleged Exodus?

You are asking me to speculate on the reasons why God does the things that He does.

Muslims, together with everyone else of His creations, do not know the answer to this question... and I believe that it is much better for us not to spend so much time and effort delving into these kind of questions about our Creator.

After all, when we get to the Hereafter, we will then know the real answers to all of these questions, God-willing.

 

[Futuwwa]

What is the purpose of this thread? If ancient Arabic only has one word for "king", of course it will use it, rather than invent new words for pharaoh, emperor, or whatever ruler it talks about.

 

[Rasta]

What is the purpose of this thread? If ancient Arabic only has one word for "king", of course it will use it, rather than invent new words for pharaoh, emperor, or whatever ruler it talks about.

I think it's supposed to be "scientific miricle of the Quran" or something like that.

 

[français]

"Queen ezlizebeth was a great person.

President bush sucks."

Oh look, a miracle!!!!!!!! I said Queen when it was about elizebeth, someone who existed hundreds of years ago!!

Surely, I am god!!

What ridiculous reasoning. Also, please provide answers to the following..

1. proof of an exodus
2. why did the qu'ran not mention the pharoah's name?
3. please show me proof that a pharoah drowned, as well as his whole army. also, i would LOVE to see proof that all egyptian children under 2 were killed by god. show me historical evidence for such!

 

[Rasta]

1. proof of an exodus
2. why did the qu'ran not mention the pharoah's name?
3. please show me proof that a pharoah drowned, as well as his whole army. also, i would LOVE to see proof that all egyptian children under 2 were killed by god. show me historical evidence for such!

Francais, you forget. You are not supposed to ask question that could lead to questioning faith. Just blindly believe what ever the book says, even if you don't understand it. If you don't understand it, just write it in really big fonts, then say think about it, with the illusion of being logical.

 

[hamba2han]

There are some who may have either missed the point or perhaps misunderstood the real significance of this accurate usage of the word 'Pharaoh' in the Qur'an.

You see, it is not the case of the Bible mentioning the term 'king of Egypt' that is the issue here, but rather, it is the fact that the Bible refers to this king of Egypt as 'Pharaoh' in Genesis when relating the story of Prophet Joseph (pbuh).

This is historically inaccurate because the king of Egypt during Joseph's time was not called 'Pharaoh'.

This error is not found in the Qur'an whereas the Old Testament and other Jewish scriptures do indeed make this mistake.

The following are excerpts from various articles in Wikipedia:

1. Pharaoh was a name for the office of kingship in the New Kingdom of ancient Egypt.

2. The New Kingdom, sometimes referred to as the Egyptian Empire, is the period in ancient Egyptian history between the 16th century BC and the 11th century BC, covering the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties of Egypt.

3. Archaeological excavations of the remains of the Abydos mortuary temple of king Ahmose I in the 1990's have uncovered thousands of fragmentary reliefs depicting this pharaoh's battles against the Hyksos as well as the earliest known depiction of chariots in Egyptian warfare. This discovery affirms the general view that it was the Hyksos who first brought the chariot into Egypt and permits Joseph to have enjoyed a high position in office during the 15th Hyksos Dynasty as opposed to the later native Egyptian 18th Dynasty... The price of 20 Derham which was paid for Joseph's slavery in Mesopotamia also affirms a relative date for Joseph in the 18th or 17th Century BC.​

There is just absolutely no way that anyone living during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) could have known about this particular inaccuracy in the Bible.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that at the time the Qur'an was revealed, it was only God Himself who would have known about this small but yet hugely significant detail regarding this inaccurate use of the word 'Pharaoh' when referring to the King of Egypt during the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh).

 

[Disippelen]

THE WORD "PHARAOH" IN THE QUR'AN

[ . . . ]

As we have seen, the use of the word "Pharaoh" dates from a specific period in history. For that reason, the fact that the Qur'an distinguishes between the different Egyptian titles in different Egyptian eras is yet another proof that the Qur'an is Allah's Word.

Hi, interesting story.



I wonder, however, why the Quran mixes up other parts of the Egyptian setting when it allegedly is so precise about the use of the title "pharaoh".

In the book of Exodus (chapter 2) in the Bible we can read that:

5 Then Pharaoh's daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the river bank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her slave girl to get it. [ . . . ] 10 When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, "I drew him out of the water."


