The Qur'an records several conversations between Allah and Musa (AS), particularly before the Exodus from Egypt. Three key parts where these conversations occur are:
1. Surah Taha (20:9–98)
This is the most detailed account of Allah’s first direct communication with Musa (AS).
Highlights:
Musa sees a fire on Mount Sinai and approaches it.
Allah Speaks to him from the fire:
"Indeed, I am your Lord. So take off your sandals; indeed, you are in the sacred valley of Tuwa." (20:12)
Musa is given prophethood and miracles (staff turning into a snake, shining hand).
Allah Commands him to go to Pharaoh and speak gently to him.
Musa expresses fear, and Allah Assures him of support through his brother Harun.
2. Surah Al-Qasas (28:29–35)
This passage describes Musa's encounter with Allah after he leaves Madyan with his family.
Highlights:
He sees a fire and approaches it on Mount Sinai.
Allah Calls out to him and Identifies Himself:
"Verily, I am Allah, the Lord of the worlds." (28:30)
Musa is again Given the signs and Commanded to face Pharaoh.
He asks for Harun to be his helper, and Allah Grants this request.
3. Surah An-Naml (27:7–12)
This is a more concise version of the first divine encounter.
Highlights:
Musa sees the fire and goes to it.
Allah Calls him and Shows him the miracle of the staff and hand.
Reaffirms Musa’s mission to Pharaoh.
These three passages all describe the momentous event where Allah Speaks directly to Musa (AS) at Mount Sinai, appointing him as a prophet and sending him to confront Pharaoh—before the actual Exodus takes place.
There’s been a longstanding debate—both among classical scholars and modern researchers—about the exact location where Musa (AS) crossed the sea with Bani Isra’il during the Exodus. The Qur'an mentions the crossing in powerful and vivid terms, but it doesn’t name the specific body of water.
Here are the two major perspectives:
1. Traditional View: The Red Sea (Yam Suf)
Most classical Islamic scholars and Biblical traditions place the crossing at the Red Sea.
The term "Yam Suf" in the Hebrew Bible has often been translated as "Red Sea," but more accurately means "Sea of Reeds."
Qur'anic Verses:
"And We inspired to Musa, 'Strike the sea with your staff.' So it parted, and each portion was like a great towering mountain." (Qur'an 26:63)
Some suggest the northern part of the Red Sea, near the Gulf of Suez, as the possible crossing point.
After crossing, Bani Isra’il may have wandered in the Sinai Peninsula before heading north to the land of Canaan.
2. Alternative View: Gulf of Aqaba
Some modern researchers and documentary makers argue that the crossing may have happened further east, at the Gulf of Aqaba.
The theory is based on underwater land bridges, archaeological finds, and traditional place names like Nuweiba (on the Egyptian side) and Midian (in northwest Saudi Arabia).
This view suggests Mount Sinai is actually in Saudi Arabia, not the Sinai Peninsula.
Qur’anic Focus
The Qur'an doesn’t focus on the geography but rather the miracle, divine power, and the faith of Musa and his people. The central message is that:
Allah Saved the oppressed and Drowned the tyrant.
So while the exact location remains debated, the spiritual and historical lessons remain clear and powerful.
Qur’anic Emphasis
While these debates are interesting, the Qur’an focuses more on the lessons of tawakkul (trust), divine rescue, and the downfall of tyranny. The Qur’anic accounts are less concerned with maps and more concerned with meaning.
Here’s another powerful reflection—and one that ties deep spiritual lessons to the socio-political realities of today.
Nouman Ali Khan’s comparison between Yusuf (AS) and Musa (AS) highlights something crucial: while their external roles were different—Yusuf (AS) working within a government structure, and Musa (AS) working against an oppressive system—what united them was unwavering servitude to Allah (SWT).
And in both stories, Allah:
Honours their integrity,
Grants them victory,
And Fulfils the promise of land, but on condition of obedience that leads to justice hence sustainable balance.
Thematic Parallels:
Yusuf (AS):
Rises through a corrupt society without compromising values.
Uses his position to benefit people during a famine.
Brings his family to Egypt, a place of security.
Musa (AS):
Confronts a corrupt regime head-on.
Leads Bani Isra’il out of Egypt toward a promised land.
Faces the spiritual and social challenges of building a righteous community.
Pharaoh (Firawn):
Embodies arrogance, oppression, and a denial of divine accountability.
