What's up everyone. We are doing a contest with T.I. and we are giving away $1200 a day for the next 10 days. Just wanted to give you all a heads up.
https://www.allhiphop.com/ti

Was there a second period of slaying the sons of the Israelites?

TX_Made713
TX_Made713 Members Posts: 3,954 ✭✭
edited May 2010 in R & R (Religion and Race)
The story of Moses’ confrontation with the Pharaoh of Egypt is a very prominent one in the Qur’an. It is told in nearly a dozen places, see this list. This story being retold so often, and its details being scattered in so many places, calls for comparing the different versions and discovering similarities and differences between the different versions of the story in the Qur'an as well as the similarities and differences between (the various versions of) the Qur'an and the Bible.

In Exodus 1:8 - 2:10 and Sura 28:1-13 we find the story of the birth of Moses. These two texts have plenty of differences and disagreements. However, the Qur'an agrees with the Bible that Moses was born at a time when the Pharaoh of Egypt had given the order to 🤬 all male infants of the Israelites; only female babies were allowed to live. The Bible gives a clear reason for this cruel decision of the Pharaoh (Exodus 1), while the Qur'an does not tell us why this command was given, except for calling Pharaoh a proud and evil man:

Verily, Fir'aun (Pharaoh) exalted himself in the land and made its people sects, weakening (oppressing) a group (i.e. Children of Israel) among them, killing their sons, and letting their females live. Verily, he was of the Mufsidun (i.e. those who commit great sins and crimes, oppressors, tyrants, etc.). S. 28:4 Al-Hilali & Khan

The Bible and the Qur'an agree that Moses was miraculously saved from this fate and grew up at the court of the Pharaoh. Later he killed a man (who had oppressed the Israelites) and had to flee from Egypt and lived in Midian. When Moses was an old man 🤬 spoke to Moses from within a burning bush. Moses was called to be 🤬 's messenger and was sent back to his people and to Pharaoh. Pharaoh didn't believe Moses and didn't obey 🤬 's message. There was then a confrontation between Moses and the Egyptian magicians in which the miracles of Moses proved to be more powerful than those of the sorcerers.

Then the Qur'an departs from the Biblical story in a major way. After the showdown of Moses against the sorcerers of Egypt in which the miracles of Moses are so convincing that the sorcerers afterwards believe in the 🤬 of Moses, and Pharaoh therefore punishing them for their betrayal (S. 7:113-126), we read again that Pharaoh gives the order to 🤬 the male infants of the Israelites:

The chiefs of Fir'aun's (Pharaoh) people said: "Will you leave Musa (Moses) and his people to spread mischief in the land, and to abandon you and your gods?" He said: "We will 🤬 their sons, and let live their women, and we have indeed irresistible power over them." S. 7:127 Al-Hilali & Khan

And indeed We sent Musa (Moses) with Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and a manifest authority, To Fir'aun (Pharaoh), Haman and Qarun (Korah), but they called (him): "A sorcerer, a liar!" Then, when he brought them the Truth from Us, they said: "🤬 the sons of those who believe with him and let their women live", but the plots of disbelievers are nothing but errors! S. 40:23-25 Al-Hilali & Khan

The Qur'an mentions the slaying of Israelite boys in these passages: al-Baqara 2:49, al-A`raf 7:127,141, Ibrahim 14:6, al-Qasas 28:4, Ghafir 40:25. Among those, S. 28:4 refers to the slaying around the time of Moses' birth, S. 7:127 and 40:23-25 speak of an alleged second slaying after Moses had come back as a prophet, while S. 2:49, 7:141, and 14:6 look back at the fact that the Israelite boys had been slain, but it is unclear whether these verses refer to the first or the second slaying period, or even both.

On the level of facts, this is in blatant contradiction to the Bible. There was no second slaying of Israelite boys several decades after the birth of Moses, after Moses had come to Pharaoh as a messenger from 🤬 . The author of the Qur'an was apparently quite confused about this matter.

The author's confusion can also be seen from the fact that the story of the Qur'an is incomplete and incoherent in both instances, when it recounts the Biblical story of the slaying of Israelite baby boys at the time of Moses birth, and when it presents the invented story of a second "son slaying operation" after Moses came to Pharaoh to bring him 🤬 's message several decades later.

Notice that there is a strange imbalance in Pharaoh's command to "slay their sons" and "spare their women". If the order should be executed only on infants (as is clear from the Biblical account), should it not be "slay their sons" and "spare their daughters"? What is the age limit up to which the sons should be slain? Only the newborn ones? Up to age six? Or ten? Or fourteen? Or twenty? The Qur'an does not give an answer to this question, but the use of the word "women" instead of "girls" or "daughters" seems to indicate that more than just newborn sons are supposed to be killed. A son remains a son most or even all of his life, at least as long as one of the parents lives. Does the Qur'an even claim that the Pharaoh ordered to "slay their males" (of any age) and "spare their females"?[1]

For how long was the command to be in force? Was this a one time genocidal action of killing all males, or a sustained program of killing male infants whenever they are born? For what reason would it be one or the other? Who was supposed to do the killing? The Egyptian police or military? Or every Egyptian was supposed to go and 🤬 his Israelite neighbour's son? The Qur'an does not make much sense here without bringing in outside information.

Did the command of the Pharaoh have the same range (regarding the age of the sons to be killed) in the second instance as in the first, or was it to be understood differently?

In the Qur'an, this command of the Pharaoh lacks a clear reason in both cases, but since the second instance stands in clear contradiction to the Bible, I want to examine this claim more closely and ask: What purpose should this order serve?

Although it is not stated in the text of the Qur'an, the classical Muslim commentators (and modern ones as well) follow the Biblical story and state or assume that the command of the Pharaoh applied only to male infants in both instances. Muslim interpreters are here clearly dependent on the Bible text.

Although evil and reprehensible, this approach makes some sense as a population control mechanism when the Egyptians were faced with a population development problem (see Exodus 1). It is a strategic approach that shows its effects in the long term.

However, killing male infants does not make much sense as an answer to the challenge of Moses. How many newborn baby boys did exist at that time? As cruel as it would be to the parents of these babies, killing 50 or 100 or even 300 babies would be totally irrelevant to the message and challenge that Moses brought to Pharaoh. There an answer was needed that would have quick results and that could counter Moses' miracles. Moses was certainly not intending to stand there and wait a generation or two until he became impressed.

Conclusion: The Qur'anic account does not only contradict the Torah, it is incoherent and does not make sense. Duplicating the command of the Pharaoh and placing it into the wrong situation is evidence of the confusion of the author of the Qur'an.

Notes:

1. Maybe Muhammad simply assumed the Pharaoh would treat the Israelites in a similar way as Muhammad acted himself when he ordered the males of the Banu Qurayza to be slain and the females to be taken as slaves, see What really happened to the Banu Qurayza. Interestingly, Yusuf Ali states in his note on S. 28:4, "Pharaoh decreed that all male sons born to his Israelite subjects should be killed, and the females kept alive for the pleasure of the Egyptans." That is similar to Muhammad's mindset but finds no parallel in the Biblical account.

Comments

  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    Argument is bogus.

    The author makes a faulty premise that the Bible is right and exact.

    Prove that first, then come with it , son.
  • ThaChozenWun
    ThaChozenWun Members Posts: 9,390
    edited May 2010
    Do believe in this as it is put you have to be both a believer in the bible and you have to believe in the Quran as well. So based of this alone do I think there was no.

    Now as from a historical point of view, definently. Its very likely these sons were massively slain twice during ancient times, do I believe in anything holy involved with it no but it is very possible that it has happened in history as was recorded into both books only with a holy touch added.
  • trackreviver
    trackreviver Members Posts: 13
    edited May 2010
    The Quran is not contradictory. Like And Step said, the author presumes the Bible is the word of 🤬 while ignoring the fact it was written by man. Don't let this author skew your view about what the Quran says. you should actually read the Quran from front to back in a modern english translation..
  • janklow
    janklow god's lonely man. Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2010
    The Quran is not contradictory. Like And Step said, the author presumes the Bible is the word of 🤬 while ignoring the fact it was written by man. Don't let this author skew your view about what the Quran says. you should actually read the Quran from front to back in a modern english translation..
    why do i suspect the implication here is that the Bible was written by man but the Qu'ran was not...
  • ThaChozenWun
    ThaChozenWun Members Posts: 9,390
    edited May 2010
    The Quran is not contradictory. Like And Step said, the author presumes the Bible is the word of 🤬 while ignoring the fact it was written by man. Don't let this author skew your view about what the Quran says. you should actually read the Quran from front to back in a modern english translation..