If we look on the corresponding part of the Quran (28) we find, however, that:


028. 8 Then the people of Pharaoh picked him up (from the river): (It was intended) that (Moses) should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: for Pharaoh and Haman and (all) their hosts were men of sin. 028. 9 The wife of Pharaoh said: "(Here is) joy of the eye, for me and for thee: slay him not. It may be that he will be use to us, or we may adopt him as a son." And they perceived not (what they were doing)!



If the Quran is so impressive concerning the use of the title "pharaoh", why has it then messed up so seriously on a small detail (!) like this?

Either it was the daughter (Bible) of pharaoh or it was the wife (Quran) who got Moses as a son.


It seems as if you love to proclaim the logics of the Quran. So... How would you go on to examine this?



Best,
Disippelen

 

[ChildishFears]

You are asking me to speculate on the reasons why God does the things that He does.

Muslims, together with everyone else of His creations, do not know the answer to this question... and I believe that it is much better for us not to spend so much time and effort delving into these kind of questions about our Creator.

After all, when we get to the Hereafter, we will then know the real answers to all of these questions, God-willing.

Well you're the one talking about how concise and detailed the Qur'an is, so it's odd that neither the Quran nor the Old Testament could name the Pharaoh at the time.

 

[ChildishFears]

Probably because the exodus never actually happened.

Yep, agreed.

 

[hamba2han]

Hi, interesting story.



I wonder, however, why the Quran mixes up other parts of the Egyptian setting when it allegedly is so precise about the use of the title "pharaoh".

In the book of Exodus (chapter 2) in the Bible we can read that:

5 Then Pharaoh's daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the river bank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her slave girl to get it. [ . . . ] 10 When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, "I drew him out of the water."


If we look on the corresponding part of the Quran (28) we find, however, that:


028. 8 Then the people of Pharaoh picked him up (from the river): (It was intended) that (Moses) should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow: for Pharaoh and Haman and (all) their hosts were men of sin. 028. 9 The wife of Pharaoh said: "(Here is) joy of the eye, for me and for thee: slay him not. It may be that he will be use to us, or we may adopt him as a son." And they perceived not (what they were doing)!



If the Quran is so impressive concerning the use of the title "pharaoh", why has it then messed up so seriously on a small detail (!) like this?

Either it was the daughter (Bible) of pharaoh or it was the wife (Quran) who got Moses as a son.


It seems as if you love to proclaim the logics of the Quran. So... How would you go on to examine this?



Best,
Disippelen

And so then, we have two somewhat different accounts, first in the Bible and second in the Qur'an, of how Prophet Moses (pbuh) was brought to the household of Pharaoh.

Question is -- How do you KNOW which of the two accounts is the more accurate?

This same question, of course, can also be asked of the story of the alleged crucifixion of Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

The point here is that if we are going to use such circular logic to determine the truth and accuracy of differing accounts written in scriptures, then we can argue until the cows come home and we still will not be able to resolve the issue.

However, in the case of the non-usage of the word 'Pharaoh' when referring to the king of Egypt during the time of Prophet Joseph (pbuh), then this issue has indeed been resolved by historical research and also archeological examinations which supports and leads towards this conclusion.

 

[hamba2han]

Well you're the one talking about how concise and detailed the Qur'an is, so it's odd that neither the Quran nor the Old Testament could name the Pharaoh at the time.

The Qur'an names an entire chapter after Mary, the mother of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both), but does not even once mention the name of either the mother or the father of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Doesn't that seem more odd than not mentioning the name of the Pharaoh at the time of Prophet Moses (pbuh)?

 

[ChildishFears]

The Qur'an names an entire chapter after Mary, the mother of Jesus (peace and blessings of Allah be upon them both), but does not even once mention the name of either the mother or the father of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Doesn't that seem more odd than not mentioning the name of the Pharaoh at the time of Prophet Moses (pbuh)?

Well if they played a significant role in Muhammed's life and the production of the Quran, then yes it would be odd as well. Are they mentioned in the Hadiths? In any case, the Pharaoh was a pretty important figure in the Exodus...wouldn't you say so? So...it's kinda weird that both the Quran and the Old Testament would be obscure by only using title rather then a name.

