Humans, Other Beings in/Relevant to the Quran, Part 13

 

85.   EGYPTIANS

The Egyptians you meet in the Quran, you meet in stories "borrowed" from the Bible - or more correct: From legends and folklore based on Biblical stories. Because the Quran uses such sources, the stories differ not a little from the ones in the Bible, especially in details. Who - if anybody - gave Muhammad these differing details?

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

001 2/49aa: "- - - the people of Pharaoh - - -". The people of Ramses II - Egyptians.

002 2/49e: "- - - a tremendous trial from your (the Jews'*) Lord - - -". Contradicting the Bible - according to the Bible this was not a trial from Yahweh, but from the Egyptians.

003 2/50aa: "- - - the people of Pharaoh - - -". The people of Ramses II - Egyptians.

004 (from 2/76a): "- - - the fact that they (the descendants of Ishmael) were 3/4 Egyptian - both Ishmael's mother, Hagar (1. Mos. 16/1), and his wife (1. Mos. 20/20) were from Egypt - and thus not Jews, not to forget they were outside the covenant Yahweh made with Isaac which were to be the lasting covenant with Yahweh (1. Mos. 21/12), and also not to forget the fact that they lived so far off - near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18) - that the connection for natural reasons (strengthened by their enmity) was severed and forgotten."

005 (from 2/126g): "One more fact: The Bible – a book which Islam insists is correct every time there is some text they like, but which may be the truth other times, too - says (1. Mos. 21/21): “While he (Ishmael*) was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt”. Except for religious Muslims who strongly wishes this to be a reference to Paran or Faran near Mecca, all serious scientists say that this was Paran in or bordering Sinai - - - which also made it easier for his mother (who was from Egypt) to find him a wife from Egypt even though that made his children ¾ Egyptian and only ¼ descendants of Abraham’s stock (there is mentioned only one wife for Ishmael). Also remember that the old Egyptians were not Arabs, even if modern Egyptians often are called Arabs - where is the pure Arab blood of Ishmael's descendant?

Further (1. Mos. 25/18): “His (Ishmael’s) descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur”. The border of Egypt means near the Red Sea or north of the Red Sea up to the Gulf of Suez. Just where scientists place Paran - it run from there and towards Elath. (It is a bit ironic that Islam say the Bible has the name correct, (but claim it is meaning Faran in Arabia), but all the rest of the information about place, wife from (neighboring) Egypt, etc. wrong. Though if you go looking, you will find that according to Islam, the Bible never has a mistake and is reliable when what it says fits Islam. Only when it tells things or facts that contradicts Islam, the Bible is falsified - or like here one simply omits the contradicting facts - - - which one safely can do, as hardly any Muslim knows the Bible well enough to see the cherry-picking of information, unless he has higher religious education). And NB: This was written 1000 or more years before Muhammad, and thus with no reason to place Ishmael far from Arabia if it was not the truth.

006 2/133c: "- - - (the god) of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac - - -". This was said when Jacob died according to the Quran (you do not find this in the Bible). At that time Ishmael's descendants already were 3/4 Egyptian (both Ishmael's mother and wife were from Egypt (1.Mos. 20/21)) and they were living in hostility to the descendants of Isaac and Jacob (1.Mos. 25/18). They also were outside the covenant line through Isaac (1.Mos. 20/12). If you know a little about people, how likely is it that Ishmael was mentioned here?. (But Muhammad needed "quotes" like this to connect his new religion to an old one.)

007 3/64d: “- - - that we (Muslims and Jews/Christians*) worship none but Allah (= Yahweh and Allah are claimed to be the same god*)”. Wrong. This is not possible as the fundamental differences between the Quran and the Bible/NT are too big and too many – not unless the god is schizophrenic. Mainly only Muslims say this – and they will have to bring strong proofs.

Which raises the question: Are Muhammad and his Arabs really descendants from Abraham (and thus earlier of the same religion)? At least they in case only are quarter breeds, as Ishmael’s mother, Hagar, was a slave from Egypt (1. Mos. 16/1), and also his wife (only one is mentioned) was from Egypt (also according to the Bible, written and unabridged since more than 1000 years before Muhammad – 1. Mos.21/20). Well, worse than that: Modern DNA analysis has shown that the pure Arab does not exist. Arabia is on a crossroad – caravans and merchants have passed through - - - and left babies behind now and then (remember that before Muhammad in Arabia sex and alcohol were “the two delightful things”). And Arab caravans and traders roamed wide – and now and then brought back brides from abroad. And finally the perhaps main reason for the diluted blood: The slaves. Literally millions of slaves – some 2/3 of them women – have through the times been brought to Arabia, both before and after Muhammad. And the women of the harems – do you think they were permitted to demand condoms? It is impossible to say there are not traces of DNA from Abraham in Arabs – perhaps via Jewish slave women? But any scientist will say that the chances for finding much more DNA from Abraham (if he ever existed) in Jews than in Arabs are big, because the Jews mostly have been intermarrying because of the excluding religion. Arabs? Diluted blood and hardly any traces of Abraham - none if the Bible tells the truth when it tells that Ishmael settled near the border of Egypt (1. Mos. 25/18 - and there was no reason for him who wrote 1. Mos. not to tell the truth).

##008 3/162a: “Is the man who follows the good pleasure of Allah like the man who draws on himself the wrath of Allah - - -?” Of course not – the Muslims are better. It is a strange rule this that the ones inventing an ideology, always deem themselves to be the best, and all others of lower value. The Greeks were better than their "barbarian" neighbors. The old Egyptian found it distasting even to eat together with the Jews, according to the Bible (because they were lowly shepherds). Arab Muslims for centuries were better than other Muslims. Afghan Muslims even today mean they are better Muslims than other Muslims. Everybody is better than the Jews. The Indians were better than the Eskimos. The white race was the very best. Communists were and are best. Not to mention how best the Nazis were. And not to forget: Muslims are better than anyone else - twice as good or better according to some Muslims. It even is possible to believe things like this if you have little education, are naive, or are brainwashed.

009 7/131a: "- - - when the good (times) came, they (the Egyptians*) said, 'This is due to us'. When gripped by calamity, they ascribed it to evil omens connected with Moses - - -". This is not Biblical. It seems that Muhammad either did not know this story well (he knew little about the Bible in 621 AD when this surah was published), or that he misunderstood something - or both. This is about the plagues, and the plagues had nothing to do with omens. Also the time aspect is strange compared to the Bible - and to history. Also the rest her differs fundamentally from the story in the Bible.

010 7/134b: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) said: "O Moses! - - - (etc.*)". See 7/88a above.

011 7/135: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) broke their word!" See 7(88a above.

012 8/54b: "- - - the People of Pharaoh (Ramses II*) - - - treated as false the Signs of their Lord (Allah*) - - -". See 8/49a above.

013 8/54d: "- - - We (the god*) drowned the People of Pharaoh, for they were all oppressors - - -". What then about Muslims, as the Quran and its rules and orders about oppressing all other people are not from a god? (No god makes a book of a quality like the Quran - it would be heresy and an insult to any god to blame him for a book where so much is wrong.)

014 8/54e: "- - - they (the Egyptians) were all oppressors - - -". An ironic accusation from a religion whose official and broadcasted (though not to non-Muslims) intended aim is to suppress all non-Muslims in the world. See f.x. 8/60 in the Quran.

015 10/83e: "- - - certainly Pharaoh was mighty on the earth - - -". Pharaoh Ramses II was one of the mightiest - if not the mightiest - pharaoh ever in old Egypt. Worse: We know his history pretty well, f.x. that he did not drown. Because of this Muslims wants Exodus (the Jews leaving Egypt) and Moses to have happened earlier under less well known pharaohs which perhaps may have drowned (they often indicate around 1500 - 1600 BC, and never an indication about from where they have the numbers). But science is clear: If Exodus ever happened, it happened around 1235 BC, (sources f.x. Encyclopedia Britannica) which means during the reign of Ramses II (or perhaps, perhaps under his successor Merneptah).

