God’s Promises: The Miraculous Fulfillment of Prophecy in the Quran (Part I)

A couple weeks ago I gave a talk on a phenomenon in the Quran that I find to be one of the most stunning signs of its miraculous provenance.  These are the prophecies of the Quran.  These prophecies take two forms:

1. Some are explicit prophecies, and these tend to be the most well-known.
2. Others are implicit prophecies, which are embedded for example in the stories the Quran revealed in order to make certain assurances to the Prophet and his followers.

I will argue that the fulfillment of these prophecies is striking in the following ways:

1. These prophecies were not trivial, but they made claims that were bold and shocking given the historical context of their revelation.  They promised that these events or outcomes would transpire by God’s leave, despite there being every reason for believing the contrary. Some of these prophecies stipulated that they would occur within a specific time frame, such as during the life of the Prophet or his companions.
2. These prophecies not only came true, but came true in a timeframe, manner, and scale that is without historical parallel, again reinforcing that the Quran’s point that these would only occur as a result of divine planning and intervention.

Over the course of the next few posts, I will be describing some examples of this, God-willing. I will in particular be drawing attention to prophecies or divine promises embedded in the stories of the Quran, since these are the most overlooked.  The first one will be on God's promises in the story of Joseph in the Quran.

1. The story of Joseph

Sura 12, “Joseph” (Yusuf), is the only sura of the Quran dedicated to a full chronological narrative.  The themes, language, and style of the sura place it firmly in the context of the late Meccan period, in which it would have had the most relevance to the Prophet Muhammad and his followers.  During this time, they were being persecuted by their own people—their own fellow tribe and kin—to the point that they were about to be driven out from their home town of Mecca.  It is especially during this period that the Quran narrated stories in order to reassure the hearts of the Muslims.  These were typically stories that already existed in Biblical lore, but were retold with new purposes in the Quran.  For example, these stories would console the believers and ensure them that God would reward their patience and constancy with success and victory.  But how was this possible?  They were a small group, they had no power, they were being persecuted by a much more powerful group, and they were being dispossessed of their homes and assets.  How could they possibly attain victory?

It was in this context that the sura of Joseph was revealed.  Think about what happens in the story.  Joseph experienced one tragic difficulty after another.  He was a young man who was persecuted by his own brothers, exiled from his home to a foreign land, enslaved, accused, and imprisoned, but over these many hard years he held onto his faith.  Then God created unique circumstances that allowed Joseph to rise to a prominent place of respect and authority and to prosper.  Through a dramatic turn of events, he was eventually brought face-to-face with the brothers who persecuted them.  He had the upper hand over them.  Yet he forgave them, they sincerely repented from their crimes against him, and they were reunited as a family.

What was this story supposed to signal to its first Muslim audience?  It is that despite the seemingly hopeless situation you are in, God will create unique circumstances by which He will save you, raise you to a position of success and prominence, cause you to triumph—and maybe even turn the hearts of your families and tribesmen so that they will repent from their wrongs against you and reconcile with you.  As Mustansir Mir, in his essay on irony in the story of Joseph, writes:

Muhammad is identified with Joseph, and the tribe of Quraysh, to which Muhammad belonged and which had turned hostile to him, with Joseph’s brothers. In addition, the story predicts that just as Joseph finally triumphed over the obstacles put in his way by his brothers, so Muhammad will eventually emerge a victor in his struggle against the Quraysh. When, in 630, Muhammad conquered Mecca and the Quraysh anxiously waited for the verdict on their fate, Muhammad addressed them, asking them how they expected him to treat his former enemies. Their plea for mercy was made in the form of praise: “You are a noble brother and the son of a noble brothers.” Muhammad issued a general amnesty, saying: lā tathrība ‘alaykumu ’l- yawm, “No blame rests on you today.” These words were taken from v. 92 of the twelfth sūra of the Qur’ān—Joseph. The story had worked itself out in history. And so had the irony.[1] 

 Think about it:

• Joseph is hated and persecuted by his own, more powerful older brothers (an ʿuṣba, or a "strong clan"—12:8, 14), just like the Prophet and his followers were despised and persecuted by their own tribesmen.
• In the story, Joseph is exiled by his brothers to a foreign land.  Similarly, the Prophet and his companions would be exiled to Medina.
• In the foreign land, Joseph eventually rises to a place of respect and authority.  Likewise, the Prophet and his followers would rise to a position of respect and authority, and within only a number years become the dominant power in the Arabian Peninsula—and later, the entire Near East.

