The “Miṣr” of Musa (P) and Far'awn

by vazir, Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 00:40 (2037 days ago) @ vazir

The Miṣr of Far‘awn

What was the name of Far’awn?

The princes of Zoan (Su3un) have become mad; The princes of Noph (Yanoph) are deceived; They have also deluded Egypt, those who are the mainstay of its tribes. (Isaiah 19:13) [Note that Egypt is mentioned as a TRIBE]

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: "O My people, who dwell in Zion (Sayoun), do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Egypt. (Isaiah 10:24) [ Note that Egypt can strike and lift a staff like human]

If the Clan of Egypt will not come up and enter in, they shall have no rain; they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. (Zecheriah 14:18).[Were there any tribal systems, based on different clans, ever existed in Egypt?]

O you daughter dwelling in the Egypt. Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph (Yanoph) shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant. (Jeremiah 46:19) [Egyptians in captivity as slaves?]

And Moses said to Joshua, "Choose us some men and go out, fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand. (Exodus 17:9)

And he gathered an army and attacked the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those who plundered them. (1 Samuel 14:48)

Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute, His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. (1 Samuel 28:18)

Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt. (Deuteronomy 25:7)

Thus says the LORD of hosts: 'I will punish Amalek [for] what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 'Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' (1 Samuel 15: 2-3).

Then David said to him, "To whom do you [belong,] and where you from?" And he said, "I [am] a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick. (1 Samuel 30:13)

Not only Arab historian Al-Mas3udi mentioned this clan (Amalek), but also Yaqoot al-Hamwi and the famous Ibn Khaldoun, both attested that the Amalekites were an ancient Arabian clan belonging to the mega-tribe of Mudhar, whose domain was the Red Sea mountainous coastal area stretching from central Aseer, all the way to the Hijaz in the North.

Famous historian and geographer Yāqūt al-Ḥamwi (died in 1230 A.D), wrote in his book “Mu3jam al Buldan”the Dictionary of Countries), concerning the identity of Far3oun (the tyrant who persecuted Moses) that: “The Far3oun was an Arab man of the clan of 3amaleeq. He was a short, squat, bearded man who lived 500 years and his name was "Al Waleed bin Mis3ab". Some people falsely claimed that he was Egyptian.”

In al-Jawhari’s book entitled al-Sihāh as well as Al-Ṣadouq’s ‘Ilal-ul Shara’e‘, we read the following strange story:

قلت لموسى بن جعفر عليه السلام : أخبرني عن قول الله عز وجل لموسى وهارون: } إذهبا إلى فرعون إنّه
طغى، فقولا له قولا لينا، لعله يتذكرأو يخشى { ؟ فقال أما قوله : فقولا له قولا لينا أي كنياه وقولا له يا أبا -
مصعب وكان اسم فرعون: أبا مصعب الوليد بن مصعب .

Paraphrase: I asked Mūsa son of Ja‘far about the significance of {Go, both of you, to Far‘awn, for he has transgressed * So say to him gentle words, perhaps he will remember or be concerned}. He said to me “{So say to him gentle words} means that they were to address him by his personal name of Abou Miṣ‘ab. Far‘awn’s name was al-Waleed bin Miṣ‘ab”

Al-Tabari has also attested in his famous Tareekh (History) that Far3oun was an Arab man.

What was the name of Far‘awn’s wife?

If you ask this question to any Muslim whose level of acquaintance with the traditions is average, he will most probably tell you that her name was Āsiah. The name Āsiah does indeed come from the “Islamic” books of tradition. Those books even mention her full name as Āsiah bint Mazāḥim, bin ‘Obayd, bin al-Rayyān,bin al-Waleed (bint = daughter of; bin = son of). This name can be found in several “historical” sources,most notable of which are: Ibn Katheer’s Al-Bidāya wal Nihāya (Lit: The Beginning and the End),Ibn ‘Asaker’s Tareekh Dimashq (Lit: The History of Damascus), and al-Majlisi’s Biḥar’ul Anwār (Lit: Seas of Light). Has it ever occurred to anyone to ask why the books of tradition gave Far‘awn’s wife a distinctly Arabic name?

Far’awn: Title or Personal Name?

There is very solid and eye-opening evidence that Far‘awn was indeed the personal name of the tyrannical figure who persecuted Mūsa (P) and the Israelites. Had the term been a title, it would have been mentioned in the form of al-Far‘awn, (meaning “the Pharaoh”). The fact is, nowhere in the Qur’ān has it appeared with the prefix “al-”.

Let’s look at the following examples:

And the wife of Far’awn said: “A pleasure to my eye and yours, so do not kill him, perhaps he will benefit us or we may take him as a son” while they did not perceive. [Quran, 28:9]

The phrase “wife of Far’awn” is no different than “wife of Nūh” (Noah), or “wife of Lūt” (Lot), as can be seen in the following passage:

Allah puts forth as examples of those who have covered the truth, the wife of Nūh and the wife of Lūt. They were married to two of Our righteous servants, but they betrayed them and, consequently, they could not help them at all against Allah. And it was said: “Enter the Fire, both of you, with those who will enter it” * And Allah puts forth as an example of those who believed the wife of Far’awn. She said: “My Rabb, build a home for me near You in the Paradise, and save me from Far’awn and his works; and save me from the transgressing people. [Quran, 66:10-11]

The fact is that every Muslim knows “Nūh” and “Lūt” to be the names of two of Allah’s messengers. Yet when Far’awn is mentioned, they automatically assume the term to be a title, because of the per-conceived ideas that they have inherited and can’t seem to cast aside.

The Qur’ān also tells us how Mūsa (P), in his infancy, was picked up from the yamm by members of Far’awn’s household (Āal Far’awn):

Then the family of Far’awn (Āal Far’awn) picked him up, so he would be an enemy to them and a source of sadness. Certainly, Far’awn and Hāmān and their troops were wrongdoers. [Quran, 28:8]

In their everyday prayers and supplications to Allah, Muslims use the exact same expression in relation to Ibraheem (P) and Muhammad (P). They pray to Allah to send “blessings” upon the family (household)of Muhammad (P). Everyone knows that “Muhammad” and “Ibraheem” are names; yet somehow, Far’awn remains a title!

Further proof can be seen when Mūsa (P) confronts Far’awn directly, where it is very clear that the Israelite prophet was calling the tyrant by his personal name, not his title:

And Mūsa said: "O Far’awn, I am a messenger from the Rabb of all people." [Quran, 7:104].

Had Mūsa been calling him by his title, the text would have mentioned the word with the prefix “al-” (the), just as in the case of the king or supreme authority (al-malik), and the high-ranking officer or governor (al-‘azeez), in the story of prophet Yūsuf. Please see, for example, the Arabic text of 12:78.

Qaloo ya ayyuha alAAazeezu ..… قَالُوا يَا أَيُّهَا الْعَزِيزُ

Finally, we find the terms Qārūn and Hāmān, both of which are personal names mentioned alongside Far’awn:

And We had sent Moses with Our signs, and a clear authority * To Far’awn, Hāmān, and Qārūn. But they said:“A lying deceiver”. [Quran 40:23-24]

Mentioning two proper nouns in the same sentence, and in the same context, alongside a title, is both logically and linguistically unsound. For example, if we say: “Joe, Mack, and King are walking in the castle garden”,it would seem that “King” is a proper noun. If it was a title, the sentence would have to be stated as such: "Joe, Mack and the king are walking in the castle garden”. By the same logic, if Far’awn was a title, it would not appear in the same sentence with two proper nouns (Hāmān and Qārūn) without the prefix “al-” (the).

The conclusion that can be drawn here is that the opinion claiming Far’awn to be a title cannot stand in the face of the Qur’ānic logic, or with the clear context of its passages, nor it is supported by any physical or archeological evidence. The truth is that Far‘awn is an Arabic name, and is still known today - as a family name especially - in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. And the Qur’ān - a radically Arabic scripture - names only one tyrant by that name. There is no such thing as Farā’ina (in the plural), nor were they the rulers of ancient Egypt. Anyone who claims otherwise is simply delusional, and is a victim of a great historical forgery.

Where did Far‘awn drowned?

But when the two groups saw each other, the companions of Mūsa said: "We are caught!" * He said: "No, my Rabb is with me and He will guide me." * So We inspired to Mūsa : "Strike forth towards the bahr with conviction." ….. [Quran, 26:61-63]

“And when We parted the bahr for you, then We saved you and We drowned the people of Far‘awn while you were watching.” [Quran. 2:50]

Allah is telling us that the two parties reached a point where they saw each other. After that Mūsa and his people crossed the bahr and reached opposite side while Far‘awn and his people drowned in front of their eyes.

The average width of the Sea of Reeds, the alleged crossing point, is around 25 kilometers. It would have been impossible for the two parties to see each other across that distance, taking into consideration the conditions surrounding the event.

An even more outrageous theory places the crossing point not at the Sea of Reeds, but further south, through the Red Sea itself! The advocates of this theory deny that Mount Sinai is on that famous peninsula and claim that Mūsa (P) ended up in Arabia, somewhere in the Northern Ḥijaz region. They are seemingly oblivious to the fact that the width of the Red sea at that point is around 200 kilometers! How could the two parties see each other from across that distance?

The Qur’ān also tells us that the land where these events took place had what it called a bahr, in which Far‘awn eventually drowned. Does bahr necessarily designate a sea? It appears, from the Qur’ān, that bahr is simply a general term describing any body of water. In fact, Allah’s Book tells us that there are salty bahrs [25:53]as well as fresh-water bahrs [35:12]. The term means any natural body that has plentiful water. It could be a lake, a river, a sea, or an ocean.

The Qur’ān, in certain passages, states that Far‘awn and his henchmen drowned in the bahr, while in other passages, it tells us that he perished in the yamm. So does this mean that the two words are synonymous? Absolutely not. There are no synonymous terms whatsoever in the eloquent tongue of the Qur’ān. The terms bahr and yamm are derived from completely different roots, and hence cannot have the same meaning.

The word bahr simply indicates a large body of abundant water. What about yamm? Since there are no synonyms in the Qur’ānic text, the only possible explanation is that yamm is a description of this body of water. It is specifying what kind of bahr it was that Far‘awn drowned in. Hence bahr is the general term, while yamm is the specific one, comparable to the relation between “vehicle” (general) and “car” (specific).

When Mūsa was born, his mother placed him in the yamm [20:39, 28:7]. The commentators interpreted this yamm as the Nile River, without any proof whatsoever. When Far‘awn drowned in the yamm [7:136, 20:78, 28:40, 51:40], they interpreted it as the Sea of Reeds, just south of what is today known as the Suez Canal. And when Mūsa threw the golden calf of the Sāmiriy in the yamm [20:97], they imagined it as a stream in the so-called “Sinai Peninsula”. As you can see, they gave the same word three different interpretations - thus making a mockery of Allah’s words - in order to make the story fit with the geography of Egypt.

The truth of the matter is that the word yamm has only one meaning; and this meaning is common to several of the so-called “Semitic” languages, notably Arabic, Aramaic, and Syriac. Yamm” means: “a great, flowing stream of water”. This word appears exclusively in the story of Mūsa (P), and has no other meaning. In fact, if you visit the regions of ‘Aseer and Yemen (South Arabia) and ask the locals today what the word yamm means, they will unanimously tell you: it’s a great stream that flows down a mountainside. Once the yamm reaches flat, open ground, it becomes a nahr (river). Such is the eloquence and precision of the Qur’ānic tongue.

Using this knowledge to give the word a consistent meaning in the Qur’ān, the story then becomes clear: Mūsa’s mother placed him in a stream; Far‘awn drowned in a stream, and the calf of the Sāmiriy was hurled into a stream.

Far‘awn did not drown in the Red Sea. He drowned in an inland body of flowing water.

Who inherited the land after Far’awn drowned?

So Far’awn sent gatherers to the towns * ….. * 57 So, We evicted them out of gardens and springs * 58 And treasures and an honorable station *59 As such, We made the Children of Israel inherit it all. [Quran, 26:53-59]

And We let the people who were weak inherit the east of the land and the west of it which We have blessed. And the good word of your Rabb was completed towards the Children of Israel for their patience; and We destroyed what Far‘awn and his people had wrought and what they had built. [Quran, 7:137]

Verse 7:137 of Quran states, in clear and undisputed terms, that Allah eventually destroyed what Far‘awn and his people had built, and what they had worked so hard to achieve and acquire. And yet, we can see the great Pyramids built by rulers of Egypt, still standing!

Verses 26:57-59 of Qu'ran clearly state that the Children of Israel were eventually made successors in the same land in which Far’awn and his people lived, where they have gardens, springs, treasures and an honorable station. This was the same land that has been described as being mubāraka (fertile and rich) for all people [7:137]; the very same land to which the Patriarch Ibraheem (P) and his relative Lūt (P) had migrated. [Quran, 21:71]. Have you ever heard of Israelite king of the Egypt?

During the time of Yūsuf AH, which is estimated to be some 100 - 150 years before Mūsa (P) at most,there was no Far‘awn. There was al-malik (the supreme ruler or king) and his immediate subordinate al-‘aziz (the governor who managed the citadel). Moreover, as discussed above, the land that Far’awn ruled was inherited by the Children of Israel. In other words, there were no Pharaohs before Far’awn or after he drowned.

The Miṣr of Mūsa (P) & Far‘awn vis-à-vis Yūsuf (P)

And Far‘awn proclaimed among his people: "O my people, do I not possess the kingship of Miṣr, and these rivers that flow beneath me? Do you not see?" [Quran, 43:51]

Allah is telling us that Far‘awn’s trade citadel had many rivers flowing near it (not just one); whereas Yūsuf’s area suffered from a seven-year drought, due to lack of rain. This leads us to ask the question: Were Mūsa (P) and Yūsuf (P) in the same citadel? It is possible that they weren't, since there could have been many such walled caravan centers. So how can we be sure? Let’s see what the Qur’ān has to say:

And a believing man from among the people of Far‘awn, who had concealed his belief, said: "Will you kill a man simply because he is saying 'My Rabb is Allah' and he has come to you with proofs from your Rabb? And if he is a liar, then his lie will be upon him, and if he is truthful, then some of what he is promising you will afflict you. For Allah does not guide any transgressor, or liar * O my people, you have the kingship today throughout the land.But then who will save us against the torment of Allah, should it come to us?” Far‘awn said: "I am showing you that which I see, and I am guiding you in the right path" * And the one who believed said: "O my people, I fear for you the same fate as the Day of the Opponents * Like the fate of the people of Nūh, ‘Ād, and Thamūd, and those after them. And Allah does not wish any injustice for the servants * And, O my people, I fear for you the Day of Mutual Blaming * A Day when you will turn around and flee, you will have no protector besides Allah, and whoever Allah sends astray, then there is none who can guide him * And Yūsuf had come to you before with proofs, but you remained in doubt regarding what he came to you with, until when he died, you said: 'Allah will not send any messenger after him'. It is such that Allah sends astray he who is a transgressor, a doubter". [Quran, 40:28-34]