016 10/92a: “This day (when the Egyptian army caught up with Moses and the Jews*) shall We (Allah*) save thee (Pharaoh*) in the body - - -.” The expression “in the body” should mean the same as “bodily” or “safe and (relatively at least) sound”. This may be true, as Ramses II did not drown. But it strongly contradicts other verses in the Quran which tells that he drowned. It also must be said that to save the Pharaoh in the very moment of death, would contradict 4/18, which tells it is too late to repent when you know you are about to die.

  1. 17/103: “- - - but We (Allah*) drowned him (Pharaoh) and all that were with him.”
  2. 28/40: “- - - and We (Allah*) flung them (Pharaoh and his men*) into the sea: now behold what was the End of those who did wrong!”
  3. 43/55: “- - - and We (Allah*) drowned them all (Pharaoh and his men*) .”

(4 contradictions).

017 12/21a: "The man in Egypt who bought him - - -". Joseph was sold as a slave in Egypt, according to the Bible to a mighty man called Potiphar, according to the Quran to a man called the Aziz. But as “the Aziz” simply means “the Great One”, it may be a title – perhaps for Potiphar.

After some time the wife of his owner wanted to seduce him. Joseph refused – and everything was found out. According to the Bible his owner got angry and put him in prison. According to the Quran Joseph proved he was not guilty, but was all the same put in prison on a very lame and not logical “reason” – lame and illogical, but necessary for the rest of the story.

(As for Joseph’s age when he was brought to Egypt, Yusuf Ali in “The Meaning of the Holy Quran” says he was 16 or 17 or may be even 18. (The Bible says he was 17 - 1. Mos. 37/2)).

018 12/31e: "Allah preserve us (some women in Egypt*)!" This tells indirectly, but clearly that the women were Muslim. But Islam was totally unknown in Egypt around 1800-1700 BC (Joseph lived something like a century after Abraham, his great grandfather, who lived around 1800-2000 BC according to science - if they were not both fiction. Or to recon the other way: Exodus was ca. 1335 BC. Then the Jews had lived in Egypt for 430 years according to the Bible (2. Mos. 12/40-41). This happened(?) a few years before the Jews moved to Egypt - if the numbers are correct it must have happened around 1770 BC. In Egypt people (likely except the Jews partly) were polytheists - no trace of monotheism is found at this time. (There was Akn Aton and his sun god, but not just then (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC)).

Muhammad claimed Islam had existed to all times and in all places - obviously wrong.

##019 12/37d: "- - - people (of old Egypt*) - - - that (even) deny the Hereafter". This is a real screamer - if there ever were a people who really believed in a Hereafter, it was the old Egyptian one.

020 12/40f: "He (Allah*) hath commanded that ye (Egyptians*) worship none but Him - - -". For one thing there nowhere are traces from such an order or god or religion in Egypt at the time of Joseph, and for another there is no such religious debate in the Bible. From where did Muhammad get the information about it?

Another point is that there never was found any trace from a religion like Islam, a god like Allah or a book similar to the Quran anywhere in Egypt (or anywhere else in the world) until well after 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission.

021 12/49a: “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -“. But the Arab word that is used her, and that is translated with “abundant water” is “yughathu” or “yughath” which in reality is said to mean “to be relieved by rain” (Joseph Al-Fadi (Christian)). As also “The Message of the Quran” has this translation (translated from Swedish): “- - - a year when the people will be blessed by rain - - -“, and has a similar comment to the word, and as we have met this translation before, we judge that Yusuf Ali has “stretched” his transcription a little (in case the true meaning is “rain”, it tells something). In Egypt one has little and no rain – it is the flood in the Nile which brings water - - - which means the Quran once more is wrong. (“The Message of the Quran" elegantly explains that it must mean rain further south in Africa, that made the Nile big, but this is not what the book says). Also see 12/49b just below.

022 12/49b: (A12/44 – in 2008 edition A12/48): “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -.” Here the language in the Quran is so unclear – read “directly wrong” - that A. Yusuf Ali’s religion has subdued his moral and intellectual integrity. The Arab verb that is used – “yughath” – derives either from the noun “ghayth” = “rain”, or from another noun “ghawth” = “deliverance from distress”. There is no way that it can mean just “water”. The “clear language” offers 2 choices – one wrong, one not a good description, so the pious Muslims used a 3. and dishonest one as Egypt did not get rain but flooding of the Nile (or actually a “Kitman” – a lawful half-truth – as the rain much further south in Africa causes the flood - - - but that is not what the Quran is talking about.) Well, to be polite and forget the dishonesty – al-Taqiyya (which Kitman is a version of) – the lawful lie - after all is lawful in Islam, and even a duty to use if necessary to defend or promote Islam (and curiously enough also permitted to use f.x. to cheat women – something for women to remember sometimes - - - f.x. that a marriage is a possible way for a Muslim man to get residence permit in a rich country – it happens now and then - and it is permitted to use al-Taqiyya also f.x. to save your money). And these variants inevitably also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning.

The lawful dishonesty - al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending), for one thing are integrated and accepted - even promoted in some cases - parts of the Quran's moral code, and for another thing permit the use of dishonesty in forming and "explaining" Islam's moral code and the arguments behind it (like Yusuf Ali is practicing here). Also remember that dishonest deeds - stealing/looting, extortion, etc. - are integrated and accepted parts of the Quran, of Muhammad's words and deeds, and of Islam's moral code.

023 12/49c: (A12/44 – in 2008 edition A12/48): “Then will come after that (period) a year in which the people will have abundant water - - -.” This is not from the Bible - from where did Muhammad get it?

024 12/50b: "So the king (Pharaoh*) said: 'Bring ye him unto me". See 12/43b above.

025 12/50c: "So the king (Pharaoh*) said: 'Bring ye him unto me". This is not from the Bible. According to the Bible Joseph already was brought to the Pharaoh, and spoke directly to him (1. Mos. 41/14-15). But this twist was necessary for Muhammad to be able to add his illogical continuation of this part of the tale to the story - illogical because Joseph according to the Quran (12/26-29) was proved innocent (but not according to the Bible - his imprisonment has a logic in the Bible, but also this lacks logic in the Quran; a proved innocent man imprisoned for years).

026 12/51c: "(The king (Pharaoh*)) said (to the ladies): What was your affair when ye did seek to seduce Joseph - - -". One thing is that this tale is not from the Bible, and thus of unknown origin. Worse just here is that the Quran here contradicts itself, as these ladies also according to the Quran (12/30-35) did not try to seduce him to anything - only the Aziz's wife tried to do so.

027 12/51d: “What was your (the ladies’*) affair when you ye did try to seduce him (Joseph*) - - -“. According to 12/23 it only was the wife of the Aziz who tried this. Mistake and contradiction. (The wife invited some women friends to show them how handsome – not to say beautiful – Joseph was. With dramatic effect: They hurt themselves with knives in a scene credible only in third class novels for children, not for adults - but they did not try to seduce him (12/30-32 above)).

*028 12/51e: The women from Potiphar’s (this name is from the Bible - the Aziz (title or job?) in the Quran) - or actually his wife's - banquet, said: “Allah preserve us”. The name and the god Allah did not exist in the old polytheistic pantheon in Egypt - and definitely not among the upper class (from slaves and traders they might have heard about Yahweh, but not Allah, and hardly even al-Lah that early). Their gods were Ptah, Osiris, Aton, Amon, and other ones. Actually there is found not one single trace of monotheism among the upper class (and also not in lower classes) in Egypt in the old times. (Except Akn-Aton and his sun god (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC)). Similar claim in 12/52.

029 12/54a: "So the king said - - -". A time anomaly. It might also look like Muhammad did not know that the title for the king of Egypt was not king, but pharaoh.

030 12/54b: "So the king (Pharaoh*)) said: 'Bring him (Joseph*) onto me - - -". See 12/43b above.

031 12/54c: "So the king said: 'Bring him (Joseph*) onto me - - -". This is contradicted by the Bible - see 12/50c above. Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

032 12/52e: (A12/47 – in the 2008 edition A12/51): “This (say I), in order that he (the Aziz*) may know that I (Joseph*) have never been false to him in his absence, and that Allah will never guide the snare of the false ones. Nor do I absolve my own self - - -.” All this is well and good. But who says this? Is it the wife, like f.x. Ibn Kathir and Rashid Rida guess? – or is it Joseph, like among others Tabari, Baghawi, and Zamakhshari believe? The clear (?) language in the Quran does not give one single reliable clue – it is anybody’s guess. Clear and unmistakable texts?

