Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Concerning the ancient Egyptian religion during the time of the Pharaohs, the Qur'an reports
three interesting statements. Firstly, when Prophet Moses calls Pharaoh to worship one true God,
the call is rejected. Instead Pharaoh collects his men and proclaims that he is their Lord, most
high.
Hath the story of Moses reached thee? Behold, thy Lord did call to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa, "Go thou
to Pharaoh for he has indeed transgressed all bounds: And say to him, Wouldst thou that thou shouldst be
purified (from sin)? - And that I guide thee to thy Lord, so thou shouldst fear Him?'" Then did (Moses) show
him the Great Sign. But (Pharaoh) rejected it and disobeyed (guidance); Further, he turned his back, striving
hard (against God). Then he collected (his men) and made a proclamation, Saying, "I am your Lord, Most
High". [Qur'an 79:15-24]
Secondly, when Moses goes to Pharaoh with clear signs, they are rejected as being "fake".
Pharaoh then addresses his chiefs by saying that he knows of no god for them except him.
Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god /God do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38]
The last[Thirdly] statement comes in connection with the victory of Prophet Moses over the
magicians of Egypt. Here the chiefs of Pharaoh say to him that this victory of Moses over the
magicians could result in an abandonment of you (i.e., Pharaoh) and your gods (Arabic: wa
yadaraka wa lihataka) in favour of the God of Moses.
And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: "Do you leave Musa and his people to make mischief in the land and
to forsake you and your gods/Gods?" He said: "We will slay their sons and spare their women, and surely we
are masters over them." [Qur'an 7:127]
However, according to Christian missionaries, the statement reported in the Qur'an 28:38 is in
"direct contradiction" to Qur'an 7:127.
In other words, the Pharaoh claims that he is the only god for his people, the Egyptians, in direct
contradiction to 7:127 where the chiefs of his people express concern that Moses' victory could lead to the
downfall of their traditional Egyptian gods (in the plural).
In order to support their claim of "direct contradiction", they quote Muhammad Asad, a wellknown Qur'an translator, who considers that the Qur'an 28:38 should not be "taken literally" as
the Egyptians also worshipped many gods. Given the fact that Asad is better known for his
translation of the Qur'an rather than his scholarship in the religion of ancient Egypt, the
missionaries then go on to explain the alleged "discrepancy" without any recourse to reliable,
verifiable historical sources. As one navigates the jumbled maze of verbiage one encounters
apparently innocuous questions such as:
[1]
Did the Egyptians have many gods or only one god? Since this may not have been the same at all times, we
would have to ask more specifically: What was the religion of the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus?
[These we have borrowed from Islamic Awareness]
The question is that why the missionaries have used such material to shew that there are internal
contradictions in Holy Quran.? This is because their enmity of Quran has reached to its maximum. If such a
problem has been in their beloved books they would have tried to solve the problem instead of claiming
objections as one may see in the case of several objections on their beloved books.We do hope that even
Christian scholars of major Christian sects like Catholism , Orthodox , and Protestant , shall second us that
these objections on the Text of Aya:t are wrong and incorrect.
www.Islamic- awareness .org have tried to make response it its own way and we have tried to response in
another way.
We have tried to discuss the problem in another way.
The Basic Error in the Objection:=
The missionaries have some how assumed that the Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Egyptian Religion
[AER] were as opposites as in Semitic Religions [SR] nounly [namely] Judaism,Christianity and Islam which
are Pure Monotheistic Religions. Thus all the cases of claims of Contradictions are based on the basic
assumption that the Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] was a Pure Polytheism. Ifthis assumption is wrong and
incorrect then all the claims of contradiction are not only falsified but disproved.
AER is some how a Henotheism or
ignis, and the English ignite); and so forth. Each individual worshiper would know,
and might use, several different poems to different Gods. Always there was an
awareness of the multiplicity of the gods. At time of war, or drought, one prayed to
Indra; in a sacrifice, one invoked Agni (the sacrificial fire); and so forth. We can
detect both what might be called PERSONAL polytheism (one person worshipping
several gods) and Communal polytheism (several people worshipping several gods
and respecting, or at the very least acknowledging the existence of, one anothers
gods).The same is true of Ancient Egyptian Religion.
2 But the polytheism of Vedic religion sometimes functioned as a kind of Serial
Monotheism [SM]that the Vedic scholar Friedrich Max Mller (1823-1900) named
Henotheism or Kathenotheism, the worship of a number of gods, one at a time,
regarding each as the supreme, or even the only, god while you are talking to him.
Thus, one Vedic poem will praise a god and chalk up to his account the credit for
separating heaven and earth, propping them apart with a pillar, but another Vedic
poem will use exactly the same words to praise another god. (In addition, each god
would have characteristics and deeds that were his alone; no one but Indra kills the
demonic serpent of drought.) Bearing in mind the way in which the metaphor of
adultery has traditionally been used by monotheistic religions to stigmatize
polytheism (whoring after other gods), and used by later Hinduism to characterize
the love of god (as in the Bengali tradition of Krishna and Radha), we might regard
this attitude as a kind of theological parallel to serial monogamy, or, if you prefer,
open hierogamos:
You, Vishnu, are the only god I've ever worshiped; you are the only one. You,
Varuna, are the only god I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.
You, Juliet, are the only woman I've ever loved; you are the only one. This the
concept which cannot be understand if the believes are divided into only two sets:1)
Pure Monotheism. 2)Pure Polytheism.
Since there are some more sets of believes.
When a God/god is discussed he as discussed as IF he is the Only God/god and
there is No God/god beside that God/god, even if multitudes of Gods/gods [of either
gender] are believed.
One must consider such words in light of Henotheism, Kathenpotheism
andMonolatrism. The may be a type of Polytheism but Certainly not Pure
Polytheism. For sake of simplicity the word Polytheism is only used for the Pure
Polytheism in this entire essay or article.
The idea of the [only] one as applied to several different members of a
polytheistic pantheon also appears in some of the later verses of the Rig Veda:
They call it Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and it is the heavenly bird that flies. The
3
wise speak of what is One in many ways; they call it Agni, Yama, Matarishvan.
[1.164.46] 1 The idea that one could choose between members of a pantheon of
gods was integral to Vedic religion. For example, each stanza of one Vedic poem
ends with the questioning refrain, Who is the god whom we should worship with
the oblation? 3 Thus: He by whom the awesome sky and the Earth were made
firm, by whom the dome of the sky was propped up, and the sun, who measured out
the middle realm of space who is the god whom we should worship with the
oblation? [10.121] The Atharva Veda, too, a fourth Veda composed in around 900
BCE, asked not only who the god was, but how many gods there might be: Who
and how many were those Gods who fastened together the chest and neck of the
Primeval Man? How many fixed his breasts? Who formed his elbows? How many
joined together ribs and shoulders? [10.2.4] The texts that followed the Vedas,
called the Brahmanas (mythological, philosophical, and ritual glosses on the Vedas),
were composed at a time (c. 800 BCE) when the Brahmin priests had taken on
greater control and influence; troubled by the open-ended refrain of the Rig Vedic
poem, they invented a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun Who (Ca\Ka,
cognate with the Latin quis, French qui,INTERESTINGLY there is a dogma of Ka in
Ancient Egypt as well.). Read back into the Vedic poem (as it was in later Vedic
commentaries 2 ), this resulted in an affirmative statement: Indeed, Who is the god
whom we should honor with the oblation, somewhat reminiscent of the famous
Abbott and Costello routine ("Who's on first?"). This sacerdotal arrogance closed
down some of those openings through which fresh theological air had flowed in the
Veda. The question became the answer.
In this way it is clear that AER was not a Polytheism but a Henotheism .In the ancient Egyptian
Religion the same idea was used . The Egyptian Monarchs were believed to be Gods or Gods
Incarnates [Incarnation(s)Of God]. In this case when Pharaoh claimed "O Chiefs! no god do I know
for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38], he did say it in the very same sense as in Henothiesm religions.
You, Vishnu, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one. You,
Varuna, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.
So it is some how evident that there are some common elements in all Henotheistic religions, examples of
which has been provided.
So if Pharaoh said that he was the only God/god he said more or less in the Henotheistic meaning and not in
the Monotheistic meaning.
In Upanishads one find a Monism which is sometime confused by Monotheism. But they are different. There
are several Gods mentioned in Vedas. But how many Gods are there. Upnishad provides an other reply.
Upnishad says
The vague monism of the Vedas was sharpened by the more systematized Vedantic
monism of the Upanishads. Coming back to Egypt from India it is some what clear
that Egyptian also believed in One God along with multitudes of Gods/gods.
Ancient Egyptians often did chose to worship some or one of the many Egyptian gods/Gods, but
at the same time they continue to acknowledge the existence of the other Egyptian gods whom
they did not worship. This type of worship of one god/God (OR some gods/Gods) among many
gods/Gods is not Monotheism But Henotheism ,rather a form of Henothiesm, since there are
several forms of it. Henotheism is the belief in and the worship of one god while accepting the
existence of other gods.[or worshipping some gods while accepting other gods which are not
worshipped . This may be termed as Poly-Henotheism or Polyhenotheism].
It is pointed out that the many gods /Godsof Ancient Egyptians were simply various forms, appearences,
culminations,menifestations,incarnations and emanations) of a Single Supreme Being (God). This is where the idea
of monotheism comes in. A belief in a Single Supreme Being is Monotheism. But the belief that the many gods is
Polythiesim even if they are all included in the One, Single, Supreme Being. Therefore, , this Dogma of
Manifestation is Poly-Monotheistic. These Egyptian /Gods/gods eg Horus ,Osiris, even Ra himself, were believed to be
"manifestations, , or personified attributes of Only One God", the invisibleSupreme Being [ God/god]. These[Less Than
Supreme Being] were not believed to be separate gods, but incarnations or manifestations of one and same Supreme
Being[God/god] the one and only God/god, inseparable [in a meaning] from Him. A similar confusion is found in some
Hindu Texts and Sects say Vaishnavism.
The confusion partly arises because, unlike most religious traditions, Vaishnavism acknowledges a form
of Polymorphic Monotheism [which is actually not a type of Monotheism but Henotheism].. That is to say,
it holds that there is one Supreme BeingGod/god who appears in numerous manifestations, each distinct
and unique. These manifestations, moreover, are considered equal and yet hierarchical as well. They are
one, and yet different. Yet it may be said that all forms[ Word FormNot in the meaning of Essence/Nature]
of God are one, as in the following quote from Srila Prabhupada: How ever in Ancient Egypt it may be
differentiated that the Manifestations were not necessary Equal.
Some traces of trichotomy are even found in Hinduism .One such example is as follow:=
Jayadeva Goswami's Gita Govinda (circa twelth century) also proclaims Lord Krishna's primary position
among incarnations [of God], reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam. After listing ten prominent
incarnations of Vishnu in the book's first chapter, Jayadeva concludes by stating that Krishna is their
source. In fact, Jayadeva implies Krishna's preeminence throughout the Gita Govinda and states it
explicitly in Act 1, Verse 16 (daakriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah): "O Krishna, I offer my obeisances
unto You, who assume these ten spiritual forms."
The same concept appears in ancient Egypt at particular times.
5:= At first glance it appears that Monotheism and Polytheism not only grew up
side by side in Ancient Egypt but the also learned to live together, to grant one
anothers existence.But this is a birds eye view. A deeper study implies that it was a
Form of Henotheism which did developed in Egypt , as it appeared in Ancient India
[AI].
Monism in Egypt acknowledged the reality of the gods/Gods of the pantheon but
accorded them a secondary, illusory status in comparison with the enduring, real
status of the underlying monistic God. Thus like many gods/Gods of the Hindu
Pantheon were often grouped under a monistic umbrella/armour, so that all
gods/Gods are said to be aspects of one particular god/God (sometimes Vishnu,
sometimes Shiva) or, more often, aspects of the universal, ineffable Brahman or
Barmh) the same may be said for Egyptian God and Gods/gods . As in India at other
times, individual, effable gods/Gods are said to be the manifestations of the true
god/God that is without qualities (nir-guna) [Barmh/Barhaman], but the
manifestations are characters with qualities (sa-guna)with names, adventures,
distinct appearances.
All of these theological variations, and many more, appear in the Puranas, the
encyclopedic Sanskrit (and, later, vernacular) texts that expound the myths, rituals,
6
6: It is the Bhagavatam, in fact, that makes the most famous declarative statement about Krishna's
primary position IN RELATION TO OTHER
MANIFESTATIONS,APPEARENCES,CULMINATIONS,INCARNATIONS OF GOD.:
Prabhupada's commentary on that text is clear: "In this particular stanza Lord Sri Krishna, the Personality
of Godhead, is distinguished from all other incarnations." And later in that purport: "According to Srila Jiva
Goswami's statement, in accordance with authoritative sources, Lord Krishna is the source of all other
incarnations. It is not that Lord Krishna has any source of incarnation."
According to Sri Jiva Goswami, one of the patriarchs of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, this verse
(krishnas tu bhagavan svayam) is theparibhasa-sutra of the entire 18,000verse Bhagavatam. A paribhasa-sutra states the central theme of a literary work. In his Krishnasandarbha(Anuccheda 73), Sri Jiva elaborates, writing that the many verses of theBhagavatam might be
compared to an army, with this verse the monarch who commands that army. He further shows that,
according to this verse and many others, Krishna is the original form of God and the ideal object of pure
devotional service.
Jayadeva Goswami's Gita Govinda (circa twelth century) also proclaims Lord Krishna's primary position
among incarnations, reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam.
After listing ten prominent incarnations
7
of Vishnu in the book's first chapter, Jayadeva concludes by stating that Krishna is their source. In fact,
Jayadeva implies Krishna's preeminence throughout the Gita Govinda and states it explicitly in Act 1,
Verse 16 (daakriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah): "O Krishna, I offer my obeisances unto You, who
assume these ten spiritual forms."
[10:4-5]
[C] I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me.
The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with
all their hearts.
[10:8]
These words cannot be said even by Vishu or Sheu . Since only Barmh or Brahman Hath the right to say
it. But If Krishna who is a human Incarnation of Superhuman/angelic Incarnation then the only possible
way to understand these words is be supposing the prerequisite that Incarnations whether prime or
secondary or tertiary can be predicated to the Barmh or Barhaman.
[D] Arjuna
said: You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and
purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal divine person. You are the primal God,
transcendental and original, and You are the unborn and all-pervading beauty. All the
great sages such as Nrada, Asita, Devala, and Vysa proclaim this of You, and now
You Yourself are declaring it to me.
[10:12-13
This is sufficient enough to prove that atleast some Hindus interpret this verse as the
predications stated above.
[E]]
Indeed, You alone know Yourself by Your own potencies, O origin of all, Lord of all
beings, God of gods, O Supreme Person, Lord of the universe![10:25]
9
10
[F] I am the Self, O Gudkea, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning,
the middle and the end [ALPHA AND OMEGA]of all beings.
11
12
better the religions [with all their cults and sects] that we find in ancientIndia and
Ancient Egypt then the simple Pure Polytheism.This type is termed as Summodeism.
7:= Reason:
Even If Krishna is either a unique Manifestation/Form/Hypostase of Supreme Being yet at several times
Krishna Speaks as if He is the Very Supreme Being Himself and not just as a Manifestation/Hypostasis in
the Essence,Nature,Form,SubstanceExistence (Beingness) and Godhead of the Supreme Being. The
only reason which may be given is that each one of the Essence,Nature etc Of Supreme Being is highly
communicable to each one of the Forms, Manifestations, Hypostases, Culminations, Appearances et
cetera of the Supreme Being. A manifestation or an Incarnation or a Culmination was predicated to the
Being which Was Manifested or Culminated or Inacarnated, and vice versa. This was the reason that
when an Incarnation like Krishna conversed with his devotees say Arjun(a), he spoke as if He is the Very
Supreme Being Itself not just an Incarnation of the Supreme Being.
Coming back to Egypt it may be said that Pharaoh was not a Philosopher yet he did know his
Henotheistic believes and his courtiers must also know their Henotheistic believes. Pharaoh must have
known his believes and he must have known the Henotheistic Religion of Egypt. It need not to be a
Philosopher to believe in a religion whether it is Polytheistic or Monotheistic or Henotheistic or
Cathenotheistic etc. Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Indians both did not believe in the plurality of Supreme
Beings.
What Pharaoh did say was that he was the greatest Manifestation Of Supreme Being. Pharaoh at that
was speaking as if he was not a Manifestation of Supreme
Being but the very Supreme Being Himself.
12
13
8:= Monism is some time considered as a kind of Monotheism. But Monism may be Polytheistic or
Monotheistic or Henotheistic or Kathenotheistic. Similarly Monotheism may be Monistic or Non Monistic,
Polytheism may be Monistic or Non Monistic etc. The same is true for Pantheism and Spinozaism.
9:= Pharaohs
[3]
In ancient Egypt provides a very important piece of Information [the Great Temple at Abu
Simbel, SeeFigure 2]. It does shew the "Lord of Two Lands Usermare-setpenre" (= Ramesses
II) offering to "Ramesses-meryamun" (= Ramesses II). Obviously, Ramesses II is worshipping
Ramesses II here. However, we also note that the worshipper and the one who is worshipped
have two different names and that these names are pronomen and nomen of Ramesses II,
respectively. A closer look at the iconography reveals that the worshipper and he who is
worshipped are not identical. He, to whom the offering is made, is adorned with a sun-disk and
has a curved horn around his ear, depicting his divinity. Therefore, Ramesses II is not simply
worshipping himself, but his divine/Divine Self/self.
[18]
In
other words the Self of incarnation of God and Self of Incarnated God are in close relation
with one another. This is just an attempt to represent this concept in form of picture.
As one can see from the examples just discussed, the Pharaoh exalted himself as Lord. From an
Incarnation of God to the Incarnated God Himself .That is he used to predicate his self to the
Supreme Being.The institution of Lordship in ancient Egyptian belief cannot be underestimated.
It was the way in which ordinary Egyptians understood the residence of their gods on earth.
[19]
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. [5]
13
14
worshippers that Krishna is not only predicated to Vishnu but also to the
Barmh or Brahma:n the Supreme Being of Hinduism. The same it is the case that the
very same was true for Egyptian Gods in AER.
DEIFICATION
OF
PHARAOHS
A]
APharaohs were believed to be Divine from the very beginning.How ever the
emphasis on their Godhood was different in different times.
But from early times the epithet netjer (ntr) referred directly to the king as a god/God.
Sometimes the term occurred alone; at other times it appeared with modifying or
14
15
descriptive words. Another epithet from early times referred to the king as a
descendant of a god s R, son of Re.
Throughout the Old Kingdom the kings were said to have the powers of the
Gods/gods: Hu (divine utterance), Sia (divine knowledge) and Heka (divine energy
and knowledge of magic).
The God/god who was generally believed in the incarnation of the kings was Re, the
creator and preserver of the world.Althouth he was himself a Menifestation of the
Supreme Being as it must be kept in mind.
Some Texts found in Pyramids inform that Heavenly Gods/gods could be worried
,warned, threatened, or hurt ,rewarded or punished according to their acts and doings
in regard to Pharaohs of Egypt. For example see Utterance 485 in Papy I.
It is found that the Heavenly Gods/gods Who will take the Pharaoh [Earthly God/god
According to AER] shall live and ,endure. Bulls shall be slaughtered for them and he
shall ascend to the Mansion of Horus (which is in skies, as a reward from the
Pharaoh).
But strange punishments are declared for those Gods/gods who do not make the
Pharaoh to ascend to skies, as no sacrifice, not possessing of leopard skin and even
preventing them from ascension to the Mansion stated above.
From this perspective it clearly exposes that the king was honored as an
Incarnation God/god and the incarnate powers of the Heavenly Some Heavenly
Gods/gods. Some heavenly Gods/gods were honored in the human king. Human
God/god figures were respected as Incarnation of Celestial god-like /God-like
powers.Yet they may be considered as lesser Gods/gods than the heavenly and
celestial Gods/gods. Human Gods/gods [Pharaohs] were considered lesser then the
Heavenly Gods/gods in general, and some heavenly Gods/gods were considered less
than the other heavenly Gods/gods.
But the heavenly Gods/gods were not believed to be immortal. Death and Mortality
were possible for them. Isis threatened Seth to eat his one of the two limbs. This
proves that injuries were possible for them. A s a big fish eats the small fish a greater
God/Goddess/god/goddess could eat the small
15 one (at least in parts).
16
The Pharaoh God/god Unas was said to eat some Gods/gods in after life.
These shew that Pharaohs were believed to be lesser than some celestial Gods/gods
particularly those whose incarnations they were believed to be but they were
considered greater and more Powerful than at least some of them. This also does shew
beyond any shadow of doubt that even the heavenly Gods/gods were believed to be
perishable ,mortal and annihilatable.
There were instances when a living king did declared himself fully Divine/divine
within their lifetimes. . . . The living Deification of Amenophis III and Rameses II
during their reigns are certainly attested.
In the case of Amenophis III we find that the king began the increasing solarization of
Egypts major cults and of his own kingship. According to Raymond Johnson the
king declared himself deified and merged with the solar disc, the Aten. According to
Shaw, monuments dating from his reign name Rameses himself as the god.
We find the king taking divine prerogatives in his representations, such as those
showing him with the curved beard of the gods, with the horns of Amun and wearing
the lunar crescent and sun disc or presenting an offering before a statue of himself. In
the inner shrine of the great rock cut temples of Abu Simbel, Rameses III was to do
likewise. Rameses II did have four statues cut to represent Ptah, Re-Horakhte, Oriris
(himself) and Amun-Re, seated side by side. That the king is not simply depicted in
the company of the gods is clear, since the figures are shown as incontrovertible
equals,rather greater then them.
Since It has even been suggested by some that in this group the king might be
represented as an embodiment of all these national gods.A human Incarnation of not
just one God/god but a number of Gods/gods. Implying more Powerful God/god then
all ofGods/gods present there.
But it is a more powerful explanation that he considered himself as an incarnation of
Supreme Being whose manifestations were the rest of Gods/gods in the representation
stated above.
16
17
During the time of Ramesses II, the deification/Deification of Pharaoh reached its MAXIMUM
as evidenced in some cult statues as well as supporting hieroglyphs and papyri. Keeping this in
mind, let us now look at the two statements made in the Qur'an, i.e., Pharaoh - the god of Egypt and his gods/Gods..So Some Pharaohs did exalted their positions from an average God/god to
more glorified rather the incarnation of the Supreme Being or Re.
[6]
Monotheistic Tendencies
Supreme Being in Henotheism may be seen in some Indian cults which do believe that Barmh or
Barhaman is the Supreme Being.
In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is without attributes and strictly impersonal. It can be best
described as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. Some Hindu sects do
worship many Gods/gods. Some Hindu cults worship Them is different from them and other
ancient people say the Hittites or the Mediterranean people. They believe in different types of
Manifestaions and Incarnations of the Supreme Being. They believe that Supreme Being is but
Only Supreme Truth indivisible and Eternal. Some Egyptian Scholars did claim that this type of
Henotheistic Supreme Being was also the belief of Ancient Egypt.
According to Budge:
The late Dr. H. Brugsch collected a number of the epithets [published in Religion pages 99-101]
which are applied to the gods, from texts of all periods; and from these we may see that the ideas
and beliefs of the Egyptians concerning God were almost identical with those of the Hebrew and
Muhammadans at later periods. When classified these epithets read thus [Budge provides more
examples, well just stick to a few] :-
1]
God is One and alone, and none other existeth with Him; God is the One, the One Who hath
made all things.
2]
God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the great spirit of the Egyptians, the divine
spirit.
3]
God is from the beginning, and He hath been from the beginning; He hath existed from of old
and was when nothing else had being. He existed when nothing else existed, and what existeth He
created after He hand come into being. He is the father of beginnings.
4]
God is the eternal One, He is eternal and infinite; and endureth for ever and aye; He hath endured
for countless ages, and He shall endure to all eternity.
17
5]
18
i) According to E.de Rouge , the Unity of a Supreme Being and Self Existing Being in His Eternity,
A Limitless and Eternal Reproduction thereby as God/god, the Attributing of the Creation of the
World and All Living Beings to the Supreme [Being] God/god the Impartiality and the Dogma of
Reward and Punishment [all are Attributed to the Supreme Being]. (reworded, or original see:The
Gods of Egyptians or Studies in Egyptian Mythology by Emest Alfred Wallis Budge}
ii)According to Mariette , at the heat (centre) of the Egyptian Pantheon sours of a God/god
[Supreme Being] Who is One ,Impartial,Unreachable,Invisible,Hidden,Unaccessable,Creator of
the Earth .One Who Existed Before All Things Which Exist. One That Represent the Pre and
Abstract Idea Of Deity [I,E athe Supreme Being] .
One That is not Specialized by any one of the personage of Egyptian Pantheon.
iii)According to the Proves presented by M.Pierret the found texts prove that Egyptian believed in
One God/god Who Was without a Second [even in the Company of Lesser Gods/gods], Infinite and
Eternal.
We have now to consider the visible emblem, and the type and symbol of God, namely the Sungod Ra, who was worshiped in Egypt in prehistoric times. According to the writings of the
Egyptians, there was a time when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when nothing had being
except the boundless primeval water, which was, however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this
condition the primeval water remained for a considerable time, notwithstanding that it contained
within it the germs of the things which afterwards came into existence in this world itself.
iv) No Egyptian God/god other than this God/god is the personification of this God/god not even
Re/Ra was regarded as the personification . How ever at times some of them were considered as
His Personification.
iv) Genesis of Egyptian Texts informs that:=
The spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for creative activity, and having uttered the word,
the world sprang straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in the mind
of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its creation. The next act of creation was
the form of a germ, or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form was
embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.
LATTER the spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for creative activity, and having uttered the
word, the world sprang straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in the
mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its creation. The next act of creation
was the form of a germ, or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form
was embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.
19
According to Hornung:
19
20
21
continent away, yet every thing shews the sane tendency in Ancient
Egypt if not with Certainly then with some probability; a probability
which if not greater than its rivals probability then not less then it or
not more less then it. If its rival is assigned by the probability of 0.6 it
cannot be assigned by any value less then 0.4.
Hornung, Erik (1982) [1971]. Conceptions of God in Egypt: The One
and the Many. Translated by John Baines.
COMMENTS:=
A]If There still be a Supreme Being with a number of Lesser Gods/gods in which the Supreme
Being Manifests in Ancient Egyptian Religion then this tendency is not Monotheism but
Henotheism.
Scholars like Brugsch etc.found some similarities between the Supreme Being of Egyptian
Henotheism and Supreme Being of Monotheistic Religions and they confused Monotheism and
Henotheism in Ancient Egypt. An Eternal Omnific Supreme Being does not prove Monotheism.
As we have seen in Some Indian Sects and cults that the also believe in a Single Supreme Being
which they name as Brahman or Barmh. See above.
It is incorrect to believe that Polytheism demands plurality of such Supreme Beings. Although
some Indian Cults do believe in Eternity of Spirits and Atoms but they do not consider them as
Supreme Beings. To Believe in Plurality Of Supreme Beings is a rere case even in Polytheism.
Indian Henotheistic Religion may be explained as follow:=
21
22
They do believe in Manifestations and Incarnations of Supreme Being but the Divinity is the
Quality of the Supreme Being. Each Manifestation is God/god in regard to the Divinity of the
Supreme Being and is sometime predicated to the Supreme Being. So plurality of
Gods/gods[Manifestation Gods/gods] with the only Divinity common to them, the Divinity of
the Supreme Being.
The same may be safely be said for the Egyptian Supreme Being without confusing it with
Monotheistic Supreme Being. So the belief in a Supreme Being not a Sufficient Condition of
Monotheism as incorrectly assumed by some Egyptologists. But as in some types of Monotheism
there are Polytheistic tendencies , there are Monotheistic tendencies in some Henotheistic
Religions. It is the source of a number of fallacies that Polytheistic and Henotheistic religions
deny a Supreme Being as in Monotheistic Religions.It is a sourse an other number of fallicies
that Polytheistic and Henotheistic Religions believe in a number of Supreme Beings.
B] If there was no concept of the Supreme Being in Egypt then No Egyptian God/god was
Eternal, Self Existing and Uncreated. In this case the first one [at least one] of them must have
emerged from nothingness without being made. That is neither made nor eternal. In this case the
post powerful one of them had his incarnations and manifestations. [Probably the one who was
Neither Made not Eternal].
C] It is more likely that they did believe in an Eternal Supreme Being analogous to Barmh of
Indian Cults and sects. One may see the Hymn of Creation of Vedas which proves a Supreme
Being Eternal and Uncreated. How ever there may be a number of differences between
Henotheistic Supreme Being and Monotheistic Supreme Being. But if a Hentheistic Supreme
Being is Eternal and Not Made then such a Supreme Being must be greater than all Not Eternal
Gods/gods, which may be the Incarnations and Manifestations of the Henotheistic Supreme
Being.
D] The predication of an Incarnation or a Manifestation to the Supreme Being is a normal
practice in Henotheistic religions since an Incarnation or a Manifestation was believed to be
communicable to the Supreme Being and not separate or alien to the Supreme Being otherwise it
would have ceased to be a Manifestation or Incarnation.
This is the difference between a normal human being and an incarnation human being.
One may see Krisna worshipper do not consider each and every human being as a Divine
Incarnation but the believe Krisna was so.
The even consider the human body of Krishna as imperishable and immutable, which is
perpetual and doesnot change with time.
22
23
A number [not all] Hindus regard their Gods/gods andGoddesses/ goddesses as manifestations
of the Supreme Being, Brahman/Barms. In the Vedantic schools of Hinduism, Brahman is the
name of Indian Supreme Being given to the concept of the immutable, infinite,unmade,
immanent and transcendent Being that is the Divine Ground of all Beings . This Supreme Being
is the Cosmic Spirit , and is regarded to be Genderless, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. It can be
described as infinite Truth, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. There is a remarkable
similarity between this set of attributes and those ascribed by Christians, Muslims and Jews to
the one God of classical monotheism. But still it is a Henotheistic Supreme Being.Each
Manifestation of the Supreme Being is God/god in regard to the Divinity of the Supreme Being
and not by a Divinity of itself. This is a Monotheistic Tendency which transforms Polytheism in
to Henotheism.
Coming back to Egyptian Gods/gods and the Ancient Egyptian Religion we once again
summarize the discussion as follow:=
First they believed in a number of Gods/gods in their Pantheon.
Second they approach to a God/god as the Only God/god while he was the Grammatical Second
Person to a Speaker. A God/god as the Unique God, the Only God and beside whom there is no
God/god beside that God/god.
If there is a Concept of Supreme Being Ancient Egypt OUT SIDE ATENISM, the Concept may
have some dissimilarities from the concept of Supreme Being of Semitic Religions , and may
have some similarities as well.
But if it is supposed that there was no such concept even then this tendency is undeniable.
Even then Pharaoh was considered as an Incarnation of a Powerful Celestial God/god.
We opine that the tendencies of Monotheism were confused by Monotheism by scholars like
Brugsch etc.
But one may also note that Denial of Monotheism is different from the Dinial of a Surpreme
Being,
It requires a separate discussion and debates are likely to be continued.
Those who want to see some more discussion may read books like Egypt, Trunk of the tree, and
the book Vol I and II ; AND The Gods of Egypt or studies in Egyptian Mythology etc.]
23
24
As ALL-H is the Omniscient Supreme Existent He Doeth Know every thing and many things in
the history which did cease to exist in past and are neither conveyed to the natter generation nor
received by them so that there is no evidence from this channel, can be directly narrated by
Omniscient Supreme Perfect Existent ALL-H . This is not a contradiction with any historical
record what so ever.
Only atheists can deny this Possibility and Contingency since they disbelieve in Divinity and
Omnipotence of Divinity.
10:=On microscopic study of DIFFERENT TYPES of concepts about God/god and Gods/gods
may confusions of Missionaries are proved to be due to wrong ,incorrect and false assumption.
If they are not deliberately confusing Egyptian Henotheism ,Katheneism and Egyptian Monistic
Henotheism with Polytheism they are unintentionally doing the same. As they have no sympathy
with same way they use to study they verses of Nuvum Testamentum and Biblica Hebraica.
There are several reason for their ruthless attitude towards Qura:n and Ah:adi:s , but if they
had adopted a logical approach they would have not made such objections.
11:= In many languages of the world a single word is used for two
case sensitive words God and god [ plural : Gods and gods] . This
cause a hidden confusion which and shift in meanings with out
being deducted. The best way to overcome the problem is to write
God/ god or god/GodFor singular AND Gods/gods or gods/
Gods for plural.
12:=
Question: How alike are Indian Heneotheism and Egyptian Henotheism? And is
there any way in which the Egyptians could realistically have had significant
24
25
contact with Indians, enough to borrow elements from it or versa?, Or they have
been influenced by Indians or vice versa?
To answer the first, Indian Henotheism differs in several significant ways from
Egyptian religion. 1) There were and there still are multitudes of Indian Cults
and Sects which did and still do differ in the explanations of their version of
Henetheism. There may be a number of sects in Egyptian Religons but not only
less in number but their differences may be less significant. 2) Egyptian
Henotheism did not evoluted since it died latter with the end of Pharoahs. But
Indian Henotheism is still evoluting.
3) Natures of Culminations,Incarnations,Manifestations may be different in
between the majorities ofAncient Egypt and Ancient India.
Comparision:=
25
26
As it is shewn that Egyptian Religion was not only Different from Pure
Monotheism but also from Pure Polytheism, it is also a mistake to consider it as
Monistic Monthiesm. It was in its form
27
28:38]only means
:= I am your only God/god. Such staqtements must be taken in Henotheistic and Kathenotheistic meaning
and not in Pure Monotheistic meaning.
The very same sense or meaning of Henotheism or Kathenotheism or Monolatry. So this is not a Contradiction
in Quran but Qura:n is narrating the Monotheistic Tendencies in Egyptian Henotheism.
28
[As an Only God/god the God/god doeth not know any other God/god . Pharaoh claimed not to
know any other God/god for his subjects Henotheistically and certainly not Monotheistically.]
The very same meaning Thou Art X Thou Art the Only God/god which I worship; Thou Art Y Thou art the
Only God/god I worship. If a person believer of Henotheism or Kathenotheism who is also a claimant of being
God/god can also say I am the only God/god of You [You: in plural meaning]
And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: "Do you leave Musa[Moshe/Moses] and his people to make mischief
in the land and to forsake you and your gods/Gods?" .. [Qur'an 7:127]
At this time the Courtiers, Chiefs and nobilities were also speaking not as Pure Polytheists [PP]as incorrectly
assumed by missionaries and those who have missed the point, but as Henotheists and Kathenothiests.Since
these two also allow to state a number of Gods/gods as well in a single sentence.It may appear contradictory
to a Pure Monotheist or a Pure Polytheist yet it does not appear contradictory to a Henotheist at all.
At one time a Henotheist may acknowledge a number of Gods/gods and at other time claim any one of them
as the only God/god , [ some time this may be explained as he is the One that is Manifested in a number of
Gods/gods including himself as well in the manifestations]. This does not mean that he is not the
Manifestation, but it only means that the Supreme Being may be called by the nouns of His manifestations
and any one of the manifestation may be ascribed by the qualities and attributes of the Supreme Being of
Whom he is the manifestation. But at other times the distinction between Manifestation and the Manifested
are maintained and are considered. This makes things very clear that Qura:n is not contradicting It Self but
stating different statements of the Henotheistic Religion of Ancient Egypt.
We have quoted from ancient India just to prove that such believes are not just inventions to defend Quranic
Truth but did exist and do exist in the world.
28
29
If there has been no evidence in the least meaning of the word evidence, that there are some similarities
between Asian India and African Egypt in their respective religious believes even then the objection of
Missionaries would have been incorrect, since it is based upon the baseless, and proof-less supposition that
Ancient Egyptian Religion was a Pure Polytheism. Since in pure polytheism the claims like (i) Only One
God/god, (ii) Several Gods/gods contradict each other.
But in Henotheism such statements are not contradictory.
So if it can be supposed with out any evidence that Ancient Egyptian Religion was PP then it can be equally
supposed even if there was no evidence that It was a form of Henotheism. So the probability of each one
would have been exactly equal.
But in presence of evidences it is not the case.
So the objection based on a false supposition is it self a proof that Missionaries have committed a great error.
AkhenAten was a monotheistic Pharaoh. Even the Egyptian Monotheistic Pharaohs God is spoken by Akhen
Aten as if God/god Aten is the Pharaoh himself who is the Incarnation, Embodiment of Aten. So if a
Monotheistic Pharaoh could have such an approach, a Henotheistic Pharaoh would have greater tendency to
declair himself as an Incarnation of God [Supreme Being] or the God Incarnate or Incarnated God or
IncarnatenGod.
For sake of an argument if he was this Pharaoh then this means that at the time of
Moses there were still some Courtiers who were Henotheists. Pharaoh had taken no
steps to convert them to his Monotheism at least up to that time.
The claim that the Pharaoh claimed to be the only God/god [ that he knew no other
God/god] in the Monotheistic meaning was interesting consequences. This
consequence is unacceptable.
The claim that Quran hath committed error in regard to the believes of Pharaoh and
his courtiers is as incorrect as the claim that Egyptian Monotheism is the cause of
Hebraic Monotheism .
29
30
.
SOME DEFINATIONS:
2]Monolatrism
Monolatrism or Monolary is belief in multiple deities/Deties
but worship of only one of THEM at a time as if the
worshipped One is the Only Deity at the time.
It is time dependent oneness.
3]Henotheism:=
31
31
32
Rig-Veda, Book 10
33
1. THEN was not non-existent[Asat] nor existent[Sat]: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond
it.
What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of
water?
2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's
divider.
That One Thing [Sanskrit Supreme Being], breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it
was nothing whatsoever.
3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos.
All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.
4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit.
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the nonexistent.
5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it?
There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder
6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this
creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into
being?
7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.
33
34
1. THE sacrifice drawn out with threads on every side, stretched by a hundred sacred ministers
and one,
This do these Fathers weave who hitherward are come: they sit beside the warp and cry, Weave
forth, weave back.
2 The Man extends it and the Man unbinds it: even to this vault of heaven hath he outspun, it.
These pegs are fastened to the seat of worship: they made the Sma-hymns their weaving
shuttles.
3 What were the rule, the order and the model? What were the wooden fender and the butter?
What were the hymn, the chant, the recitation, when to the God all Deities paid worship?
4 Closely was Gyatr conjoined with Agni, and closely Savitar combined with Usnih.
Brilliant with Ukthas, Soma joined Anustup: Br haspati's voice by Brhati was aided.
5 Virj adhered to Varun a and Mitra: here Tris t up day by day was Indra's portion.
Jagat entered all the Gods together: so by this knowledge men were raised to Rs is.
6 So by this knowledge men were raised to Rs i s, when ancient sacrifice sprang up, our Fathers.
With the mind's eye I think that I behold them who first performed this sacrificial worship.
7 They who were versed in ritual and metre, in hymns and rules, were the Seven Godlike Rs is.
Viewing the path of those of old, the sages have taken up the reins like chariot-drivers.
34
35
Comparision:=
Darby
Bible
Translation
And Pharaoh said, Who is Jehovah, to whose voice I am to hearken to let Israel go? I do not
know Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go.
King
James
2000
Bible
And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the
LORD, neither will I let Israel go
35
36
Jubilee
Bible
2000
And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go? I do not
know the LORD, neither will I let Israel go.
Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god /God do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38]
36