وَكَذَٰلِكَ مَكَّنَّا لِيُوسُفَ فِي الْأَرْضِ 

يَتَبَوَّأُ مِنْهَا حَيْثُ يَشَاءُ ۚ 

نُصِيبُ بِرَحْمَتِنَا مَن نَّشَاءُ ۖ 

وَلَا نُضِيعُ أَجْرَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

Thus did We establish Joseph with authority in the land, 

free to settle in it wherever he pleased. 

We bestow our Mercy on whomever We wish, 

and We do not allow the reward of those who do good to be lost. 
(12:56)

• Joseph is eventually brought face-to-face with his own brothers who persecuted him, but he forgave them.  Likewise, the Prophet would return to Mecca and have the upper hand over the Quraysh, yet he forgave them.
• Finally, the brothers prostrate to Joseph, they repent of their wrongs, and the brothers become reconciled and form a single family again.  In the same way, the Quraysh end up submitting to the Prophet’s authority, and even accept his message, joining the community of believers.  They are reunited, but now not as Arab polytheists, but as faithful devotees of the one God of Abraham.

Who could have predicted such an outcome?  As the Quran stresses, the only people at this time who could credit the idea of such a story playing out in their own lives were those who recognized that God has promised it and that He is fully in control of events and their outcomes:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ مَكَّنَّا لِيُوسُفَ فِي الْأَرْضِ 

وَلِنُعَلِّمَهُ مِن تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ ۚ 

وَاللَّهُ غَالِبٌ عَلَىٰ أَمْرِهِ 

وَلَٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَ النَّاسِ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ

Thus We established Joseph with authority in the land, 

to teach him the true meaning of dreams 

and the fulfillment of prophecies (ta’wīl al-aḥādīth).

God is fully in control of His affair,

but most of the people do not know it.

(12:21)

Hence, as the Quran fittingly says:

لَّقَدْ كَانَ فِي يُوسُفَ وَإِخْوَتِهِ 

آيَاتٌ لِّلسَّائِلِينَ

Certainly in (the story of) Joseph and his brothers 

there are signs for those who inquire.

(12:7)

---

[1] Mustansir Mir, “Irony in the Qur’ān: A Study of the Story of Joseph,” Literary Structures of Religious Meaning in the Qur’ān (Richmond, Surrey: Routledge, 2000), 126.

Excellent article series on Noah's Flood and the Qur'an

Up until now, the best treatment I have seen of the Flood and the Qur’an was in Islam and Biological Evolution: Exploring Classical Sources and Methodologies by David Solomon Jalajel.  I had come to the same conclusions as Jalajel before reading his chapter, but seeing that my interpretations were supported by some major Qur’anic commentaries was reassuring.  Surveying and analyzing a number of classical commentaries, Jalajel argues that the Qur'an does not:

• indicate that the Flood was global;
• claim that Noah's people were the only human beings on the earth in his time;
• state that the Flood was universal, affecting all of humanity, but only that it affected Noah's people;
• claim that all human populations descended from Noah and those who boarded the ark.

Concerning that last point, the Qur’an only states that Abraham descended from Noah (cf. 3:33-34) and hence the Quraysh (36:41; 69:11), the Children of Israel (17:3), and the Biblical prophets named in the Qur’an (6:84).[1]

al-Alusi’s commentary is most instructive.  Commenting on 71:26, in which Noah prays, “do not leave on the earth [or “the land,” ʿalā ’l-arḍ] an inhabitant from the disbelievers,” al-Alusi writes,

...the word ‘[e]arth’ is quite often used to refer to a portion thereof, and it is possible that this is how it is being used here.  Likewise, if we were to concede that the intended meaning was all of the earth, nonetheless the supplication was invoked against the ‘unbelievers’ and these were the ones to whom he was sent and who did not respond.[2]