033 12/72a: "They (the Egyptians*) said - - -". Time anomaly.

034 12/74: "(The Egyptians) said - - -". A time anomaly.

035 12/75c: (A70 – in 2008 edition A74): ”They said: ’The penalty should be - - -.” But who said this? If it was the Egyptians, that was the law one had to follow. If it was Joseph’s brothers, it was an offer to the Egyptians, but not a consequence of a law one had to obey. The Quran does not give a clue – and some Muslim scholars guess this, others that. Would an omniscient god use a language that so often is unclear, has double or even multiple meanings, and that so frequently demands guesswork? – at least anyone who use the often unclear language in the Quran as a proof for a god, is far out in the wilderness.

036 12/76g: "He (Joseph*) could not take his brother (Benjamin*) by the law of the king - - -". This is rubbish to use polite words. One thing is that Joseph was not after his brother Benjamin - Benjamin had not wronged him. He was after his half-brothers - to frighten them (hardly any more). But the main point is that in a full dictatorship like the old Egypt, the king/pharaoh AND his highest officers could - and can - do almost what they wanted, included detain a man or more. At most they had to find an excuse. F.x. Joseph could use the excuse he according to the Bible used to hold back in prison his half-brother Simeon from the first trip (1. Mos. 42/12-24). This storey is told by someone who did not know what he was talking about, or someone who did not have a more creative mind - - - and to believe it, also the listeners had to be little bright or little knowledgeable.

037 20/51c: "What then is the condition of previous generations?" Ramses II asks if Moses means earlier Egyptians - polytheists - now were in Heaven or Hell. Such a debate is not mentioned in the Bible. From where did Muhammad get these details? As the Quran is not from a god, the alternatives are: From dark forces. From old tales. From his possible illness (TLE - Temporal Lobe Epilepsy). From a scheming brain.

038 20/71c: "- - - I (Ramses II*) will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides - - -". If our sources are correct, Egypt at that time did not use this Arabian kind of punishment.

*039 20/71d: “- - - I (Pharaoh Ramses II*) will have you crucified - - -”. If not our sources are very wrong, Egypt at that time did not crucify people.

040 20/79b: "Pharaoh (Ramses II*) led his people astray instead of leading them aright". This may or may not mean the Ramses II should have made Egypt Muslim - 2ooo years before Muhammad and the first known mentioning of Islam or Allah. No comment.

041 20/87b: "- - - the weight of the ornaments - - -". There is some dishonest Muslim slander connected to this. When the Jews left Egypt, they were given valuables by the Egyptians. Muslims say they must have use dishonest means to get it and cheated the Egyptians (A20/73). This is dishonest because it is told in the Bible how it happened, and Muslim scholars who read the Bible to find weak point to use, impossibly can have overlooked it, especially as it was a point of interest for them - the Bible is bigger than the Quran, but it is not that big. The Bible says (2. Mos. 12/35-36): The Israelites did as Moses instructed and asked the Egyptians for articles of silver and gold and clothing. The Lord had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians". It thus was not a question of cheating, but of divine action according to this book. But it is easy for Muslims to believe in the cheating Jews (according to Islamic sources it cannot have been too much - YA2607 hints at one or two man-loads.) The real mechanism for the Egyptians' willingness to give, may f.x. have been panic over what had just happened; the unanimous death of all firstborn in Egypt, and a desperate wish to for any price get these people away.

One point we have heard not one Muslim comment on, and not seen one Muslim scholar write about, is if this limited amount of gold and valuables were fair payment for generations of slave work they had been forced to do in Egypt?

042 20/91a: Jews in Sinai said: “We will not abandon this cult (the golden calf*) - - -". The calf was a religious symbol connected to the holy ox Apis in Egypt where they came from - therefore this strange "god". (Apis was reckoned to be an incarnation of the main Egyptian god Ptah.)

043 25/36a: “’Go ye both (Moses and Aaron - remember that Islam claims Allah is the same god as Yahweh - what Yahweh did, consequently Allah did*), to the people (the people of Egypt*) who have rejected our Signs’. And those (people) We destroyed with utter destruction”. Some more mass murder. Besides it was not the people of Egypt who were destroyed, only a part of their army.

044 25/36c: "- - - the people (the Egyptians*) who have rejected our (Allah's*) Signs - - -". This is not a motif or even mentioned in the Bible.

045 26/11a: "The people of the Pharaoh: will they not fear Allah?" The people of Egypt were polytheists. It is likely at least many of them had heard about Yahweh, the god of their Jewish slaves, but Allah they had never even heard about - perhaps al-Lah (or in case more likely his earlier names al-Ilah or the even older Il), but not Allah. There is not even a trace found from monotheism under Ramses II - the pharaoh of Moses. (Islam prefers to talk about other pharaohs - preferably older ones - because science knows Ramses II did not drown, but science is not in doubt.)

046 26/11b: "The people of the Pharaoh: will they not fear Allah?" There is no trace of religious preaching by Moses in this story in the Bible.

047 26/12b: "I (Moses*) do fear they (the Egyptians*) will charge me with falsehood". According to Bible, they might charge him not with falsehood, but with murder (according to both the Bible and the Quran he had killed a man before he fled from Egypt 40 years (according to the Bible) earlier.) See 26/14 below.

048 26/26b: "(Moses) said (to Ramses II*): "Your Lord (Allah*) and the Lord of your fathers from the beginning." This contradicts reality, as we know Allah never was the god of the old Egyptians - there never was any monotheism, except Akn-Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC) and his sun god (and on top of all the old al-Lah (older name al-Ilah and even older Il) was the moon god once upon a time). And for another it contradicts the Bible: Moses never tried to pretend Yahweh was the god of the Egyptians according to the Bible, or discussed religion at all - his only topic according to the Bible was: "Let my people go".

We may add that originally Hubal was the moon god in Arabia, and the Kabah was his temple and dedicated to him. But when Muhammad was born, al-Lah - sometimes named Allah - had taken over as Arabia's main god and moon god. It is a bit ironic that a building dedicated to an old moon god was and is the most holy place on Earth for a claimed other and claimed omnipotent god - and as ironic is the fact that if Muhammad had been born earlier, Islam's god might have been named Hubal, not Allah (Muhammad simply took over the claimed mightiest of the pagan Arab gods, and earlier Hubal was reckoned to be the most powerful one).

*049 26/29c: “If thou (Moses*) dost put forward any god other than me (the pharaoh*), I will certainly put you in prison.” Wrong – in Egypt one had many gods. Even more: According to one of Islam’s tries to explain away the mistake of placing Xerxes’ man Haman at Ramses II’s court - and hundreds of years wrong - the high priest (Ha-Amon) of one of the main gods – Amon – even was present and one of the pharaoh’s main advisers at this meeting (a “fact” that in case makes this sentence impossibly illogical - but then it is typical for Muslims' explaining away of mistakes in the Quran, that the "explanations" "explain" some aspects with a mistake, but collides with others). It is impossible that Ramses II said this if at the same time a high priest - Haman/Ha-Amon - of a main god was present. Or the other way around: If Ramses II said this, Islam’ "explanation" about Haman as Ha-Amon is proved wrong. Make your choice - but science knows that Amon was a top god among many others in Egypt, so it is highly unlikely Ramses II said what the Quran claims, unless Islam has real proofs.

The religious part - and other details - in this debate are not from the Bible. (According to the Bible the only thing Ramses II now said about the god of the Jews, was a short sentence saying that he did not know him and would not respect him (2. Mos. 5/2), and he said pretty little about Yahweh later, too).

As it is proved ever so well that Egypt had many gods, this quote is historical nonsense. And as Islam claims that the high priest for the god Amon - Ha-Amon - is the explanation for the name Haman mentioned in the Quran, either this Islamic "explanation" or the claim that Haman = Ha-Amon is nonsense and dishonesty.

