Akhenaten - was he a Monotheist?
-
Peace be upon you tauhid101,
That's ok, I accept your apology. Please don't feel embarrased. English is also a foreign language for you so I understand that at times there could be some issues around expressions of phrases etc as well. I'm sure many people, including myself, at times could have expressed ourselves better! We all learn along the way.
You raised many important points on the other topics you mentioned and I very much agree with and support your critical approach to popular conceptions in history - the only thing was the way the questions about my beliefs were asked as I've already mentioned, so no need to again.
Also, please don't take the last comment personally - it really was a general comment about how I feel about this forum/aspects of this forum. I'm the type of person who expresses these things so it really was a general comment.
May Allah swt shower you with peace and blessings
-
Peace be within you, supportpeacenotwar
I'm so sorry if you think I'm questioning your beliefs.
I don't have the rights to questions anyone's belief. I need a lot to learn, especially communicating through forums, don't I? -[Thank you for understanding and its around 5.00am here, need the sleep.
Peace and blessings be within you.
tauhid101 -
Peace be upon you tauhid101,
I think this is possible to rectify quite easily you can ask questions about my beliefs - my suggestion, if you want it, in terms of what happened here is to ask more open ended questions that gives more room for the person to answer themselves avoiding presumptions in the question how do you practice Islam, what do you believe about Islam, what do you believe about the Quran? etc That way the individual can confirm for you what they believe rather than it sounding like you are saying they believe in things they don't really believe in (and that they need the truth when they already believe in what you might believe in!)
Enjoy your rest!
-
So in my opinion, at least some of the things on this forum - or even the nature of this forum and the way people are here (and possibly elsewhere as a whole) Allah knows best - are an exact example of some of the things warned about in the Quran... maybe a little controversial there, but look for it and you'll see it. And I wouldn't want to get into any examples, it's just something to consider.
Ok, so I've been in a PM exchange with someone else - about a similar topic to this, and I feel that this can get misunderstood. So I'd like to add a few quick clarifier about I mean. What I'm essentially saying is that any place or anything can be separate or apart from the teachings or God - even if it a place with more people who are following Quran only. So really it comes back to the point about being guided and what that really means.
A non-Muslim can tell us that the hadiths are flawed and that the Quran actually doesn't tell us to follow hadith. Is that guidance? Or is guidance actually following what you profess to uphold? Not looking for division, being concerned with justice and a general fair or just attitude, non-arrogance and so on. So guidance is more about living your faith for God, not just saying "well I know this about the Quran" etc.
Anyway, its also what I've noticed upon reflection. I've found that I can end up agreeing much more with some atheists, Pagans, other people about some issues regarding how we conduct ourselves, central principles, thanI do even with "Quran only". So its an ongoing reflection thing for me. I just wanted to add that in case anyone reads this and get a very different impression. Forums are forums yes, I've been on a fair few and they're a lot like this (I guess that's the point I'm getting at in this post although anyone can join we a lot of us here are quran followers of some kind), but this is about the way many in Quran only hold this view that we can have a better code of conduct etc - otherwise would we believe in it and consider it truth? - compared to hadith followers or others on a "wrong" path? Is it really that simple or do some of them actually have a form of guidance in fact? Other faiths probably have this sort of deliberation too, I think its a human thing to do. I don't think its just peculiar to us. Anyway, getting too deep now, and its getting late.
-
Has anyone here read the claims of Ahmed Osman, that Akhenaten is/was Moses?
http//www.ahmedosman.com/
MOSES AND AKHENATEN
One And The Same Person
The First Monotheist
Akhenaten is the most mysterious and interesting of all the ancient Egyptian pharaohs. He created a revolution in religion, philosophy, and art that resulted in the introduction of the first monotheistic form of worship known in history. Sigmund Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was the first to suggest a connection between Moses and Akhenaten. In his last book, Moses and Monotheism, published in 1939, Freud argued that the biblical Moses was an official in the court of Akhenaten, and an adherent of the Aten religion. After the death of Akhenaten, Freud's theory goes, Moses selected the Israelite tribe living east of the Nile Delta to be his chosen people, took them out of Egypt at the time of the Exodus, and passed on to them the tenets of Akhenaten's religion. When modern archaeologists came across the strangely-drawn figure of Akhenaten in the ruins of Tell el-Amarna in the middle of the 19th century, they were not sure what to make of him. Some thought he was a woman disguised as a king. By the early years of the 20th century when the city of Amarna had been excavated and more became known about him and his family, Akhenaten became a focus of interest for Egyptologists, who saw him as a visionary humanitarian as well as the first monotheist.