Similarly, al-Alusi comments in reference to 11:40, which states, “We said, ‘Load upon the ship of every set of mates a pair'":

What the heart tends to accept is that the flood—as some have opined—was not universal in scope and that Noah was not commanded to carry with him what generally subsists on unclean substances on the [e]arth, like mice and insects.  Instead, he was commanded to carry with him what he would need when he and those with him were saved from drowning.[3]

Still, this treatment left one important question in my mind.  The Qur'an says that Noah’s ship “came to rest upon Mount Judi (wa-’stawat ʿalā ’l-jūdiyy)” (11:44).  Yet, for rainfall to cause flood waters to reach the elevation of a mountain and then to recede would entail all kinds of physical impossibilities and would multiply the earth’s atmospheric pressure to a degree that the earth would become uninhabitable.  It would also require a global flood, which would clash with all of the evidence we have from geology.[4]  Moreover, it seemed to me that Mount Judi, known in Turkish as Cudi Dagh (pronounced joo-dee daa'), is too far north to be affected by a flood in the Persian Gulf but too far south to be affected by a Black Sea flood.

Fortunately, I stumbled upon a brilliant series of articles by a Muslim researcher, examining the Qur’anic account of the Flood from the perspective of history, geology, archaeology, and anthropology.  I was very surprised to find such a sophisticated treatment of the subject on an obscure blog that hasn’t been updated since 2007!  The author explained the goal of his series as follows:

This is not an attempt to prove the validity of the Qur’anic and/or Biblical story of Noah and the Flood, but simply to look at various physical aspects of the event, and to relate it to what we can discover from geographical, historical, archaeological, and other sources – in short, relate it to what we know about the world in general.

The contents of this series are outlined as such:

• SF00: Introduction
• SF01: The Ship and the Flood
• SF02: The Story of the Ark
• SF03: “Evolutionists” versus “Creationists”
• SF04: Noah and the Flood
• SF05: The Size of the Ship
• SF06a: Extent of the Flood
• SF06b: Extent of the Flood
• SF07: Technology
• SF08: Landfall
• SF09: Where is Mount Jûdî?
• SF10: Has The Ship Been Found?

This series is the best treatment of the subject I have seen.  The author avoids the pitfalls of Christian fundamentalist interpretations of the Flood story, which immensely clash with the data of geology and other physical sciences.  I was very pleased to find a satisfying answer to my above question in SF06b: Extent of the Flood.   The author points out,

Now, when we read that the ship came to rest “‘alaa’l juwdiyyi”, we do not have to understand that to mean ‘on top of Judi” It could also be understood as “at Judi.” In Arabic, “‘alaa baabihi,” meaning “at his door,” is common usage.

Hence the Qur’anic statement could be translated as “it came to settle at Mount Judi.”

Using visuals, the author goes on to show how severe flooding of the Persian Gulf—a phenomenon that is now attested to by geological evidence—combined with a temporary sagging of the Arabian plate would be capable of inundating Mesopotamia without requiring a significant rise in sea level.  The floodwaters would be able to reach into a valley that extends into the vicinity of Mount Judi.  He observes that this

could be produced by means of a heating and partial melting of the continental crust from below. Effects of this could also involve volcanic eruptions, including massive eruptions of steam. In this respect some rather cryptic words used in the Holy Qur’an might be of significance. They appear to mean: “And the oven was heated.” 

As for Qur’anic references to “waves like mountains” (11:42), this can be taken to suggest that Noah’s ship sailed temporarily into the ocean.  It does not entail that the waves were literally the altitude of mountains (cf. 42:32; 55:24) or that this description applies to the floodwaters over Mesopotamia.

The author’s model of the Flood resembles that of Hugh Ross in his Navigating Genesis: A Scientist's Journey Through Genesis 1-11.  Ross likewise proposes a regional flood that covered the Persian Gulf basins, Mesopotamia, and part of the Arabian Peninsula, though he places the Flood tens of thousands of years earlier.  What is unique about this author’s treatment however is that he focuses on the details of the Qur’anic story, carefully considering the geological, archaeological, and anthropological implications of each detail.

The blog series contains many insights beyond the ones I have noted.  The only disagreement I have that I would like to note is that the author assumes that the Flood wiped out all of humanity during Noah’s time and that all subsequent human populations descended from those who boarded the ship.  As I noted above, even this assumption is unnecessary on the Qur’anic account.

The only significant thing lacking in this author’s treatment is a discussion of the transmission of the Flood story and the relationship between the Biblical (and hence, to some extent, Qur’anic) account and the more ancient Mesopotamian versions.  These include the Ziusudra Epic in Sumerian, the Atrahasis Epic in Akkadian, and the Epic of Gilgamesh.  A masterful study of this nature is Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic by Robert M. Best.  Studies of the the Mesopotamian Flood accounts have led many Assyriologists to trace the origins of the Flood story to a local flood in southern Iraq c. 2900 BCE.   Engagement with this evidence is generally missing from conservative Christian and Muslim discussions, which tend to focus more exclusively on exegesis and scientific data.

---

[1] This verse also mentions “Job.”  The Bible only states that Job was from “the land of Uz,” which is not a known geographical location.  Rabbinic authorities differed over whether Job was an Israelite, an Aramean, an Edomite, or some other ethnicity, and the question remains open as far as modern Biblical scholarship is concerned.  Hence, this is moot for my argument.

[2] al-Alusi, Rūḥ al-Ma‘ānī, 29/126.  Qtd. in Jalajel, 57.  

[3] al-Alusi 12/353.  Qtd. in Jalajel, 60-61.

[4] See Robert M. Best, Noah’s Ark and the Ziusudra Epic (Fort Myers: Enlil Press, 1999), 39-40, for a summary and references for such studies.

Demystifying "Gog and Magog" in Judeo-Christian Tradition, the Qur'an, and the Hadiths

Adeel, the author of the "Quran Answers" blog, has just published an excellent essay on the topic of Gog and Magog in the Qur'an and hadiths.  I felt this was worth posting about, because the topic of Gog and Magog has become the subject of a lot of misunderstanding, wild conjecture, and bizarre interpretations.  But, while it represents an apocalyptic motif shared by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic tradition, it is in fact grounded in a well-known historical phenomenon with historical, geographical, and ethnic identifiers.  Before posting the link to the "Quran Answers" article, I thought it would be worth providing some historical context to this misunderstood tradition.

The basic historical understanding of "Gog and Magog"[1] across the Abrahamic traditions is summed up well by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in an appendix of his Qur'an translation and commentary:

It is practically agreed that they were the wild tribes of Central Asia which have made inroads on settled kingdoms and Empires at various stages of history. The Chinese Empires suffered from their incursions and built the Great Wall of China to keep out the Manchus and Mongols. The Persian Empire suffered from them at various times and at various points. Their incursions into Europe in large hordes caused migrations and displacements of populations on an enormous scale, and eventually broke up the Roman Empire. These tribes were known vaguely to the Greeks and Romans as "Scythians", but that term does not help us very much, either ethnically or geographically.[2]

A.R. Anderson catalogs some of the earliest recorded examples of these incursions:

From time immemorial the Caucasus—that mighty bulwark thrown across the isthmus between the Black and the Caspian Seas—has lain in the pathway of northern nomads descending into the fair lands of Hither Asia. What devastating waves of migration have burst against its barriers, some of them to clear its passes and to deal destruction to the civilizations of the south! Such may have been the course of the Kassites when about 1900 B.C. they came bringing with them the horse, but wrecking the empire founded by Hammurabi. Such too may have been the course of the Mitanni, when they about 1400 B.C. made themselves felt as far as Palestine. It was probably through the pass of Dariel that the Cimmerians, Gimirrae, who are to be identified with the biblical Gomer, invaded Assyria under Sargon (722-705 B.C.) and then later passed on to overrun Asia Minor, devastating it as far as the Aegean, and overthrowing the power of Phyrgia founded by Midas. A generation later under Esar-Haddon (681-668 B.C.), the Scythians followed by way of the pass of Derbend, destined before the century was past to join the Medes and Chaldeans in overthrowing Assyria (612 B.C.). East of the Caspian the Massagetae constituted a problem even to Cyrus the Great. Darius, recognized the Scythian peril, sought to strike them by way of the Balkan peninsula, crossing the Danube in an in an expedition in which he narrowly escaped utter ruin. [3]

Such incursions continued well into the Common Era.  The term "Scythians," or later "Huns," became a generic designation for Central Asian nomadic tribes who occupied the northern parts of the Caucasus.  The people of Asia Minor and the Caucasus would build defensive walls in the Caucasian mountains, such as the Pass of Dariel and the Gates of Derbend in modern-day Russia, to protect them from from invasions by these tribes from the north.  The Huns, of course, ravaged Europe in the late fourth and fifth centuries, contributing to the fall of the Western Roman Empire.  In the following centuries, the Sabirs, Kök Türks, and Khazars posed repeated threats to Byzantine and/or Persian territories in the Near East.  In the climax of the centuries long Byzantine-Sassanian Wars, the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius even opened the Gates of Derbend and summoned the Kök Türks and Khazars against his Sassanian Persian opponents.

The Gates of Derbend in modern-day Russia, also known in popular tradition as the Gates of Alexander.
(Courtesy of Wikipedia.)

Notwithstanding, the most devastating manifestation of this phenomenon occurred centuries later: the Mongol invasions and conquests of the thirteenth century.

The expansion of the Mongol Empire.

(Courtesy of Wikipedia, user Astrokey 44.)

In summary, Schmidt and Van Donzel write:

[Gog and Magog] were identified with different “impure peoples”: Scythians, Huns, Alans, Khazars, Turks, Kipchaks, or the Mongols. The common denomination of these peoples is that they all were accomplished horsemen who invaded the Roman Empire from the Eurasian steppes and whose civilisations were unknown to the citizens of the Roman Empire.[4]

 Speaking more broadly, Anderson states:

The term Gog and Magog has therefore become synonymous with barbarian, especially with the type of barbarian that bursts through the northern frontier of civilization. This frontier extends the whole length of the Eurasian continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Spain to China, and includes such outstanding landmarks as the Alps, the Caucasus, and the Great Wall[5]…The legend of Alexander’s Gate and of the enclosed nations is in reality the story of the frontier in sublimated mythologized form^.[6]

The Gog/Magog tradition has evolved over the course of the Abrahamic traditions, from the mention of Magog as a descendent of Noah's son Japheth in the Table of Nations (Genesis 10:2), to the proto-apocalyptic prophecy about the armies of "Gog of Magog" in Ezekiel 38-39, to further apocalyptic development in Second Temple Jewish texts and early Christian and Rabbinic writings, to their infusion with the Alexander legends in the Late Antique period, and in their presentation in the Qur'an (18:93-99; 21:95-96) and prophetic hadiths.

Adeel's essay provides a fairly straightforward reading of the Qur'anic verses and (frequently misunderstood) hadiths on the topic of Gog and Magog, along with helpful analysis from medieval and modern Muslim scholars.  The essay clarifies:

• What the hadiths say about the ethnic identity and geographical location of "Gog and Magog";
• How the hadiths seem to have prophesied the Mongol invasions many centuries before they occurred;
• That the fortification that restrained Gog and Magog (see Qur'an 18:93-99) may have already been breached, rather than being a future event;
• That the invasions of Gog and Magog are not restricted to a single apocalyptic event, but are a transhistorical phenomenon, recurring across history, but culminating in their most catastrophic manifestation immediately before the Last Day;
• How this catastrophic event fits into the ends times chronology presented in the hadiths;
• What the hadiths about their enormous numbers mean.

It is also notable that the hadiths cited in the essay have many parallels with Ezekiel 38-39 and Rabbinic traditions.  This is an enlightening read for anybody who has been confused about this topic:

http://qurananswers.me/2016/03/04/who-and-where-are-the-gog-and-magog/ 

---

[1]  The etymology of these names is uncertain.  For a summary of several theories, see J. Lust, “Magog” in Karel Van Der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Hoorst (eds.), Dictionary of Demons and Deities in the Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 2^nd ed, pp. 535-536.  Magog occurs in the Table of Nations in Genesis 12 as a nation descending from Noah’s son Japheth, the progenitor of European and certain Asian peoples.  “Gog” first occurs in the prophecy in Ezekiel 38-39, where he is the political and military head of the region of Magog.  In the second century BCE, “Gog” occurs in place of “Magog” in the Book of Jubilees, and they subsequently occur as counterpart tribes in the third book of the Sibylline Oracles.  In the Qur'an, the paired names are made to rhyme—Ya'juj and Ma'juj—as is a common literary feature of the scripture.

[2]  Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Arabic Text with an English Translation and Commentary (Lahore: Shaykh Muhammad Ashraf, 1937), vol. 2, p. 761.

[3]  Andrew Runni Anderson, “Alexander at the Caspian gates,” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 59 (1928): 138–139.

[4]  Andrea and Emeri Van Donzel (eds.), Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources: Sallam’s Quest for Alexander’s Wall (Leiden: Brill, 2009), p. 45.

[5]  Here Anderson is considering post-Qur’anic interpretations, such as that the Mongol invasions represented Gog and Magog. Nonetheless, it is an accurate characterization of Gog and Magog as a transhistorical typology.

[6]  Andrew Runni Anderson, Alexander's Gate, Gog and Magog, and the Inclosed Nations (Baltimore: The Waverly Press Inc., 1932), p. 8.

The Exodus in the Qur’an, the Bible, and History (Part 9): The Preservation of Pharaoh’s Body

The mummified body of Ramesses II was discovered in 1881 in a cache of forty mummies.  Priests had deposited and concealed these mummies around 1,000 BCE because of an epidemic of grave robbery.  They remained concealed for almost three thousand years until their discovery less than two centuries ago.[1]

This finding confirms another distinctive element of the Qur’an’s narrative of Pharaoh, its claim that his body would be preserved for later generations:

Today We will save you in your body so that you may be a sign for those after you.  Truly many people are heedless of Our signs. (10:92)

This claim is unique to the Qur’an, and is not found in the Bible or any prior Jewish or Christian sources.  This āya has been compared before to some rabbinic tales in which the Pharaoh repented and God rescued him, so he went on to become the king of Nineveh.[2]  However, the obvious implication of this āya is that Pharaoh’s last-minute recantation was not deemed acceptable and he drowned, but his body was in some way preserved as a sign for later generations.  The Qur’an here and elsewhere emphasizes Pharaoh’s demise as a punishment for his crimes.

It is significant that the Qur’an never makes a similar statement about other destroyed peoples, but only states that their abandoned buildings, ruins, or “news” have been made signs for later generations.  This āya explicitly specifies that Pharaoh’s body was preserved as a sign, and not just for his own time or witnesses (as some commentators have suggested), but in open terms—“for those after you” (li-man khalfa-ka).  As Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli point out, “Since its discovery, Ramesses II’s mummy has been seen by people from everywhere.  It is currently one of the major tourist attractions in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.”[3]

The mummy of Ramesses II

An objection that has been raised before is that at the time of death, Ramesses was at the ripe age of ninety and was suffering from atherosclerosis as well as battle wounds.  He would have not been in the physical condition to pursue the Israelites into the desert.  The Bible answers this objection best when it states that Pharaoh’s stubborn and reckless actions were a consequence of God hardening his heart, in order that God may display His signs against him (Exod. 7:3), or as the Qur’an says, “as a sign for those after you.”

---

[1] Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli, 112.

[2] Pirke De Rabbi Eliezer, ch. 43, pp. 341-343 (Friedlander); Book of Jashar 81:36-41; Chronicles of Jerahmeel 48:12; Legends of the Jews, vol. 3, 29.  Moreover, each of these sources postdates the Qur’an.

[3] Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli, 114.

The Exodus in the Qur’an, the Bible, and History (Part 8): The Pharaoh’s Claim to Divinity

One of the major narrative differences between the Qur’anic account of the Exodus and the Biblical one is the Qur’an’s emphasis on the Pharaoh’s claim to divinity.  The Qur’an narrates:

Then he gathered (his people) and proclaimed, “I am your Lord, Most High.”  So Allah seized with the exemplary punishment of the hereafter and the former. (79:23-25) 

 Pharaoh said, “O my chief!  I do not know of any god for you other than me” (28:39)[1]

Today it is common knowledge that the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt claimed divine status, so the statements of Pharaoh that the Qur’an reports here come as no surprise.  However, this element of the narrative is unique to the Qur’an’s account of the Exodus.  The Pharaoh’s claim to divinity does not play an important role in the biblical text, and in fact, lacks any explicit mention of it at all.  This is also the case with the retellings of the Exodus story in the Jewish pseudepigrapha (extrabiblical writings between 300 BCE and 300 CE), such as the Book of Jubilees, and likewise (as far as I am aware) with rabbinic accounts.  The Pharaoh’s claim to divinity is distinctive to the Qur’an’s account; it lacks any biblical, Jewish, or Christian precedents.  Yet, it is also historically accurate:

By the early New Kingdom, deification of the living king had become an established practice, and the living king could himself be worshipped and supplicated for aid as a god.[2]

Two steles, 410 and 1079 of the Hildesheim Museum, each describe Ramesses II as “Ramesses-meryamun, the God,” and the Papyrus Anastasi II praises Ramesses as “god,” “herald,” “vizier,” and “mayor.”  The Great Temple at Abu Simbel (see the picture in the part 7) was built by Ramesses II to honor himself.  The entrance of the temple is flanked by four colossal statues of Ramesses II, which dwarf the statue of the god Re-Horakhty located above it.[3]   The building also contains a relief that depicts Ramesses II making a sacrifice to his divine self:

Relief in the Great Temple at Abu Simbel of Ramesses II making an offering to his divine self.

Courtesy of Islamic-Awareness.org.

It must be kept in mind that Egypt had not been ruled by a pharaoh for more than six centuries before the Qur’an was revealed.  The last independent rulers of Egypt were Cleopatra and her son Caesarion, who reigned until 30 BCE, after which Egypt was taken over by Rome.  While the title of “pharaoh” continued to be appropriated by a number of Roman emperors, the title appears to have died off well before the Christianization of the Roman Empire, and certainly none of the Christian emperors had claimed divinity.

The Qur’an’s reference to the Pharaoh’s claim to divinity is another historically accurate piece of information that is distinctive to its narrative of the Exodus, and is not mentioned in the earlier known biblical or extrabiblical versions of the story.

---

[1] This is āya is not a denial of the polytheism of Egyptians during the time of Pharaoh, but simply expresses Pharaoh's arrogance.  7:127 affirms that Pharaoh and his chiefs recognized a multiplicity of gods: “The chiefs among the people of Pharaoh said, ‘Will you leave Moses and his people to cause corruption in the land and abandon you and your gods?’”

[2] D. P. Silverman, “Divinities And Deities In Ancient Egypt.” Religion In Ancient Egypt: Gods Myths, And Personal Practice. Ed. B.E. Shafer: London, Routledge, 1991. 64.  Qtd. in “The Identification Of Pharaoh During The Time Of Moses.” Islamic-Awareness.org, 4 Jan. 2012.

[3] See “The Identification Of Pharaoh During The Time Of Moses.”  Islamic-Awareness.org, 4 Jan. 2012.

The Exodus in the Qur’an, the Bible, and History (Part 7): “Pharaoh of the Awtād”

In the previous article, we saw that the distinct evidences from both the Bible and the Qur’an point firmly to an identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Ramesses II. 

One element that is distinctive to the Qur’an’s narrative of Pharaoh is that it describes him several times as “Pharaoh of the Awtād":

The people of Noah and ʿĀd, and Pharaoh of the awtād rejected [the messengers] before them. And Thamūd, and the people of Lot…” (38:12-13)

Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with ʿĀd; the city of Iram of the lofty pillars, the like of which had never been created in the lands; Thamūd who cut the rocks in the valley; and Pharaoh of the awtād…? (89:6-10)

Muslim commentators differed over the meaning of awtād (singular watad) in this epithet, since the word is capable of a variety of meanings.  The most common interpretation is “stakes,” on which Pharaoh crucified people.  However Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli argue that awtād is used in the Qur’an not to mean “stakes” or “pegs,” but tall structures.[1]  This is the interpretation of “Pharaoh of the Awtād” that al-Qurṭubī relates from Ibn ‘Abbās and ad-Daḥḥāk, in his commentary of 38:12:

Ibn ‘Abbās said, “It means the owner of sturdy construction.”  ad-Daḥḥāk said, “He owned many buildings.  Buildings are called awtād.”  