050 26/40a: "- - - that we (the Egyptians*) may follow the sorcerers (in religion) if they win?" This contradicts the Bible - there it was no question of following this or that religion, only "let my people (the Jews*) go". Also see 26/35 above.

051 26/40b: "- - - that we (the Egyptians*) may follow the sorcerers (in religion) if they win?" Such a demand is nonsense compared to what we know about the religion of Egypt at that time. It also is psychological nonsense - it takes more than this to make the whole population of a country change religion (if the "wrong" part won). For one thing it had fundamental grips on the population - even a royal decree about changing to another religion would not work - see Akn-Aton's try even if that was not just at this time (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC). And for another the magicians would have the same religion as the people, so why then a silly demand like this? (Some Muslims claim it is meant the forwarding of the worship of the pharaoh, but the pharaoh was not the main god in Egypt.)

052 26/49d: "Be sure I (Pharaoh Ramses II) will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides - - -". According to our information this Arab way of punishing was not used in Egypt at the time of Ramses II.

*053 26/29c: “If thou (Moses*) dost put forward any god other than me (the pharaoh*), I will certainly put you in prison.” Wrong – in Egypt one had many gods. Even more: According to one of Islam’s tries to explain away the mistake of placing Xerxes’ man Haman at Ramses II’s court - and hundreds of years wrong - the high priest (Ha-Amon) of one of the main gods – Amon – even was present and one of the pharaoh’s main advisers at this meeting (a “fact” that in case makes this sentence impossibly illogical - but then it is typical for Muslims' explaining away of mistakes in the Quran, that the "explanations" "explain" some aspects with a mistake, but collides with others). It is impossible that Ramses II said this if at the same time a high priest - Haman/Ha-Amon - of a main god was present. Or the other way around: If Ramses II said this, Islam’ "explanation" about Haman as Ha-Amon is proved wrong. Make your choice - but science knows that Amon was a top god among many others in Egypt, so it is highly unlikely Ramses II said what the Quran claims, unless Islam has real proofs.

The religious part - and other details - in this debate are not from the Bible. (According to the Bible the only thing Ramses II now said about the god of the Jews, was a short sentence saying that he did not know him and would not respect him (2. Mos. 5/2), and he said pretty little about Yahweh later, too).

As it is proved ever so well that Egypt had many gods, this quote is historical nonsense. And as Islam claims that the high priest for the god Amon - Ha-Amon - is the explanation for the name Haman mentioned in the Quran, either this Islamic "explanation" or the claim that Haman = Ha-Amon is nonsense and dishonesty.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

###054 26/46-47: "Then did the sorcerers fall down, prostrate in adoration, Saying 'We believe in the Lord of the Worlds - - -". For one thing this is not from the Bible. But much more serious in this connection is that #######this is one of the proofs for that Muhammad knew he was lying each time he explained away his inability to produce any miracle as a proof for his god and for his own connection to a god, with that Allah did not want because it would make no-one believe in Allah anyhow. Here Muhammad is telling - early in his career and before many of those "explaining" away - about a minor miracle which made all those sorcerers suddenly become ardent believers in just Allah. Also see 26/51 below.

The same goes for Ramses II becoming a Muslim in 10/90 because he saw a miracle of a made flooding.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

055 26/49d: "Be sure I (Pharaoh Ramses II) will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides - - -". According to our information this Arab way of punishing was not used in Egypt at the time of Ramses II.

056 26/49e: “- - - I (Pharaoh Ramses II) will cause you (Moses and others*) to die on the cross!” But the old Egypt did not use crucifixion as punishment. Similar claim in 7/124 – 20/71.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

###057 26/51: "Only, our (the sorcerers*) desire is that our Lord (Allah) will forgive us our faults, that we may become foremost among the Believers". For one thing this is not from the Bible. For another thing it is a contradiction to reality - one know there was no religion like Islam in Egypt around 1235 BC when the Exodus happened according to science - if it happened. But more serious: #####That Muhammad told that such an after all small miracle could make all the sorcerers such strong believers, proves very strongly that he knew he was lying each time he told miracles would make no-one believe. Also see 10/90c and 26/46-47 above.

As for forgiving from Allah: See 2/187d above.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!! NB!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

058 26/66: “But We (Allah*) drowned the others (the Egyptians).” Wrong, at least for Ramses II himself - he did not die from drowning, and he did not die until years later (in July or August 1213 BC). The Bible has a similar mistake, but the Bible is written by humans, and humans can have mistaken one of Ramses II's generals or one of his 67(?) sons (the number varies from one source to another, as it in reality is unclear) for the pharaoh - an omniscient god does not make such mistakes.

#059 28/4b: "- - - (Pharaoh*) broke up its (Egypt's*) people in sections - - -". Comment YA3329: "For a king or a ruler to make individual distinctions between his subjects, and especially to depress or oppress any particular class of his subjects, is a dereliction of his kings duties - - -". Is it here pertinent to remind the reader about how Muslims at times and places have treated non-Muslims and sects of Muslims? Or the Arabs' superiority compared to other Muslims, especially the first centuries? Not to mention that it is the Quran's official policy that all non-Muslims shall be suppressed?

Besides the argument is dishonesty, as the Jews were slaves. There never was a society who did not make distinctions between slaves and free - just ask the Quran. This also Muslim scholars know ever so well, but all the same they use arguments like this to blacken the pharaoh. But Ramses II was in exactly the same class as Muhammad on this point - f.x. Muhammad permitted the owner to rape his female slaves included children, but not free ones - - - not unless he first made her/them his slaves/captives. As every Muslim scholar know, Muhammad also practiced this himself.

060 28/6a: "To establish a firm place for them (the Jews*) in the land (Egypt*), and to show Pharaoh, Haman, and their hosts - - - the very thing (the Jews taking over the power in Egypt*) against which they were taking precautions." Wrong - and strongly contradicting both the Bible and parts of the Quran - also see 28/5b above.

Strangely it here seems like Allah intended to make the Jews powerful in Egypt, and that it was this Ramses II was taking precautions against. Strange words because other places in the Quran it is clear that what Moses and his Jews wanted, was to leave Egypt - something which is strongly confirmed by the Bible.

061 28/6c: “- - - Haman - - -”. Science says this is the Haman from the book of Esther in the Bible. Uneducated Muslims say it just was another man with the same name. Educated Muslims are more careful with that claim.

Haman was according to the Bible, a powerful minister under the Persian king Xerxes (Hebrew: Ahasuerus) (486 - 465 BC) and a central person in the mentioned book - Muhammad may well have heard about him. In that case something is very wrong, because Ramses II naturally was king/pharaoh in Egypt, and on top of that lived some 800 years earlier. Haman could not be his top minister.

Here Islam has an explanation that just may be true: One of the main gods in Egypt at that time was Amon (or Amen or Amun). According to “the Message of the Quran” the title of the high priest of Amon, was Ha-Amen - which could be understood as Haman. Not very likely, especially as this is the kind of “explanations” one frequently finds when Islam has problems finding better stories. But after all possible. Except that a god does not make such mistakes either - a mistake like this means the surah is based on human fallibility.

Some Muslims then instead want to explain this with that it was another Haman. But science is not in doubt, it is the same. Another question here is: Was the name Haman at all used in Egypt? – it is said to be a Persian name.

But this explanation or "explanation" is invalid and made up if it is true like Ramses II according to another place in the Quran says he knows no god except himself. If Ramses II claimed to be the only god, no high priest of another god could be present. We quote 23/38a: “Pharaoh said: ‘O Chiefs! No god do I know for you but myself - - -”. (Wrong as Egypt was polytheistic.)

Also see 28/38a below.

062 28/8d: "- - - (it was intended) that Moses should be to them (the Pharaoh and his men*) an adversary and a cause of sorrow, for Pharaoh and Haman and (all) their hosts were men of sin." According to the Bible (no age is given in the Quran) Moses was 80 years when he returned to free his people. If science has the numbers correctly, we now are around 1235 BC. The old pharaoh had died (2. Mos. 2/23), and Ramses II had now taken over as pharaoh. Haman was a name, not a title (and as far as we have found out not an Egyptian name) - though there is a slight possibility that the name was mixed with the title Ha-Amon. A man old enough to have a high position when baby Moses was found, would not be alive 80 years later - not to mention still have a high position. Two plain facts the Quran has "forgotten". (A possible explanation is that Muhammad did not know how old Moses was when things started to happen - but any god had known.)