In my attempt to pursue Freud's theory through the examination of recent archaeological findings, I came to the conclusion that Moses was Akhenaten himself. The son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye (daughter of Yuya, whom I have identified as Joseph the patriarch), Akhenaten had an Egyptian father and an Israelite mother. Yuya had been appointed by Tuthmosis IV to be the Master of the King's Horses and Deputy of the Royal Chariotry. On coming to the throne, and according to Egyptian customs, Amenhotep III married his sister Sitamun, who was just a child of three years at the time. However, in his Year 2, Amenhotep decided to also marry Yuya's daughter Tiye, the girl whom he loved, and made her, rather than Sitamun, his Great Royal Wife, his queen. (According to Egyptian customs the king could marry as many women as he desired, however the queen, whose children would follow him on the throne, had to be his sister, the heiress.) As a wedding present, Amenhotep presented Tiye with the frontier fortress of Zarw, in the area of modern Kantara in north Sinai, the capital of the Land of Goshen, mentioned by the Bible as the area where the Israelites dwelled in Egypt. Here he built a summer palace for her. To commemorate his marriage with Tiye, the king issued a large scarab and sent copies of it to foreign kings and princes.
The Birth of Moses
Amenhotep, who was later known as Akhenaten and Moses, was born in Year 12 of his father Amenhotep III, 1394 BC, in the summer royal palace in the border city of Zarw in northern Sinai. Zarw, modern Kantara East, was the center of the land of Goshen where the Israelites dwelt, and in the same location where the biblical Moses was born. But contrary to the biblical account, Moses was born inside the royal palace. His mother Queen Tiye had an elder son, Tuthmosis, who died a short time before Amenhotep's birth. Tuthmosis had been educated and trained at the royal residence in Memphis before he mysteriously disappeared?believed to have been kidnapped and assassinated by the Amun priests. Fearing for his safety, Tiye sent her son, the infant Amenhotep, by water to the safekeeping of her father's Israelite family outside the walls of Zarw. (Which was the origin of the biblical baby-in-the-bulrushes story.)
The reason for the priests' hostility to the young prince was the fact that Tiye, his mother, an Israelite, was not the legitimate heiress to the throne. She couldn't therefore be accepted as a consort for the state god Amun. If Tiye's son acceded to the throne, this would be regarded as forming a new dynasty of non-Amunite kings over Egypt. During his early years, his mother kept Amenhotep away from both the royal residences at Memphis and Thebes. He spent his childhood at the border city of Zarw, nursed by the wife of the queen's younger brother, General Aye. Later, Amenhotep was moved to Heliopolis, north of Cairo, to receive his education under the supervision of Anen, the priest of Ra, who was the elder brother of Queen Tiye.
Young Amenhotep first appeared at the capital city of Thebes when he reached the age of sixteen. There he met Nefertiti, his half-sister, daughter of Sitamun, and fell in love with her. Tiye, his mother, encouraged this relationship, realizing that his marriage to Nefertiti, the heiress, was the only way he could gain the right to follow his father on the throne.
Akhenaten Co-Regent
Following his marriage to Nefertiti, Amenhotep III decided to make Amenhotep his co-regent which upset the priests of Amun. The conflict between Amenhotep III and the priests had started sixteen years earlier as a result of his marriage to Tiye, an Israelite, daughter of Yuya and Tuya. During his reign, Nefertiti was active in supporting her husband, Amenhotep, and was more prominently seen at official occasions as well as on all monuments. However, the climate of hostility that surrounded Amenhotep at the time of his birth surfaced again after his appointment as CO-regent On joining his father on the throne Amenhotep became Amenhotep IV. The Amun priesthood opposed this appointment, and openly challenged Amenhotep III's decision.