This makes the most sense in light of 89:6-10, quoted above, because the other nations mentioned are also identified with the construction of lofty, firm buildings.

There is no more appropriate description for Rameses II.  Of all the pharaohs of Egypt, he is the one most famous for his ambitious building projects.  Peter A. Clayton writes:

His genuine building achievements are on a Herculean scale. He added to the great temples at Karnak and Luxor, completed his father Seti’s mortuary temple at Gourna (Thebes) and also his Abydos temple, and built his own temple nearby at Abydos. On the west bank at Thebes he constructed a giant mortuary temple, the Ramesseum. Inscriptions in the sandstone quarries at Gebel el-Silsila record at least 3000 workmen employed there cutting stone for the Ramesseum alone. Other major mortuary temples rose in Nubia at Beit el-Wali, Gerf Hussein, Wadi es-Sebua, Derr and even as far south as Napata.[2]

Similarly, Kitchen states:

certainly in his building-works for the gods the entire length of Egypt and Nubia, Ramesses II surpassed not only the Eighteenth Dynasty but every other period in Egyptian history. In that realm, he certainly fulfilled the dynasty’s aims to satiety.[3]

E.P. Uphill states,

Per Ramesses was probably the vastest and most costly royal residence ever erected by the hand of man. As can now be seen its known palace and official centre covered an area of at least four square miles, and its temples were in scale with this, a colossal assemblage forming perhaps the largest collection of chapels built in the pre-classical world by a single ruler at one time.[4]  

The unique feature about Per Ramesses is that it is the only city of imperial size in the ancient near east, rivalling Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes in splendour, known to have been entirely planned, built and fully completed under one King.[5]

However, most of what Ramesses II built failed to last.  The city of Pi-Ramesses was abandoned in c. 1130 BCE, after which it was dismantled.  The building materials were used to build the city of Tanis, which now lies in ruins, just as the Qur'an says:

We destroyed what Pharaoh and his people used to build and what they used to erect. (7:137)

Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli also add the following observation:

The fact that the expression ‘Pharaoh of the awtād’ occurs [in sūra 89] where Thamud’s practice of building houses in mountains is mentioned may suggest that this title also implicitly refers to the two temples at Abu Simbel in Nubia which were cut in the living rock of the mountainside. The first of these, the ‘Great Temple,’ is a huge building with two pairs of colossal seated figures of Ramesses II, each 18 meter high, flanking its entrance. These temples are considered to be Ramesses II's greatest building achievement.[6]

The Great Temple of Abu Simbel.  For more on the temples of Abu Simbel, see “The Identification Of Pharaoh During The Time Of Moses.”  Islamic-Awareness.org, 4 Jan. 2012.

Against this historical background, one can truly appreciate the following āya:

Pharaoh was most surely lofty in the land and most surely he was of the extravagant (musrifīn). (10:83)

---

[1] See Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli, 107-111.

[2] Clayton, P. A. (1994). Chronicle of the Pharaohs: The Reign ‑By‑Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson: Slovenia.  Cited in Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli, 110.  Emphasis added.

[3] Kitchen, K. A. (1982). Pharaoh Triumphant: The Life and Times of Ramesses II King of Egypt, Aris & Phillips ltd: Warminster.  Cited in Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli, 110.  Emphasis added.

[4] E. P. Uphill, “Pithom And Raamses: Their Location And Significance,” Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 1968, Volume 27, Number 4, p. 299.  Qtd. in “The Identification Of Pharaoh During The Time Of Moses.”  Islamic-Awareness.org, 4 Jan. 2012.  Accessed 12 Feb. 2015.

[5] E. P. Uphill, The Temples Of Per Ramesses, 1984, Aris & Phillips, Warminster: England, p. 228.  Qtd. in “The Identification of Pharaoh.”

[6] Fatoohi and Al-Dargazelli, 110.