    I havent read it all but I have already found a few things in the Quran i find contradictory or logically wrong.
  • TX_Made713
    TX_Made713 Members Posts: 3,954 ✭✭
    edited May 2010
    And Step wrote: »
    Argument is bogus.

    The author makes a faulty premise that the Bible is right and exact.

    Prove that first, then come with it , son.

    you speak as if i said i agreed with the author, although he does make some valid points.

    What he speaks on the quran is truth
  • trackreviver
    trackreviver Members Posts: 13
    edited May 2010
    TX_Made713 wrote: »
    you speak as if i said i agreed with the author, although he does make some valid points.

    What he speaks on the quran is truth


    The Quran has NEVER been changed. However, the bible has...many times. Even recently as last year..that being said, the original bibles were written by monks in mountains who drank alcohol while writing it [true story == philosophy 101]

    The author is well just an author. he is no scholar, no bishop, no priest, no pope. His job is merely to convince you of his argument. If you want a real debate on contradictions or who's right or wrong...watch scholarly debates between Dr. Zakir and Cambell Williams.
  • janklow
    janklow god's lonely man. Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2010
    The Quran has NEVER been changed.
    certainly no man has ever been involved in written or disseminating it
  • TX_Made713
    TX_Made713 Members Posts: 3,954 ✭✭
    edited May 2010
    janklow wrote: »
    certainly no man has ever been involved in written or disseminating it



    that 🤬 is dilusional
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    janklow wrote: »
    certainly no man has ever been involved in written or disseminating it

    That is not in question.
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    I havent read it all but I have already found a few things in the Quran i find contradictory or logically wrong.

    Such as?

    The term logically wrong really doesn't mean much.
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    TX_Made713 wrote: »
    you speak as if i said i agreed with the author, although he does make some valid points.

    What he speaks on the quran is truth

    What he quotes of the quran is factual. What he infers is not neccesarily truth. He makes many inferences based of what he feels. That is called establishing a faulty premise.

    It's obvious he has an ax to grind. If he really knew the quran, he would know that the stories are not written in chronological order. He seems to think it is compiled like the Bible. Besides how are you gonna talk about contradictions and confusing themes, when donkeys, snakes, and fire breathing dragons abound? Dead people rising up, Seas splitting in two. Men walking on water. He wears people down by long ass screeds.

    The idiot had the nerve to say killing boy babies didn't make sense for Pharoah. Huh? Killing males is the No.1 agenda when people go to war. The Conquering people from Genghis Khan to the present have killed off the males and spared the females to impregnate and further on their agendas through their seeds. This is time proven and tested.
  • And Step
    And Step Members Posts: 3,726 ✭✭✭
    edited May 2010
    janklow wrote: »
    why do i suspect the implication here is that the Bible was written by man but the Qu'ran was not...

    Because inferences, implications, and the ascribing of sinister motives are the birthright of white people.

    Hey, can't knock the hustle. It works.
  • ThaChozenWun
    ThaChozenWun Members Posts: 9,390
    edited May 2010
    And Step wrote: »
    Such as?

    The term logically wrong really doesn't mean much.

    I gotta go work out for another hour or so, once I get back I'll make a thread on it so we can discuss it, I could be way off or interpreting it wrong cause Im not as familiar with Islam as I am with Christianity but to me some things do seem off.
  • janklow
    janklow god's lonely man. Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    edited May 2010
    And Step wrote: »
    That is not in question.
    it'd be nice if you'd tell that to the poster who claims it wasn't instead of, you know, me
    And Step wrote: »
    Because inferences, implications, and the ascribing of sinister motives are the birthright of white people.
    i don't really know the racial origin of the poster in question. but i suppose you could ask them.