063 28/19a: "- - - an enemy of both of them - - -". = an Egyptian. In the Bible they in this case both were Hebrews (2. Mos. 2/13).

*064 28/38a: “Pharaoh said: ‘O Chiefs! No god do I know for you but myself - - -”. This is one of the really good ones, because Egypt at the time of Ramses II had a good number of gods, included some central ones with a strong clerical organization. It is typical for many “explanations” of mistakes in the Quran that Muslims “explain” some aspects of it, but are then unable not to “collide” with other information in the book - f.x. explaining the heavens as the modern universe (see 51/47c) without telling how the stars then could be fastened to the lowest heaven (37/6-7, 41/12)). But at the time of Muhammad the old gods were reduced - Egypt was partly Christian (the forefathers of the present-day Copts). A real god had not made this blunder, but Muhammad could not know. Then who composed the Quran?

Islam tries to explain this away with that it is not meant literally - only that Ramses II was the top. But in this case - like so often - it is very clear what the Quran says. And also remember that the Quran - and most Muslims - say that the Quran is to be meant literally where nothing else is said - - - and to call something an allegory or say it is figuratively meant, we think is the for Islam the most used means of explaining away of things/mistakes in the Quran which has no explanation.

### Remember: To claim the Quran means something different from what the texts say, is to falsify its texts. Plus: Who is better to explain than an omniscient god?

There also is the fact that Haman was a leader under Xerxes (Hebrew: Ahasuerus) (486 - 465 BC) of Persia some 800 years later. Islam tries to explain the mistake away by claiming that what was said was not Haman, but Ha-Amon (a mistake in the Quran in case) - the title of the high priest of the Egyptian central god Amon - see 28/6c above. This claimed explanation is impossible if Ramses II was the only god in Egypt.

065 28/38c: “(Pharaoh said*) “O Haman (minister for Xerxes some 800 hundred years later and hundreds of miles/km further east – in Persia - and not an Egyptian name either*)! - Light me a (kiln to bake bricks) out of clay - - -". Egypt at that time did not use burnt bricks, but bricks made of a mixture of clay and straw (this actually is mentioned in the Bible in 2. Mos.5/7-15) dried in the sun. It even would be meaningless to burn this kind of bricks, because the straw would be burnt to ashes. Egypt had the technology for burning clay - they had pottery. But sundried bricks were much cheaper, and good enough for most purposes in that very dry climate.

Another point is that for their big buildings the Egyptians used natural stones, not bricks.

Any god had known all these facts, Muhammad obviously not. Who made the Quran?

066 28/38d: (A28/37 – YA3371): “(Pharaoh said*) “O Haman (minister for Xerxes several hundred years later and hundreds of km further east, in Persia - and not an Egyptian name either*)! - - - build me a lofty place, that I may mount up to the god of Moses - - -.” Muslims like to tell this does not refer to something like the tower of Babylon (built from bricks), but to a pyramid - - - and without mentioning a single word about well known facts like it took some 20-30 years to build a big pyramid (and Ramses II at the time science believe this happened if it happened, was not young), or that the pyramids in Egypt were built from natural stones, not from brick, so a kiln has no connection to them. There also is quite a difference between a palace and a pyramid.

067 28/39a: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) thought they would not have to return to Us (Allah - at the Day of Doom)!" If Allah does not exist or if he is not a major god, none of which is clear (there only are claims from a morally doubtful and not entirely reliable person in a book full of errors), they were right.

##068 28/39b: "- - - they (the Egyptians*) thought they would not have to return to Us (Allah - at the Day of Doom)!" Comment YA3372: ####"They (the Egyptians*) did not believe in the Hereafter." This is an unbelievable comment, as there have been few cultures ever which have been so concentrated on the next life as the old Egyptians. That f.x. was the reason for mummifying and pyramids.

Another point is that this fact is so well known that there is no chance that top Muslim scholars do not know it. All the same they make up arguments like this. Dishonesty.

069 29/40a: "- - - some of them (here the Egyptians*) We (Allah*) drowned - - -". This refers to the claimed drowning of the pharaoh - but it is wrong: Pharaoh Ramses II did not drown (and because of that Muslims wants it to have happened earlier under more obscure pharaohs, but science is in little doubt. Also this fits the number of years given in the Bible.)

#070 37/101: "- - - a boy - - -". This is meant to be Ishmael, the son Abraham got with the Egyptian slave woman, Hagar, and whom the Arabs claim are their forefather - even though the Bible tells he and his mother settled near the border of Egypt - 1. Mos. 25/18. (The Quran claims he settled in Mecca - a claim which extremely unlikely can be true).

###There also is the fact that Arabia was settled thousands of years before Abraham and Ishmael. Thus there were tens of thousands of forefathers for the Arabs of Muhammad's generation. Thus if all the same some descendants of Ishmael settled in Arabia, they in case meant only a miniscule part of a percent of an Arab's blood at that time, and even less today, mainly because of import of millions of slaves from Africa and other places through the years. That much for Arab's relationship to Abraham and for the pure Arab blood today (the pure Arab blood even never existed - modern DNA shows that the Arabs never was a "pure" race, but are the descendants of people who drifted into the peninsula from neighboring countries all around - - - + from the millions of imported Negro and other slaves.

071 38/12c: "- - - the Lord of Stakes - - -". Another name for the Pharaoh. This Arab name is taken from the old Arab culture - a man with such a big tent that it needed many tent-poles ("stakes"), was a rich and powerful man. But would a god for the entire world use expressions in his holy book which only Arabs would understand - an Arabism? (It may also mean a leader who punished people by impaling them with/on stakes. We have not seen that this kind of punishment was used in old Egypt, though.)

072 40/26c: "What I (Pharaoh Ramses II*) fear is lest he (Moses*) should change your religion - - -". For one thing this is naivety - it is not that easy for a little known leader of some slaves to change the religion of a mighty country, which Egypt was under Ramses II, and for another thing this is not from the Bible. See 40/24b above. There was nothing about the religion during Exodus in the Bible, only: "Let my people go".

073 40/27b: This verse - and more - is contradicted by the Bible, in the meaning that there was no religious quarrel or similar with the Egyptians according to the Bible during Exodus, only: "Let my people go". Also see 67/9c below - a strong one. But of course it is ok for Islam to prove - prove - the Bible wrong and the Quran right. But as we say: Prove, not just loose claims and as loose and invalid words like the Quran always use instead of proofs.

074 40/28b: "A believer, a man from the people of Pharaoh (Egyptians*) - - -". How many Muslims existed in reality ca. 1850 years before Muhammad started his religion? Exactly none are found - in history, in literature, in archeology - not even in old enough folklore or fairy tales.

075 40/30a: "- - - the man who believed - - -". = a Muslim. If you are able to believe Muslims existed - and without leaving a single trace - under Ramses II around 1235 BC, you are perfectly entitled to do so. But contact a professor of Egyptology or a psychiatrist in case, because the belief is wrong according to science and also indirectly according to Islam (###they have been unable to prove the claim that Islam is older than Muhammad).

076 40/34a: "- - - there came Joseph in times gone by - - -". If we presume that science has the time for Exodus correct, it happened around 1235 BC (according to f.x. Encyclopedia Britannica). If we further presume that the Bible is correct when it says the Jews stayed in Egypt for 430 years - and there were no reasons for the original writers of those scriptures to falsify that number, and neither have we seen strong protests about it from serious scientists - Jacob and his family emigrated to Egypt sometime around 1665 BC. If we then add some years, Joseph may have been taken to Egypt sometime around 1680 BC (if it is a true story). This means during the Hyksos Dynasty, which reigned from some time in the 18th century BC (they seem to have taken over the power slowly - in contradiction to what Muslims normally say, but here they are excused, because also science believed so until reasonably lately), but did not gain great power until around 1720 BC it seems. The end of their reign is better known and here Muslim sources like to say they reigned until around 1580 BC - the earlier exit, the earlier they can claim the Jews left Egypt. But the two last Hyksos pharaohs were Apopis (ca. 1580 - 1540 BC) and Khamudi (ca. 1540 - 1530 BC). (Muslims like to claim the Hyksos were Arabs. There are no real arguments for that, except they likely were invaders who came via Sinai (perhaps from Syria?), but honor for Arabs is honor for Arabs - - - but that is another story. But we may add that you meet Muslims claiming the name Hyksos derives from a word meaning shepherd rulers - indicating they originally were nomads and thus surely Arabs (Muslims often are good at short-circuited logic and invalid logical jumps - the Hyksos could be Arabs, but far from "surely"). But this is a wrong translation of the original word/name. The correct translation means "foreign rulers" - they after all were not original Egyptians.)

The end of Khamudi's reign - ca. 1530 BC - perhaps is what the Bible means when it says: "Then a new king, who did not know about Joseph, came to power over Egypt". (2. Mos. 1/8).

077 40/42b: "- - - Allah - - -". Remember that this happened(?) around 1235 BC - some 1850 years before Muhammad’s "23 years". Neither science nor Islam has found a single trace from Islam in Egypt older than 610 AD (or actually somewhat later). So it is up to you what you want to believe.

That Allah was a known god in Egypt around 1235 BC is wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.

078 43/48a: "We (Allah*) showed them (Pharaoh Ramses II and his people*) Sign after Sign, each greater than its fellow, and We seized them with Punishment, in order that they might turn (to Us)". Note the purpose here; "in order that they might turn (to Us)" = become Muslims. A significant difference from the Bible. There Yahweh and Moses only asked the Pharaoh to let the Jews leave Egypt - no try to change their religion.(F.x. 2. Mos. 5/1).

079 43/49d: "- - - for we (Pharaoh Ramses II*) shall truly (definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim*) accept guidance (accept Islam*)". In the Bible he only promised to let the Jews go, not to mention that there was no religious quarrel. As the Quran is not from any god - too many mistakes, etc. - from where did Muhammad get this version? And have Muslims found a single trace of Islam in Egypt or anywhere else older than 610 AD? - some 2ooo years after this is said to have happened. Also see 43/52s below.

080 43/50b: "- - - they (Pharaoh Ramses II and his people*) broke their words". See 43/20b above.

081 43/51b: "- - - Pharaoh (Pharaoh Ramses II*) proclaimed among his people, saying: 'O my people! - - -". See 43/20b above.

082 43/51d: "- - - (witness) these streams underneath my (Ramses II's*) (palace) - - -". There is found no palace in Egypt - neither from Ramses II, nor from any other - under which there were rivers.

083 43/54b: "- - - truly were they (the people of Egypt*) a people rebellious (against Allah). (Definitely not a proved truth - only a not proved claim*.)" Allah was not a known god in Egypt around 1235 BC. You cannot rebel against something or someone you do not even know about. (Though of course Muhammad here meant Yahweh, and wrongly mixed him with Allah).

084 43/55: “- - - We (Allah*) drowned them all (= Pharaoh Ramses II and his people*).” At least Ramses II himself did not drown. He did not die from drowning, and he did not die until several years later (1213 BC). A main reason why Muslims want the Exodus to have happened much earlier - under pharaohs we do not know how died. But science is in little doubt - f.x. Encyclopedia Britannica does not write such things unconditionally if they are not sure.

Another juicy fact is that according to the Bible it was Yahweh who did this, not Allah.

##085 43/56: “And We (Allah*) made them a people of the past - - -”. Wrong. Neither Ramses II nor the people of Egypt became a people of the past around the year 1235 BC (the approximate year of the possible Exodus, according to science). That did not happen until much later – and the final doom came in 659 AD when the Arabs under Mu’awiya conquered the country and took over - forever (?). Muslims like to “explain” that “a people” mean the soldiers of Pharaoh. But the expression “a people” has a wider meaning than that.

086 44/24: "And leave the sea a furrow (divided): for they (the Egyptians*) are a host (destined) to be drowned". According to the Bible this was not told on beforehand, it just happened. Besides it is meaningless - how could they (Moses and the Jews*) keep open or close the sea?

087 44/28: "- - - and We (Allah*) made other people inherit (the drowned Egyptians*) - - -". Wrong. There are no historical indications for that that not their own people inherited them - on the contrary, the reign of Ramses II was a stable period (and Ramses II's inheritor to the throne was his son Merneptah). But to claim that other people inherited them, is in line with Muhammad's often repeated claim about other cases where a people or a group of people disappeared - - - always because of punishment because of sins against Allah, according to Muhammad.

088 44/30a: "We (Allah*) delivered the Children of Israel from humiliating punishment - - -". According to the Bible the Jews had been reduced from honored guests to slaves over a period of 430 years since Joseph. In addition the pharaoh had started killing their male babies, because they had become so many that the Egyptians found them to be a threat and wanted to reduce their numbers.(This f.x. was the reason why the baby Moses was set afloat on the Nile in a desperate hope of saving him).

But a central point here is that according to the Bible it was Yahweh who helped them out, not Allah.

089 51/40a: “So We (Allah*) took him (Pharaoh Ramses II*) and his forces, and threw them into the sea (where they drowned*)”. For one thing they were not thrown into the sea, they went themselves (according to the Bible and not opposed by other places in the Quran) out on the dry sea bed, and then the water returned), but for another: At least Ramses II himself did not die by drowning and he also did not die until some years later (likely in 1213 BC - Exodus was around 1235 BC according to science).

090 54/41b: "To the people of Pharaoh, too, aforetime, came Warners (from Allah)". This indicates that prophets from Allah came to Egypt to teach Islam (but were opposed). There is no basis for such a claim, neither in the Bible, nor in science, nor anywhere else outside the Quran. But it makes a nice parallel - one of many in the Quran - to Muhammad's own experiences (and thus a "documentation" for that his experiences were normal for prophets, and thus that he himself was a normal prophet).

091 66/11a: The wife of the Pharaoh (Ramses II) is indicated to be a strongly believing Muslim. Now a pharaoh normally had a number of wives – and a mighty one like Ramses II not least (it is known he had 67 sons (though the number varies some), but we have not seen the number of wives). They may have had different religions – especially the possible ones not born in Egypt. But it is utterly unknown to science that one of them can have been a Muslim 2000 years before Muhammad. Actually – and in spite of the Quran’s and of Islam’s repeated claims of being an age-old religion, science has found not one single trace of a religion like Islam anywhere or any time before 610 AD when Muhammad started his mission (and worse: Also Islam has been unable to find provable such traces) – and of really monotheistic religions only the Mosaic (Jewish), the Christian, and to a degree the Zoroastrians in Persia (+ the episode with the sun god of Akn Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC) and the small monotheistic sect in Arabia, most likely inspired by the Jews and the Christians). Islam has to bring proofs. Actually with our knowledge to the mighty Ramses II, we believe the whole of this verse is (part of) a made up tale.

092 79/24a: “(Pharaoh Ramses II*) Saying: ‘I am your Lord (in this connection: Your god*), most High’”. The pharaoh was not the “most high” god in the old Egypt. See 28/38a above.

093 79/24b: “(Pharaoh Ramses II*) Saying: ‘I am your Lord (in this connection: Your god*), most High’”. See 71/7b above.

The Quran here is contradicting reality. One knows the name of more than 2ooo gods (though some may be another name for the same god) from old Egypt. The names of pharaohs normally are not even included in such name lists, not to mention being top gods. They were not separate gods.

##On the other hand more or less all the early pharaohs were reckoned to be incarnations of the falcon god Horus. During the 5. dynasty (2494 - 2345 BC) this changed to an incarnation of the sun god Ra - and even later the god Amun coalesced with Ra and the pharaohs incarnations of Ra-Amun (or Amun-Ra). But not an incarnation of the after all most essential god, Ptah, and never - with a kind of exception for Pharaoh Akn Aton (who mainly accepted only the sun god - then named Aton (pharaoh 1372 - 1355 BC)) - an only god, like the pharaoh says in the Quran.

93 + 2435 = 2528 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

86.  ELIAS

- Jewish prophet. Another name for Elijah.

0 + 2428 = 2528 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

87.  ELIJAH

- one of the old Jewish prophets

Elijah is one of the central prophets in the OT. He is one of only 2 or 3 who according to the Bible were taken up to Heaven alive.

There are some cases in the Quran where it is unclear about what or who the book is speaking about. Elias is one such case. It is likely the old Jewish prophet Elijah is the one who is meant also here.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

001 2/253b: "- - - others (other messengers*) He (Allah*) raised to degrees (of honor) - - -". Here we find an interesting piece of translation. According to our sources the exact translation of the Arab original is: "and some he raised even higher". Translators dearly wants this to refer to Muhammad - and it well may, as it is Muhammad himself who dictated the text to his listeners. But it is not clear - and "higher" may mean physically or spiritually. Remember that according to the Bible 2 or 3 of the prophets (Elijah (2. Kings 2/11) and Jesus (NT) and perhaps Enoch (Gen. 5/24)) were raised up to Heaven alive. By adding the words "(of honor)", the translators omits the physical possibilities - and as in Islam Muhammad of course is worth more than Jesus, it is quite likely it is Muhammad who is meant(!). (This in spite of that both according to the Quran and to the Bible Jesus had a different and closer contact to the god than Muhammad - f.x. he had the ability to make miracles, and 19/19 even confirms Jesus was holy, something Muhammad definitely was not).

002 3/183b: “They (non-Muslims/Jews*) (also) said: ’Allah took our promise not to believe in a Messenger unless he showed us a sacrifice consumed by fire (from heaven)’. Say: ’There came to you messengers before me, with Clear Signs and even with what ye ask for (fire from heaven as a proof*): why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?”

  1. The first double-quoted sentence is far from in accordance with the Bible or other Jewish scriptures - there is no reference to that the Jews (or Christians) said something like this. This verse is likely to be inspired by Elijah and his duel with the Baal priests (1. Kings 18/22-39), but that was not after such a request from the Jews.
  2. Only a very few prophets used fire from heaven as a proof or at all to have brought such fire - the most well-known of these was Elijah, and he so definitely was not slain (he according to the Bible was taken up to Heaven alive (2. Kings 2/11)). None of the prophets who according to the Bible used fire from heaven as a proof, were killed. Besides the logic is wrong: That the Jews were accused of having slewed some, does not disprove that proof was a minimum requirement (and transferred to the Quran: Especially when a claimed message is full of mistakes, contradictions, etc. so that verification of what is true and what is not, is strongly needed).

003 6/85a: "And Zakariyya and John, and Jesus and Elias - - -". 4 time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

004 6/89c: "These were the men (the ones mentioned in verses 6/83 through 6/87*) to whom We (Allah*) gave - - - Prophethood - - -". Not all of this is from the Bible. Of the names mentioned only Jesus, Elias (Elijah), Elisha, Moses, and Jonah are reckoned to be prophets, though Abraham and Joseph can be reckoned among them. (As for Moses it is correct to reckon him among the prophets, but he was a special case. The same goes even more for Jesus.) The others are not reckoned among the prophets in the Bible.

005 19/56: "- - - Idris - - -". This may be a made up name, it may or may not have been the Biblical Jewish prophet Enoch (1. Mos. 5/18-19 and 5/21-24), or perhaps the also Biblical prophet Elijah (1. King 17/1 and 1. King 17/16-46), or it may be someone unknown. Nobody knows. The infamously clear language in the Quran.

006 21/8: "- - - nor were they (earlier prophets*) exempt from death." Well, there is Enoch, who according to the Quran's definition may have been a prophet, and who seems to have been taken up to heaven alive ("- - - then he was no more, because Yahweh took him away" (1. Mos. 5/24). As this is said in a list of names where all the others are told to have died, and as it is told that Enoch was a man who "walked with Yahweh", it is believed that this means he was taken up alive). And according to the Bible the old Jewish prophet Elijah was taken alive to the Heaven in a chariot of fire and with horses of fire (2. Kings 2/11). A god had known this, but likely not Muhammad, as he knew the Bible badly. Then there is the case of Jesus. Islam tells he was taken up to god alive. The Bible has a more advanced story: He was killed, but death could not hold him and he woke up again, and then afterwards he was taken up to Heaven alive. Even if there had been only the case of Elijah it had made this point in the Quran not quite correct - and is a god "not quite correct"? It also makes even Elijah and Enoch more special for Yahweh than Muhammad for Allah - Muhammad died a rather inglorious death (except there is a rumor that he was poisoned). More essential: Whether you believe in the story the Quran tells or the one in the Bible, if one of them is true, this alone proves that Jesus represented something supernatural - a proof Muhammad never was able to produce for neither his god nor for himself. And on top of that: The ascension alive in case - like with Elijah - proved Jesus had a standing to his god which Muhammad did not have to his - or Muhammad's god did not have the power.

As for Jesus also most of Islam admits he was taken up to Heaven alive (though they dismiss his crucifixion, death, and revival).

007 21/34: "We (Allah*) granted not to any man before thee (Muhammad*) permanent life (here) - - -." But the word "here" (= on Earth) seems to be added by the translator (Abdullah Yusuf Ali). If this is correct, the statement is wrong if the Bible tells the truth. There at least is the unclear case of Enoch (1. Mos. 5/24), the clear case of Elijah (2. Kings 2/11), and the special case of Jesus.

008 21/85b: Idris may or may not be Enoch (Gen. 5/21-24). It also may mean Elijah or somebody else. As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is far from exact. It may also simply be a name invented by Muhammad - and the same goes for Dhu'l-Kifl just below (and for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb may be).

009 37/123b: "- - - Elias - - -". In Arab you also will see the name written as Ilyas. In English it normally is written Elijah. For believing Jews and Christians this is a well known name, but it may not be so for others. He was one of the central prophets in OT, and worked in the northern country (Israel - the southern was Judah) during the reigns of the infamous king Ahab (896 - 874 BC) and king Ahaziah (874 - 872 BC). He is mentioned in both 1. and 2. Kings. He according to the Bible is one of the extremely few humans who never died, because he was taken up to Heaven alive in a chariot of fire (2. Kings. 2/11).

010 37/123-124: "So also was Elias (Elijah in the Bible*) among those sent by Us (Allah*). Behold, he said to his people, 'Will ye not fear Allah?". Some places like here where the Quran mistakes Yahweh for Allah, we do not bother to comment on it, as mistake is so obvious. But the teachings of these two claimed gods are so fundamentally different, that they are not the same one - the Quran's claims here simply are not correct. As for Elias, this as said has to be Elijah in the Bible, as Baal is a central theme.

011 37/130a: (A48 and YA4114A): “Peace and salutation to such as Elias!” But the name used in the Arab text is Il-Yasin, which can mean (the Jewish prophet) “Elias” (also written Elia or Elijah), or “Elias and the ones that followed after him” (according to Tabari and Zamakhshari). A detail – but a god also makes the details clear, and here it is unclear. And these variants of course also are in the Arab text, as the relevant word(s) there has/have more than one meaning. Allah (?) really uses a clear language.

012 37/130b: "- - - Elias (Elijah*)". A time anomaly.

013 37/131a: "- - - those who do right". Muslims - also Elijah was a good Muslim, according to the Quran. A strong contradiction to the Bible.

014 37/132: "For he (Elijah*) was one of Our (Allah's*) believing Servants". Contradicting the Bible to say the least of it! In the Bible Yahweh is the god of Elijah - and scientists believe that if Elijah ever lived, the Bible is right. (We are now slowly approaching times where science gets other sources of information than the Bible.)

015 37/133: "- - - Lut (Lot*) - - -". The Quran is very little orderly or systematic - if Lot ever lived, he lived at the time of Abraham, which means around 1000 years before Elijah. In connection to the Quran and the claimed "Mother Book" also Lot is a time anomaly.

15 + 2528 = 2543 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

88.  ELISHA

One of the central prophets in OT. The successor of Elijah according to the Bible.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

001 6/85c: "And Ishmael and Elisha, and Jonah, and Lut - - -". 4 time anomalies. See 4/13d above.