When the priests of Amun objected to his appointment, the young CO-regent responded by building temples to his new God, Aten. He built three temples for Aten one at the back end of the Karnak complex, another at Luxor near the Nile bank, and the third at Memphis. Amenhotep lV snubbed the Amun priests by not inviting them to any of the festivities in the early part of his co-regency and, in his fourth year, when he celebrated his bed festival jubilee, he banned all deities but his own God from the occasion. Twelve months later he made a further break with tradition by changing his name to Akhenaten in honor of his new deity. To the resentful Egyptian establishment, Aten was seen as a challenger who would replace the powerful State god, Amun, not falling under his domination. In the tense climate that prevailed, Tiye arranged a compromise by persuading her son to leave Thebes and establish a new capital at Amarna in Middle Egypt, on the east bank of the Nile.
A New City for Aten
The situation calmed down following Akhenaten's departure, while Amenhotep III ruled alone in Thebes. For the site of his new city at Amarna, Akhenaten chose a land that belonged to no god or goddess. The building started in his Year 4 and ended in Year 8; however he and his family moved from Thebes to Amarna in Year 6. At that point of land, the cliffs of the high desert receded from the river, leaving a great semi-circle about eight miles long and three miles broad. Here Akhenaten built his new capital, Akhetaten, the Horizon of Aten, where he and his followers would be free to worship their God. Huge boundary stelae, marking the limits of the city and recording the story of its foundation, were carved in the surrounding cliffs. Akhetaten was a capital city possessed of both dignity and architectural harmony. Its main streets ran parallel to the Nile with the most important of them, the King's Way, connecting the city's most prominent buildings, including the King's House, where Akhenaten and his family had their private residence. To the south of the house was the king's private temple to Aten.
Military Coup
Following the death of his father, Amenhotep III, in Akhenaten's Year 12, he organized a great celebration at Amarna for foreign princes bearing tribute because of his assumption to sole rule. Akhenaten and Nefertiti appeared to receive the tribute of foreign missions coming from Syria, Palestine, Nubia, and the Mediterranean islands, who offered them their gifts. It was at that time the king decided to abolish the worship of all gods in Egypt?except Aten.
Akhenaten gave orders to his troops, instructing them to close all the temples, confiscate their estates, and sack the priests, leaving only Aten's temples throughout the country. Units were dispatched to excise the names of the ancient gods wherever they were found written or engraved, a course that can only have created mounting new opposition to his already rejected authority. This persecution, which entailed the closing of the temples, the confiscation of property, the dispatch of artisans who hacked out the names of the deities from inscriptions, the banishment of the clergy, and the excommunication of Amun's name, was supervised by the army. Each time a squad of workmen entered a temple or tomb to destroy the name of Amun, it was supported by a squad of soldiers who came to see that the royal decree was carried out without opposition.
The persecution of the old gods, however, proved to be hateful to the majority of Egyptians, including the members of the army. Ultimately, the harshness of the persecution had a certain reaction upon the soldiers who, themselves, had been raised in the old beliefs. After all, the officers and soldiers themselves believed in the same gods whose images the king ordered them to destroy; they worshipped in the very temples that they were ordered to close. A conflict arose between the king and his army. Horemheb, Pa-Ramses, and Seti planned a military coup against the king, and ordered their troops from the north and south to move toward Amarna. When the army and chariots came face to face at Amarna's borders, Aye advised the king to abdicate the throne to his son, Tutankhaten, in order to save the dynasty and avoid a wholesale defection and perhaps even a civil war. Akhenaten agreed to abdicate and left Amarna with Pa-Nehesy, the high priest of Aten, and a few of his followers, to live in exile in the area of Sarabit El-Khadem in southern Sinai. When Tutankhaten took the throne, he changed his name to Tutankhamun to appease the priesthood of the powerful State god Amun. He did not, however, renounce the Atenist religion of his father.
Back From Exile
The root of the name Moses is in the Egyptian word Mos which means "child." But this word also had a wider legal meaning?"the rightful son and heir." As it was punishable by death to mention Akhenaten's name after his banishment, a code name was established through which his followers could refer to him. Therefore they called him MOs, the son, to indicate that he was the legitimate son of Amenhotep III and the rightful heir to his father's throne. The ancient Egyptian language had no written vowels, although the vowels were pronounced. The written word meaning a child or son consisted of two consonants, m and s, It is therefore easy to see that the Hebrew word, Moses, was derived from the Egyptian, Mos. The final 's' of Moses derives from the Greek translation of the biblical name.
Following his abdication, Akhenaten/Moses lived with his followers in exile in southern Sinai for about twenty-five years, during the reigns of Tutankhamun, Aye, and Horemheb. Here, Akhenaten/Moses lived among the Shasu (Midianites) Bedouins with whom he formed an alliance. On hearing of Horemheb's death, Akhenaten/Moses decided to leave his exile in Sinai and come back to Egypt, in order to reclaim his throne.
In his rough Bedouin clothes, Akhenaten/Moses arrived with his allies at General Pa-Ramses' residence in the border city of Zarw, his birthplace, which had now been turned into a prison for his followers. Pa-Ramses, by now an old man, was making arrangements for his coronation and getting ready to become the first ruler of a new 19th Ramesside dynasty when he was informed of Akhenaten/Moses arrival.
Akhenaten/Moses challenged Pa-Ramses' right to the throne. The general, taken by surprise, decided to call a meeting of the wise men of Egypt to decide between them. At the gathering, Akhenaten/Moses produced his scepter of royal power, which he had taken with him to exile, and performed secret rituals that only the king could have had knowledge of. Once they saw the scepter of royal authority and Akhenaten/Moses' performance of the rituals, the wise men fell down in adoration in front of him and declared him to be the legitimate king of Egypt. Pa-Ramses, however, who was in control of the army, used his power to frustrate the verdict of the priests and elders and retained the right to rule by force?a coup d'etat.
General Pa-Ramses ascended to the Egyptain throne as Ramses I, the first Pharoah of the 19th dynasty. Left with no choice but to flee from Egypt with his followers?the Israelites and Egyptians who embraced the Atenist faith?Akhenaten/Moses began the Exodus toward the Sinai via the marshy area to the south of Zarw and north of Lake Temsah, as this watery route would hinder the pursuit of Egyptian chariots. After a time Akhenaten/Moses then marched north toward Gaza and attempted to storm the city with his Shasu allies. Seti I, son of Ramses, led an army against Akhenaten/Moses, the Israelites, and the Shasu, and defeated them, with great slaughter, at many locations on the Horus Road as well as central Sinai.
It is likely that Akhenaten/Moses was killed by Seti I himself in the course of these military operations.
Ahmed Osman
-
Peace
History is just for purpose of knowledge only and it has no relation in our faith.
History is good for knowledge, but also can misslead our faith to Allah.The example is the existence of Sunni and Shiah which happened not only because difference on Quran tafseer but also the confusion in history.
The example is the history of Nabi Muhammad's inheritance to Umar or to Ali, Battle of Karbala, and coup on Ustman Ibn Affan which all that stories is the main problems which always debated by Sunni and Shia.
So thats why the Quran never tell the Phrophet stories fully like in the Bible instead only pick some short quote from stories which we can get the lesson from that.
History is like Ahadith, this means they are not 100% valid and still have some contradicts.Allah only ordered us to believe what he sent down to us (The Quran) see 2191.
My post is just for reminder only, I will not take part in this discussion cause I'm not expert in history.My suggest to all is don't take the history too much
Salaam
-
Peace ephraim7,
I haven't come across this. Thank you for sharing this resource with us.
My suggest to all is don't take the history too much
Salaam
Peace Earthdom,
Thanks for your post. Good advice. You're right - the Quran gives us "snippets" of the Prophet's stories and then the lesson/theme to learn from them. The Quran/guidance from Allah swt is our first priority. History is only optional and I believe a lot of caution needs to be taken with it - with any discipline there are issues/criticisms and popular scholarship doesn't have all or - dare I say it - many answers in my humble opinion.
EDIT Of course, history is contained in the Quran but I mean the discipline known as "History".
-
Peace,
The source of this information Ephraim laid forth is perhaps biased even if containing true elements. The narrator is maybe Akhenaten's opposition and the whole story a bit different. Nevertheless it was a good story and it may be elements of the Truth.
The narrative is supporting the existence of Moses more or less.
But I wonder where the Quranic killing of a man which Moses committed enters the picture in support of this story, as well as some other occurrences of Moses in Quran.
God bless you
-
The narrator is maybe Akhenaten's opposition and the whole story a bit different. Nevertheless it was a good story and it may be elements of the Truth
Man of Faith, the word "maybe" is forbidden in any science, you may also realize it too.
The word maybe in any statement indicate if that statement is only an assumption
-
Peace,
What alternative should be used then when there is no certainty?
I use many synonymous phrases too, such as could be and perhaps. If there is no certainty why speak but hypothetically?
It was only an assumption if you did not see this.
On a side-note, I agree that 'maybe' might be a bit informal, but strong formality was not my intention.
God bless you
-
Peace,
I use maybe and perhaps quite a bit. When talking about the Quran - it feels appropriate at times because I can't say some things for certain yet or ever. In terms of history and such things, remaning tentative seems the best course of action and words like "maybe" reflect that.
-
On a side-note, I agree that 'maybe' might be a bit informal, but strong formality was not my intention.
I use maybe and perhaps quite a bit. When talking about the Quran - it feels appropriate at times because I can't say some things for certain yet or ever. In terms of history and such things, remaning tentative seems the best course of action and words like "maybe" reflect that.
Man of Faith and supportpeacenotwar looks like I must agree with both of you two. handshake
Yeah it's "just" forum online indeed, so lets don't take this chit chat too seriously like in the workplace instead let's us share and exchange our arguments together with any discussion, so we can cover each other's weakness.
It's nothing, but in university I was scolded by my lecturer 2-3 times because I say something doubtful such like "maybe" and "something" during class discussion.
Example is if lecturer ask "What is market?" then I will say like "something which made us meet the seller and buyer"
Maybe both of you two who I believe ever or still study in university may recognize it too, if doubtful arguments is forbidden in academical world.
peace -
Peace Earthdom,
In a formal academic writing or as in your case lecture you are not supposed to use words like 'maybe', and also because the word itself has a slightly informal connotation.
God bless you
-
Peace Man of Faith.
Hehehe, thanks but please don't mention about this again, because it already happened in the past time
God bless you handshake
-
Peace everyone,
For anyone interested I told an atheist friend of mine about this, and he gave me some resources. He was actually disagreed with me and so do his resources but one thing was that the passage he linked to includes the way that Akhenaten glorified Aten
"How manifold are thy works!
They are hidden from man's sight,
O sole god, like whom there is no other.
Thou hast made the earth according to thy desire"I still cannot say I know what was in Akhenaten's mind and whether he believed in one God completely, but that prayer has a lot of commonality with Quranic concepts.
This may make me look like I'm a bit obsessed with this topic... I'm really not, it just came up in the last few days, and I've browsed a few different resources. In the end it doesn't matter (for our faith in Islam) whether he was monotheist or not, but its unusual what he did and worth mentioning I think, even if its not something thats researched.
I would actually say that verse holds many Quranic concepts and the way Akhenaten depicted himself as a Pharaoh, in a very different manner than usual - could show even more that he didn't really view himself as a Divine. Views such as this may not be popular among academic circles, but I don't really mind that.
-
I think there is verymuch misunderstanding of ols religions because they have never been contemplated as holding any truth. But God, in the honoured Qur'an says that He has sent messengers to every people. Obviously that includes Egyptians and ll the other ancient peoples. We cannot now read the texts like they were read or written or understood by old egyptians, translations and way of understanding -us who are always shocked by what has been done to de Qur'an should be aware of that- are totally dependent on the capacity to grasp, conceive and understand what those original or downhanded text deal with and entail.
Being divine, is a concept which may not entail that you are a god and nobody el is a God, it may simply mean that ALL and EVERYTHING, is out of divine rahma and ALL and EVERYTHING returns to divinity. Then some people are more conscious of this than others, some people are nto conscious at all, therefore they do not feel their "divinity" nor feel that that is where they come from and where they will return. The divinity of anybody could simply be that that person was ffully conscious of his or her destiny back to divinity. Egyptology comes from European minds. Mainstream European mind is very dissociated as to divinity and non-divinity, and they got what they were able to get with their preconceived ideas in the matter of religion, shaped a lot by grecoromn paganism, and their own limitation to understanding things spiritual, but other minds do not have to be so, but still we follow that concept of egyptian religion because that is the "establishment".
I think originally Egyptian religion was revealed and had prophets. It is sure, because that is they way it has gone with every religion, historical islam included, that usage by people of the religion may have changed it, corrupted it to include straneous things, but basically, for sincere and commited searchers, i think it held enough depth and truth to guide. Akhnaton may have been simply an episode in the history of the true revealed religion of Anciente Egypt.
Salaam
-
Peace huruf,
I'd like to address all those points right now - but the one thing is that it is clear from what we can tell that what he did was not popular among the Egyptians - they destroyed a lot of what he did and that's why there is less information than we'd want about this area. As well as the other things I mention below.
The thing is - even the Quran mentions that the Pharaohs and the Pharaoh in the Quran did consider himself Divine/a Deity - an actual Deity with the authority of one - a God, and that was one the of the real problems. If anything, this diversion that Akhenaten may have taken shows his difference from Pharaoh's like Ramses II. When they said they were Divine - they meant that they- only they as Pharoahs would go and take a special seat and become God's themselves, not the whole of creation. And this would fit exactly with what the Quran talks about in terms of the Pharoah mentioned their and his transgressions. If anything, the Quran actually mentions the ancient Egyptians - and that their current mainstream way of thinking was against Islam and Moses needed to tell Pharaoh. The exchanges between himself and Moses, even with translation issues, goes back and forth on the issue of one God and accepting the Signs.
I wouldn't say everything in history or egyptology is wrong - otherwise then how would anyone be able to get access to any kind of truth. It's just considering what some primary evidence is - and considering what the Quran says, muslims or even others if they consider the Quran can take a different view.
The preconceived notions issue is what I've heard straight from atheists with regards to muslims. That's why muslims or any people with a religious text establish the validity of their religious scripture and then can refer to that scripture.
when I say Akhenaten did this - it doesn't mean that each ancient civilisation didn't have their own Messenger and things. In fact, I believe that all civilisations had their own Messenger(s) as the Quran says and we can find parts of an original truth in all of them, there are similarities in all of them. Then we can also find the place where there was corruption and the Quran explains that happened.
There's more I could say, but I think I also addressed this in an earlier post as well - and I guess some things are better left for people to investigate themselves.
-
The farao the Qur'an speaks about has nothign to do with Egypt. It is translations and corruption of the word Misr that has set those hapenning sin Egypt.
As to what you say concenring Ramses it does nto mean that the whole of Egyptian religion lived in politheism, and as to what exactly meant that anyone was divine. What make syous ay that all the people were not considered so in the Egyptian religion, I mean that every people had the potential to be conscious and feel their identity with their creator? That nobody can answer. It is the same with for instance roman catholicism, there are monotheist catholics but "officially" that could be discussed ad infinitum, without any use, because, monotheism or polytheism is in the person. And the farao of the Qur'an is not a set of people but a person as there are many who may selfdivinize themselves in words or in deeds.
I am sure, completely sure that anybody could be monotheists in ancient egyptian religion and in fact in many religions. What are called gods are names of divne level of manifestation. They are nto different identities with clashing powers but the flow of divine rahma to the conscience of the believers. All those things had to be veiled and destroyed so that the absolute church of Rome could become the new Roman Empire, as it did. And fo course that spirit has been upheld by european type imperialism, where what the "europens" do not know or are not able to comprehend, simply does nto exist.
There are spiritual "languages", language used to reflect or evoque in the heart the feeling of spiritual awaking, that may be personified, just as the ressurrection of Christ as you get from writers such as Tolstoi, that are not actual or do not have to be actual events but rather are story telling depictions of spiritual awakening and salvation. The story of Isis and Osiris, cannot be a narration of real facts. It is a narration of spiritual living and resurrection, and a very moving and beatiful depiction by the way.
Some time, when and if history is really learnt and gone into with open minds and spiritual minds, we may discover many interesting things. But we still are hampered by our own not lack of knowledge, but in fact misknowledgement of old religions and even present religions.
I read just yesterday in the internet a description of "santeria" which is in fact a version of the old yoruba religion. As far as I am concerned, its main stand is monotheist, but there are appplications which might not be very halal, however they are not at all worse than the saints and other things within other christian religions and ultimately it comes down to the degree of consciousness of the believer, but it certainly allows and imprints basically a unitary conception fo the existence, like most religions I know of when you camo down to the basics. In fact I think that coming down to the basics, trinitarian christianity might be the least montheistic. But there again, to the nontheological minded, as I know most catholics are, they just live as if there was one god and to not take much account of the three. They just do not go there. They do not understand, they do not care, they just don't go there and carry on with ONE God. And when it very learned and spiritual people, they have a spiritual version of it which may match the "misteries" of the ancient religions.
There is of course besides the political uso of religion which veils a lot of the basic original revelation in whichever religion. The Qur'an does not debunk that I can think of, any religion, it debunks hypocresy, association, and politheism, but it does so not classifying religions one by one, but classifying attitudes of persons. Which is a whole different thing. Does not say, for instance the religion of such people ( known identifiable people) is wrong or politheistic, it gives actual examples and it condemns attitudes, not religions with names or denominations. We do that, the Qur'an does not.
But it is important that you have raised this question. It helps may be to investigate further the Qur'an, where even having the revelation textually, we have managed inf acto to falsify it in so many instances just by superposing on it our own preconceptions, which on the other hand are inevitable, but thank God, with the text whole we can always go back and check where we fail.
Thanks and salaam
SalaamSalaam
-
Peace huruf,
I think we both view things quite differently on this topic. Much of what I will say in response would just be a reiteration with a bit extra on what I've already said. A different perspective or angle on this topic, will always result in differing opinions.I will make this post to clarify some things about this view. If you disagree, to be clear I'm not saying you have to agree... The Arab as mentioned in the Quran that use other names for gods which are 'daughters' of God like in other pantheons there are children of God/Gods e.g. Zeus with is many children. Al Uzza, Allat, Manat and that these are just names they have named. Baal is also mentioned in the Quran by Elijah with warnings given. In the story of Noah other actual names are mentioned, and the people refer to these names and leave what Noah says and say continue with these other names and deities/ or manifestations of deity, whatever they actually were and that which they were being guided away from by a Messenger in their presence. The Quran here gets to the message that there is no warrant for such things to be said about God. When all these people are punished, for example in the case of Noah, they continue with their sets of names that they attribute to the Deity/deities.
Monotheists have existed throughout time, I would say there would have been other monotheists and we don't know about them. But I believe the Quran mentioned in one community where the punishment was due, only one household of muslims was found. That also means raises the issue of punishment being sent to many communities, all of them expect Jonah's as they happened to believe. the issue of a punishment being sent at all if it was how things are now, the wording and the state of this punishment would have been different as they would have been believers on the road to improving but making mistakes. whole communities wouldn't have required that kind of punishment and warning to other people. lot could be used as an example of extreme transgression, but so could our communities. and if it was just that people believed in monotheism/the actual Creator but they were just doing some wrong but wanted to repent etc, then
If we reinterpret those things, then we can say as well 'seal' of the Prophets might not mean anything that we think, and then the same with the preservation of the quran, in which case the Quran would not be the final statement of the message, and then we could ask what is the message, what part of the message was edited if it wasn't preserved and so on. I would take a different angle on it though.