 

[hamba2han]

Well if they played a significant role in Muhammed's life and the production of the Quran, then yes it would be odd as well. Are they mentioned in the Hadiths? In any case, the Pharaoh was a pretty important figure in the Exodus...wouldn't you say so? So...it's kinda weird that both the Quran and the Old Testament would be obscure by only using title rather then a name.

The Qur'an does indeed acknowledges the position of the Pharaoh of the Exodus through a prophecy which is found in no other scripture.

It concerns the preservation of the body of this Pharoah who drowned together with his hosts when in pursuit of Prophet Moses (pbuh) and the Israelites.

010.090-92
We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)."
(It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)!
"This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"

For centuries his body was presumed lost but in 1898, it was found intact and well-preserved thus confirming the truth of the Qur'anic prophecy.

By saving and preserving the body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus as a sign for all of humankind, then isn't this a much more awe-inspiring miracle than merely mentioning his name in the Qur'an?

 

[ChildishFears]

The Qur'an does indeed acknowledges the position of the Pharaoh of the Exodus through a prophecy which is found in no other scripture.

It concerns the preservation of the body of this Pharoah who drowned together with his hosts when in pursuit of Prophet Moses (pbuh) and the Israelites.

010.090-92
We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)."
(It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)!
"This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"

For centuries his body was presumed lost but in 1898, it was found intact and well-preserved thus confirming the truth of the Qur'anic prophecy.

By saving and preserving the body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus as a sign for all of humankind, then isn't this a much more awe-
miracle than merely mentioning his name in the Qur'an?

I don't see how a preserved body of a Pharaoh constitutes as miraculous evidence when 1) There's no conclusive evidence of which Pharaoh reigned and was supposedly killed during the Exodus via drowning 2) The entire point of Mummification was to preserve the Pharaoh's body for the next life. And there are many mummified Egyptians that are on display in various Museums.

If you can verify a specific Pharaoh that was ruler during the exodus. 2) Show that he died by way of drowning. 3) Discovered in the Reed Sea. ..Then that would be very interesting....

 

[Futuwwa]

Ok, so the Exodus got the royal title of the pharaoh wrong, but what then? If the Quran calls him king (malik), it doesn't prove anything unless there existed a specific Arabic word for pharaoh. If there would have, then one can argue that "king" means king specifically, but if not, then it just means any kind of hereditary monarch.

 

[Snowbunny]

i don't see why this is significant of anything... but then i have never found the 'miraculous quran' vein convincing...

 

[hamba2han]

I don't see how a preserved body of a Pharaoh constitutes as miraculous evidence when 1) There's no conclusive evidence of which Pharaoh reigned and was supposedly killed during the Exodus via drowning 2) The entire point of Mummification was to preserve the Pharaoh's body for the next life. And there are many mummified Egyptians that are on display in various Museums.

If you can verify a specific Pharaoh that was ruler during the exodus. 2) Show that he died by way of drowning. 3) Discovered in the Reed Sea. ..Then that would be very interesting....

The miracle is that there was even a body to recover given the manner in which how he died.

At the time the Qur'anic verses were revealed, no one knew that the body even existed anymore let alone believed that it was still preserved intact even though 2000 years had passed.

Remember the tsunami of Dec. 2004?

Virtually none of the bodies of the victims who were swept out to sea were ever recovered and even the few bodies that were found days later were badly decomposed by then.

Similarly, the expectation then was that the body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus was washed away by the sea and not even the Bible mentions that it was recovered and preserved intact.

Also, the thing to remember is that there are only a few candidates for who really was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and among them, Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE were favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars.

And one of the amazing things about the body of Merneptah is that it did not show any signs of decomposition.

This is totally unexpected even if someone says that there is hardly anything strange about recovering a body from the sea.

For the body to not show signs of decomposition means that it did not stay in the water for long... which is completely the opposite of what you would expect when recovering a body that has been in the water for a spell especially considering the way in which he died.

When you square this with the discovery by Dr. Maurice Bucaille in 1975 that only the mummified body of Merneptah bore distinct signs which are consistent with that of someone who had drowned, then this can only mean that it was Merneptah who was very likely indeed to have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus.