Identifying the Qur'an's "One" Pharaoh 

Thank you for the suggestion. Insha Allah, I will do a short video for every long one.

Thank you. Insha Allah

Thank you brother for your very generous words. Alhamduli Allah that you find my videos useful. Jazaka Allahu khayran.

Thank you for your kind words. Jakaza Allahu khayran.

The Biblical account is not necessarily invalidated by the long reign of Ramesses II, as it implies that he was the first Pharaoh. Obviously, it does not name Ramesses II, but certain pieces of information point to him. However, the Biblical account still has issues with the various durations involved, which I did not discuss as they are not the focus of the video.

@@louay.fatoohi I appreciate your response. JazakAllahu Khairan.

@@atl.4044 I thought the 10 commandments was based on the Quran. As someone who has read the bible scholar, it was definitely not from the Bible.

A major figure that went against the Egyptians belief systems and kept getting the hate for centuries later for doing that was none other than AKHENATEN. I believe Akhenaten was Prophet Musa a.s and "that pharaoh" was his own adopting father, AMENHOTEP III. Musa a.s was raised as a royalty in the pharaoh's own backyard. Do we seriously think that the story as big as Moses's (as per Quran) wouldnt pop up in the mainstream Egyptians timeline?

Salam brother, 1) Yes, he was an old man, but this does not rule out the possibility of him leading the army to chase the Israelites. 2) Verse 7:137 describes a future event that took place after the Israelites went into the holy land, which was more than 40 years after the Exodus. By then, not only Ramesess II and his successor and son Merneptah were gone, but the whole of the 19th dynasty.

Wa'alaykum al-salam. I publish and share what I have learned from my studies. The subject you mention is not something that I have studied. If I study it in the future, insha Allah I will write about it.

❤

Jazaka Allahu khayran

Louay is fine 🙂.

Wa''alaykum al-salam, brother. Thank you for your kind words. 1) Of course, if a Pharaoh died a natural death, then he could not have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But no one can confirm that Ramesses II died naturally. People may assume that from his old age, but that is simply an assumption. 2) Ramesses II was a great builder and warrior, but historians would not praise him for his moral life or standards. For instance, he used foreign slaves in his building projects, which is in line with the mention of his enslavement of the Israelites in the Qur'an.

@@namexnamex4757 This was my reply to the same question from another viewer, "Verse 7:137 describes a future event that took place after the Israelites went into the holy land, which was more than 40 years after the Exodus. By then, not only Ramesess II and his successor and son Merneptah were gone, but the whole of the 19th dynasty."

Glad that you liked the video. The mummies of Amenhotep III and Tuthmosis III were both found. The mummy of the latter, except for the face, is extensively damaged.

@@louay.fatoohi very interesting, thanks for responding! Jazakallah Khair.

I could elaborate further but please remember that, as I have mentioned in the video, when dealing with ancient history like this, we are bound to work with assumptions and approximations to ultimatley weigh up possibilities, looking for those that look more probably than others. In other words, if you can construct a scenario that makes Amenhotep III a more likely candidate than Ramesses II, then you can claim that he probably was the Pharaoh of Moses. Of course, you need to also make sure that other details of the story also support this assumption over competing alternatives.

Wa'alaykum al-salam. I have not studied this account. A scholar called Michael Pregill has written a book called "The Golden Calf between Bible and Qur'an". I have not read it though.

Salam Alaykoum dear Dr @@louay.fatoohi It is not about the 3ijl account (golden calf), the 3ijl made up by the Samiriy, but about the Baqara that Moussa as asked his people to slaughter (verses 67 to 73 of Surat Baqara).

@@shamsoudinjamal1658 Wa'alaykum al-salam. Sorry, I must have read your comment quickly. No, I have not studied that account in detail. Regards.

@@louay.fatoohi Barakallah fik, You should look into this story, with your attention to detail, I am sure that you will find very interesting things to share with us concerning the comparison of the stories.

Wa'alaykum al-salam. Yes, we can. But when trying to identify Pharaoh, this verse may not help us with that if the mummies of other candidates have also been preserved.

@@louay.fatoohi I remember reading that Ramesses II is particularly better preserved mummy in general than other mummies. It seems that Allah SWT ensured that someone his face is preserved more clearly.

ok good one.

The thing to note here is that Pharaoh became an enemy of Moses (PBUH) when he was still in Egypt, which is why he escaped. So this description does not “necessarily” mean that this Pharaoh was going to be the same one when Moses returns to Egypt.

​@@louay.fatoohi Thank you for your return my dear Sheikh. As you're saying and what I understand from the verse in surah 20 I sent previously, If Allah said only يَأْخُذْهُ عَدُوٌّۭ لِّى, in that case, may be it wouldn't not be the same pharaoh. But when Allah continue the verse by saying وَعَدُوٌّۭ لَّهُ, for me, it's like a revelation of what will be happened in the future that Allah gave to the mother of Moses (pbuh). And as Allah mentioned that the same pharaoh who is His ennemy will be the same ennemy of Moses (pbuh) in the future, for me, I think that it's also an indication that it's the same pharaoh. Allah knows Best. Thank you for your remark and suggestion again.

Of course, thank you for the correction.

Sorry, I have not studied this either.

From the earliest known interpretations, which can be read in al-Ṭabarī, Muslims understood the verse to mean that the sea threw Pharaoh’s body for people to see him dead. The early exegetes had no idea that his mummy also survived and will be witnessed by countless people later.

@@louay.fatoohiwow. To me that's a clear cut proof of the truth of Islam.

Seti + Ramesses II cannot work Biblically since the 120 years don't add up (just like it won't work with any other pair in 19th dynasty) but it is also problematic as it would say Moses killed a man when Moses was 11 years old since Seti ruled for just 11 years and the most Moses can be even if he was taken out of the Nile in the first regnal year would 11 years of age would not make sense.

@@DrOmar11 You are right about the inconsistencies in the OT figures. I avoided critiquing the Bible to keep the video shorter and focused on the Qur'an.

Wa’alaykum al-salam. Thank you for your comment. This verse suggests that the age of 40 follows or falls within the “attainment of full strength”. It does not state that the latter is exactly 40 or even close to it. Actually, the use of the conjunction “and” between the “attainment of full strength” and “forty”, including the repetition of the verb “balagha”, strongly indicates a connection between the two but not equality. The term “attainment of full strength” occurs eight times in the Qur’an. Developing a credible understanding it requires looking at all of them. It is the consideration of all those instances and their contexts that have led scholars to speak about a range, not one specific age. In the video, I only made a quick reference to this fact because a linguistic analysis would be highly technical and not useful for most viewers. We have analysed this, however, in detail in our book on the Exodus.

@@louay.fatoohi keep doing the great work dr. May Allah reward you with good.

جزاك الله خيرا

It does not have to be "I" instead of "We" to mean the same Pharaoh. We on its own is inconclusive either way. But please listen to my other observations that link this verse to the time of Moses' birth. There are also other verses that can only point to one Pharaoh, which I discuss in the video. You will need to explain away those as well in a way that is more convincing than reading them as pointing to one and the same Pharaoh.

Dr, I think the using of the word “We” in the Quran has significant implications because it denotes a collective rather than a single person. If it were one pharaoh then using the word “I” would have profound and deep implication and will accentuate the point to Musa AS because he was the one that raised Musa in the palace. But rather the word “We” is used. Also from history and archeology we know that Ramses ii died of old age at the age of 90-91 years old and he had known health problem namely arthritis and heart disease. But based on the Quran we know that the pharaoh at the time of the exodus died with his troops in the Red Sea. I can’t imagine a sickly 90 year old riding chariots and chasing Musa AS across the Sinai peninsular to the Red Sea. A 90 year old would just send his troops to chase after the Israelites. Just my thoughts.

I agree that if we put in perspective the age and his health conditions, it is not possible that he is strong enough to lead a group of army to chase Nabi Musa...our knowledge is limited...may Allah open the knowledge for us...perhaps will we understand it deeper in future

Why dying by drowning would be inconsistent with the status of his mummy?