I practicised Paganism - whether or not I truly believed in what I was doing or trying to make it fit was another matter - for a bit and when you mention that bit about manifestations, that's familiar. However, the idols, the representations of God, if the Quran is true, then God states He is unseen and the way I see it is there is at the very least a big question mark over whether you should use any names alongside God other than the name we use to refer to God. e.g. someone could call the one God Baal, if they didn't call God anything else. There is more I could say on that point about that but this seems to be about different perspectives, which is fine, but as mentioned it'd turn into reiteration of what I've already said with a bit more elaboration. In my practice of Paganism, I found these idols and representations very different and at odds with monotheism as I know it now based on La ilaha illAllah. These idols and e.g. with Baal being represented in human form or any other form represent creation rather than the unseen creator. I don't think the unseen creator can be represented by anything and they're beyond that. - again, if you disagree, I'm not taking issue with it, but I'm just clarifying. This may be why people use different 'gradations' of monotheism, with pure monotheism and then things like trinitarian views of monotheism
Modern Paganism is a lot about manifestations of the one Divine - but that's a very particular type of polytheism. Some people are 'hard' polytheists, they think all these separate deities exist separately in their own right, I may have mentioned this before when I've talked about my experience with Paganism. I could go further into all of this and whether or not Paganism in the past refers to this idea and where ideas diverge. Just like today, it seems likely there were different ways some of the or few of the people (depending the Quran interpretation here) would have seen it.
With regards to Ramses and all other Pharaohs, there was a big emphasis on them as God for all of them. If anyone of us here used the kind of language, ideas, buildings etc to refer to ourselves as God, would that be Monotheism in the Quran. Whether or not that Pharaoh issue is in Egypt or not - I can't say for sure but I would not discount it, otherwise then I could start saying there is a problem with the translation anytime I think there is something that doesn't fit what I already know. so different angles works best (on a personal level, I'm not saying other people have to do this) If that isn't Egypt, it's still a person saying they have this great authority that is essentially a God's authority, which does fit into the Egypt narrative. Anyway, if you disagree, that's not a problem, on this issue we appear to be taking different angles and much of what we say would likely be a disagreement with what the other says.
Christianity or Judaism or another religion is not more specially monotheistic either in case this gets taken the wrong way. Maybe I've said before but Pagans can have a lot in common and an open mindedness even to the Quran than some Christians and Jews. The Quran does not place them on a special pedastal either in my op. Anyway, I really feel like I'm repeating myself there as I mention this in the forum a bit... so yeah.
I want to clarify something that could get taken the wrong way when I use the word "I" and refer to my opinion, it is to show it is my opinion and interpretation. If I don't use that, then it can be taken as though I am stating fact and something people take offense at because they don't view things the same way I do. When I state "I" or use the personal thing more, then it can be taken the wrong way too in other ways with whatever people conceive. Catch 22 which makes forum communication a little more difficult, so I wanted to clear that up.
So all in all, the examples brought up in the Quran raise issues and doesn't seem to disagree that polytheism existed on a large scale in the past. Like some Pagans could say that God has many names in the Quran, so does this mean God can be broken up into small Gods that make one whole? Not the way I view it really. These are attributes/some might say titles and the quran constantly addresses people who don't view God in that way of attributes. In the Middle east and beyond.
This actually turned into quite a long post, but it flowed on from itself really and is here mostly for clarifiers on the general position as well as my experience with modern Paganism
I should ALSO clarify the most important thing isn't that you believe in monotheism today and therefore you are 'superior' - when it feels easier to than the past, and then behave corruptly, and think well we can repent, that's wrong. The Quran goes much deeper than that and some modern Pagans, even atheists for e.g. could have their own form of guidance from Allah swt that will evolve and they may be led towards the Quran or faith and reasoning in monotheism as actual just monotheism without the extras so to speak.
Allah swt is the best Judge and knows best