002 6/89c: "These were the men (the ones mentioned in verses 6/83 through 6/87*) to whom We (Allah*) gave - - - Prophethood - - -". Not all of this is from the Bible. Of the names mentioned only Jesus, Elias (Elijah), Elisha, Moses, and Jonah are reckoned to be prophets, though Abraham and Joseph can be reckoned among them. (As for Moses it is correct to reckon him among the prophets, but he was a special case. The same goes even more for Jesus. Abraham is reckoned to be one of the 3 Jewish patriarchs, though it is not incorrect also to name him a prophet.) The others are not reckoned among the prophets in the Bible.

 

003 7/158i: “- - - it is He (Allah*) that giveth - - - life - - -”. A very nice thing to claim credit for - and claims come easy if you never have to prove it. This claim is repeated frequently in the Quran, and it is an interesting one, because neither Allah nor Muhammad ever - not one single time - proved any power over death. Lots of killing and murder, but not one documented resurrection or creation of life. Whereas both the Quran (f.x. 5/110d) and the Bible tell that Yahweh and Jesus - and even Elisha, Paul, and Peter (but not Muhammad) - had the power to resurrect. (F.x. 1. Kings.17/22, 2. Kings.4/34-35, Matt. 9/25, Matt. 27/52, Luke 7/15, John 11/44, Acts 9/40, Acts 20/10 - plus Jesus' resurrection).

Science tells this is done by nature, and the Quran's claim here thus is wrong unless Islam proves the opposite.

145 38/48c: "- - - Elisha - - -". The Jewish prophet who succeeded Elijah.

3 + 2543 = 2546 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

89.  ENOCH - the great great grandson of Noah

If Enoch ever lived, he according to the Bible was born some 522 years after Adam (1. Mos. 5/3-18). 1. Mos. 5/24 may indicate that he was taken up to Heaven alive. If that is the case, he must have been something exceptional, because the Bible tells this about only 2 other persons; Elijah and Jesus.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

001 2/253b: "- - - others (other messengers*) He (Allah*) raised to degrees (of honor) - - -". Here we find an interesting piece of translation. According to our sources the exact translation of the Arab original is: "and some he raised even higher". Translators dearly wants this to refer to Muhammad - and it well may, as it is Muhammad himself who dictated the text to his listeners. But it is not clear - and "higher" may mean physically or spiritually. Remember that according to the Bible 2 or 3 of the prophets (Elijah (2. Kings 2/11) and Jesus (NT) and perhaps Enoch (Gen. 5/24)) were raised up to Heaven alive. By adding the words "(of honor)", the translators omits the physical possibilities - and as in Islam Muhammad of course is worth more than Jesus, it is quite likely it is Muhammad who is meant(!). (This in spite of that both according to the Quran and to the Bible Jesus had a different and closer contact to the god than Muhammad - f.x. 19/19 even confirms Jesus was holy, something Muhammad definitely was not).

002 19/56: "- - - Idris - - -". This may be a made up name, it may or may not have been the Biblical Jewish prophet Enoch (1. Mos. 5/18-19 and 5/21-24), or perhaps the also Biblical prophet Elijah (1. King 17/1 and 1. King 17/16-46), or it may be someone unknown. Nobody knows. The infamously clear language in the Quran.

003 21/8: "- - - nor were they (earlier prophets*) exempt from death." Well, there is Enoch, who according to the Quran's definition may have been a prophet, and who seems to have been taken up to heaven alive ("- - - then he was no more, because Yahweh took him away" (1. Mos. 5/24). As this is said in a list of names where all the others are told to have died, and as it is told that Enoch was a man who "walked with Yahweh", it is believed that this means he was taken up alive). And according to the Bible the old Jewish prophet Elijah was taken alive to the Heaven in a chariot of fire and with horses of fire (2. Kings 2/11). A god had known this, but likely not Muhammad, as he knew the Bible badly. Then there is the case of Jesus. Islam tells he was taken up to god alive. The Bible has a more advanced story: He was killed, but death could not hold him and he woke up again, and then afterwards he was taken up to Heaven alive. Even if there had been only the case of Elijah it had made this point in the Quran not quite correct - and is a god "not quite correct"? It also makes even Elijah and Enoch more special for Yahweh than Muhammad for Allah - Muhammad died a rather inglorious death (except there is a rumor that he was poisoned). More essential: Whether you believe in the story the Quran tells or the one in the Bible, if one of them is true, this alone proves that Jesus represented something supernatural - a proof Muhammad never was able to produce for neither his god nor for himself. And on top of that: The ascension alive in case - like with Elijah - proved Jesus had a standing to his god which Muhammad did not have to his - or Muhammad's god did not have the power.

As for Jesus also most of Islam admits he was taken up to Heaven alive (though they dismiss his crucifixion, death, and revival).

004 21/34: "We (Allah*) granted not to any man before thee (Muhammad*) permanent life (here) - - -." But the word "here" (= on Earth) seems to be added by the translator (Abdullah Yusuf Ali). If this is correct, the statement is wrong if the Bible tells the truth. There at least is the unclear case of Enoch (1. Mos. 5/24), the clear case of Elijah (2. Kings 2/11), and the special case of Jesus.

005 21/85b: Idris may or may not be Enoch (Gen. 5/21-24). It also may mean Elijah or somebody else. As mentioned before, the language in the Quran often is far from exact. It may also simply be a name invented by Muhammad - and the same goes for Dhu'l-Kifl just below (and for the claimed Arab prophets Hud, Salih, and Shu'ayb may be).

3 + 2546 = 2549 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


 

90.  EVENUCH

Am evenuch is a man unable to produce sperm/semen - normally because they have had their "stones" (testes) cut off, and normally not from free will.

It was quite normal to sterilize male slaves by cutting off their "stones". This especially was the rules for Negroes, who's virility had a strong reputation - not more correct then than now, but that reputation cost literally millions of captive Negroes their lives because of infections after the castration. (The irony is that all the same there is a lot of Negro blood in Arabs and other Muslims - the result of sexual use of captive and slave Negro women.)

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

#001 24/31e: "- - - male servants free of physical needs - - -". Very old or eunuchs. (Evenuchs is a special case Islam very seldom mentions. Few of them became eunuchs from free choice - normally they were slaves. #####There also is a dark fact here: More or less all Negro male slaves were castrated - without any kind of pain release or medical treatment. This is one reason why the death rate for Negroes who were captured for slavery was so terribly high - even normally reliable sources talk about 80% and more. It was far, far lower for Negro slaves transported to the Americas. Castration of - mainly Negro - slaves is not mentioned in the Quran, and neither by Islam or Muslims - a bit too inhuman topic even for them, especially when they boast about how well slaves were treated by Muslims.)

002 24/33a: “And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if you know any good in them - - -”. This mostly was a sleeping paragraph, but as far as we have heard, it did happen now and then. We do not know of any western law in the really old times saying the same, but slaves sometimes were given their freedom and at least a few times got a chance to work themselves free also in the west. (Actually it f.x. happened among the Vikings that slaves were given the chance to work themselves free.) But from shortly after 1800 the movement for freeing the slaves rapidly grew in strength in the West. That is to say; at that time slavery "de facto" had been more or less abolished in Europe for centuries (it did not conflict with the words of the Bible, but all the same with the morality of that book), though often not formally prohibited, but from early 1800th century the movement - headed by the English - aimed at abolishment in all the world.

But how did Islam f.x. make a forcibly castrated man - often Negroes - "man" again?

The claim you today sometimes meet from Islam/Muslims that "Islam always aimed at abolishing slavery" is an al-Taqiyya - a lawful lie. Muhammad took and kept and gave away and sold and used and sexually exploited slaves, and everything Muhammad did was and is lawful and morally correct, and may be practiced by any Muslim if not other rules directly are specified - which definitely is not the case concerning slavery in Islam. For this simple reason slavery will reemerge if Islam ever gains world dominance.

2 + 2549 = 2551 comments (+ basic comments/introductions).


>>> Go to Next Chapter

>>> Go to Previous Chapter

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".