The man is also reminding Far‘awn and his people the fate of the people of Nūh, ‘Ād and Thamūd. If they were not in a same region, issuing a warning to Far‘awn and mentioning the fate of peoples or nations who were geographically unconnected to him, would have made no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore, it’s clear that Yūsuf (P) had been sent to the ancestors of Far‘awn’s people. This is proof that Yūsuf and Mūsa were in the same citadel. The question that naturally poses itself here is: how can a land dry up for seven years when it had abundant rivers, as Far‘awn was boasting? It seems that we have misunderstood the meaning of the word nahr (river) in its Qur’ānic context. Usually, when we think of the term “river”, we tend to think only of permanent waterways, whose sources are underground basins or huge lakes (like the Amazon, the Nile, the Euphrates, and other permanent rivers that do not dry up). But according to the Qur’ān, the term does not necessarily encompass only those types of waterways. The fact is that not all rivers are like that. Some, both small and large, rely on the rain and snow which melts from the mountaintops in order to flow continuously. If the rain should stop for seven years, the rivers will dry up, leaving only their trace in the valleys and mountain slopes. Has anyone ever heard of the Nile drying up? Has history ever recorded such an event in the past four thousand years?

The events described in the Qur’ān took place in a mountainous country, where hundreds of rivers and streams cascaded down from the mountains and were fed with seasonal rainwater. It is a land where agriculture depended on rain. This is clearly evident once again, from a conversation that eventually took place between Mūsa (P) and Far‘awn, as is related to us in the Qur’ān. Please read the following carefully:

He said: "So who is the Rabb of you both, O Mūsa ? * He said: "Our Rabb is the One who gave everything its creation, then guided all." * He said: "What then has happened to the first nations?” * He said: "The knowledge of that is with my Rabb, in a record; my Rabb does not err or forget. * The One who made for you the earth habitable and He made ways for you in it, and He brought down water from the sky, so We sprouted out with it various pairs of vegetation” [20:49-53]

This geography has no relation to Egypt whatsoever. And the rivers (in plural) that Far‘awn was boasting of were not the permanent water-ways (like the Nile and its delta branches, or the Tigris and Euphrates of Iraq). They were rivers that could dry up after long years of drought. And that’s exactly what had happened during Yūsuf’s time.

The final sign we will discuss bearing mention of miṣr in the story of Mūsa (P) is the following, somewhat puzzling one:

And you said: "O Mūsa, we will not be patient to one type of food, so call for us your Rabb that He may bring forth what the earth grows of its beans, cucumbers, garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Would you trade that which is close at hand with that which is better?" Go down to a miṣr, you will have in it what you have asked for. And they were stricken with humiliation and disgrace, and they remained under the wrath of Allah, for they were disbelieving in the revelations of Allah, and killing the prophets without right; that is for what they have disobeyed and transgressed. [2:61]

The Israelites, after having escaped into the wilderness, grew impatient and asked Mūsa to provide them with various types of food that grew in different seasons. What was Mūsa’s answer to them? "Go down to a miṣr, and you will find what you want therein". Here, the word miṣr clearly appears as a common noun. This rather strange instance reminds us of the true meaning of the term, as no more than a walled and secured trade station where food (grains, vegetables and fruits) are stored and easily available. What the discouraged Israelites asked Mūsa (P) for could only be found in the markets or the storage vaults of the trade citadels of ancient times.

And We let the people who were weak inherit the east of the land and the west of it which We have blessed. And the good word of your Rabb was completed towards the Children of Israel for their patience; and We destroyed what Far‘awn and his people had wrought and what they had built. [7:137]

Where exactly was that land? Did Allah destroy the works and monuments of the kings of Egypt? Or are their temples and pyramids still standing, tall and proud; silent testaments to the crimes of those who have forged the history of humanity?

Compiled from: Search of Pharaoh.

Further read:

Ancient Egypt Knew No Pharaohs Nor Any Israelite.

Al- Hijaz, Homeland of Abraham and the Israeli prophets

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread | design and hosted by Beach Life Marketing Inc