@@louay.fatoohi The ancient Egyptians would have had to find the body in time and prepared the mumification process very early to keep him so well preserved. But who would have found him? He and everyone was swallowed up by the sea, in an unknown location since he supposedly rushed out to find Moses. Most glaringly, there are no indications that Ramses died in an unnatural way as we know he was in his 90s. It seems far more likely that he died in his bed and the mumification process began soon after, leaving his body so incredibly preserved as it is now. It further seems unlikely that a man of his age would have pursued Moses with an army, as the accounts never indicated the pharaoh was so old and advanced in age either. It was very rare for an Egyptian, much less a pharaoh, to live to such an age, and yet there's no mention of it at all. And Rameses II died with an impeccable reputation, to be emulated by future pharaohs. If he failed in such a catastrophic way against Moses and some lowly Hebrew slaves then I don't think his image would have been so well intact, and I doubt the Egyptians simply erased these things from their memory and suppressed all possible evidence. Especially as the plagues were supposed to have afflicted many people. How could this simply be ignored by everyone, or go unmentioned? Further, what is more devastating for all this is that there are no records whatsoever of the exodus event in any Egyptian records. No indication even that any Jews or Hebrews were enslaved. For such a huge number of people to have emigrated from Egypt there would surely have been some record or some evidence of this, and in fact there is not even any archeological record, no physical material or anything, of the wanderings of the people out of Egypt in the Sinai dessert. This is really unprecedented for such a mass migration, and has led many to correctly conclude that because there is a lack of evidence, except for what the Bible says, then the whole event rests on extremely weak grounds. As a historian, you should consider the possibility that the event may have never happened as there is no outside corroborating evidence for it, literary or archaeological. I believe jumping to the conclusion that not only the event happened but that in fact Ramses II was the exact pharaoh described is to give too much credence to sources like the Bible and Quran which simply are not primary sources. The alternative hypothesis that the Bible and the Hebrews made up these stories, or largely exaggerated them, should be given far more serious attention.

@@AB-et6nj You made one argument in your first comment, to which I replied suggesting that drowning does not necessarily mean the body was lost or destroyed. This is particularly the case when the drowned person is with a group of people. Your follow-up reply introduces several new assumptions/objections. I am sure you would be aware, anyone who has done any reading on this topic would be aware of these and other arguments/objections. Furthermore, I cannot deal with all of this in a comment on a video that deals with one specific issue. I have dealt with some of what you say in my detailed video on the Exodus on Blogging Theology ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--wgC-n3Cljk.html. Thanks.

@@louay.fatoohi Yes, I understand I did that. I will look into the other videos

@@louay.fatoohi But regarding the drowning, maybe more needs to be explored regarding the mumification process, and how drowning could affect it. Or what the Egyptian sources have to say about Rameses death, which will implicate all the other things I mentioned like how he was always highly regarded and this supposed humiliation by God should have thrown at least some doubt in the minds of the Egyptians, evident in the records. My problem here is that many times when people approach these issues from the lens of their religious beliefs and what non-primary sources say, like the Bible and Quran, then they are not objective and they will (even unconsciously) try to rationalize and fit things together instead of being truly objective and looking at everything instead of starting with the popular narratives and stories and making sense of those first. And then to say that a source like the Quran corroborates it does not necessarily mean the Quran could be used as a primary source at all, and this further shows bias and an unnecessary need to rely on sources which are simply not dispositive to the issue. A historian must avoid these practices at all cost.

I personally listen to longer videos like they’re podcasts while I’m doing something like driving or commuting to work. I remind myself that most of us make time to watch a 2 hour movie or a 40 minute episode from a TV series, so why not make an effort to listen to something that will benefit me spiritually…

@@fromhersanctuary i do that too…. Yet, it’s slow process of learning, people like the fine gentleman can summon up the video and his claim in the beginning and then proceeds to the explanation and evidence

Wow nobody has time that is so so rude If you do not like it then you dont have to watch it it's pretty simple go and do the research for yourself you may take years🤣🤣 or months weeks you should thank him for his effort in a deep descriptive explanation rather then complain its pretty childish if you don't have time, then you don't need to listen to it or know what happened. When a person is really interested they make time for things, and if they are not there, they just complain about it.

@@sararae5994 to be eloquent is not for everyone i guess.. i can be precise and then proceed to explain…and i can watch or not its up to me not you buddy

⁠​⁠@@alialwash7703eloquent ?? Okay if thats what eloquence is to you then sure but u find it abit rude what you said becauze he has clearly made an effort also he is older so you should have some more respect for your elders even islamically speaking but to say this to anyone is just plain wrong he said what he said thats his video you dont have to make you silly comment if you didnt like it dont watch it and being eloquant is you doing the researching for yourself which takes very very long so yeah you should thank the gentelmen for his efforts may allah continue to sharpen his mind and efforts ameen and may people like you be more appreciative