Claims ownership over land and people:
"Does not the kingdom of Egypt belong to me?" (Qur’an 43:51)
His land becomes the scene of his downfall.
Modern Relevance:
The warning stands: corrupt power that lacks servitude to Allah and fails in its duty of stewardship (khilafah) will ultimately be ruined.
Like Firawn:
Today’s imperialist and colonialist systems exploit both people and the earth.
They act without a sense of amanah (trust) or vicegerency, chasing profit and control at the expense of justice and creation.
And like Firawn, they often mock divine warnings and prophetic guidance.
Yet Allah Reminds us:
"Indeed, the earth belongs to Allah. He Causes it to be inherited by whom He Wills of His servants. And the [best] outcome is for the righteous." (Qur'an 7:128)
Another powerful and complex theme is one that connects sacred history, identity, and modern geopolitics while drawing from the Quranic lens and observing history through a moral, not merely political, lens:
One Story Ends, Another Begins: A Cycle of Tyranny and Divine Response
When Asiyah (AS), the noble queen of Pharaoh, was martyred for her belief in the One God, a symbolic chapter of Bani Isra’il’s past closed — a chapter of oppression under a tyrannical regime that defied Allah's Signs and enslaved people through fear and control.
With the distraction of her death and Musa's (AS) mission, the oppressed were liberated. Bani Isra’il were not just freed physically but given a sacred duty: to uphold divine justice and preserve the covenant of guidance. They were chosen not for superiority, but for responsibility.
It is from among this same Bani Isra’il that Maryam (AS) emerges — pure, devout, and honoured. Her story is not one of worldly power but of spiritual elevation. Her womb became the vessel of miraculous hope — Isa (AS), a mercy to mankind, who preached compassion, humility, and detachment from worldly greed.
The Sacred Land and Its Abuse
Fast forward: the very soil where Maryam (AS) walked, and where Isa (AS) preached, is now trampled by boots that carry not the legacy of prophets, but the ambition of Pharaohs.
Many of those who claim lineage from Bani Isra’il — or more accurately, have politicised that identity — have misused biblical scripture to legitimise colonisation and dispossession. The so-called “Promised Land” narrative has been weaponised into a divine land deed, interpreted without justice, mercy, or regard for the people who lived there for centuries — Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike.
This misuse:
Strips prophecy of morality. The prophetic message was never about land domination — it was about submission to God, justice, and guidance.
Recycles Firawn’s tactics. Like Pharaoh, they now control borders, restrict movement, demolish homes, surveil, detain, and kill — all in the name of “security.”
Commercialises sacred history. The Holy Land has been turned into a militarised, politicised space, rather than a spiritual centre of humility and revelation.
Modern Pharaohs: Global Reach of Tyranny
Today, these powers:
Dominate media narratives.
Influence global finance and politics.
Vilify resistance as terrorism, just as Pharaoh called Musa a threat.
Use “chosen-ness” not as a moral obligation, but as a shield against accountability.
They are not alone in this — but they lead a global trend where the oppressor now borrows the language of victimhood to justify conquest.
The Quranic Warning
Allah Reminds us repeatedly in the Qur’an that when Bani Isra’il turned away from the covenant, when they distorted scripture, killed prophets, or aligned with tyrants, they lost their divine favour — not due to ethnicity, but due to betrayal of truth.
“Do not mix truth with falsehood or conceal the truth while you know [it].” (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:42)
This is not anti-Semitism — this is Quranic justice: it calls out any nation, people, or power that betrays divine trust.
Our Role: Witnesses to the Truth
As Muslims, we are not inheritors of arrogance — we are witnesses to justice. We must:
Speak truth to power.
Pray for the return of the real Bani Isra’il — those who follow a value system, not an apartheid state.
Uphold the legacy of Maryam (AS) — quiet strength, unwavering faith.
Expose how divine texts have been manipulated to justify oppression.
Bridging Faiths with Compassion: A Quranic Perspective on Dialogue and Da'wah
In our interconnected world, people of different faiths encounter one another frequently. As Muslims, the Quran teaches us not to lead with judgment or mockery, but with invitation and understanding.
Come to a Common Word
The Quran sets a tone of diplomacy and shared recognition when it comes to the People of the Book. Allah Says:
"Say, O People of the Scripture, come to a word that is equitable between us and you—that we will not worship except Allah and not associate anything with Him..."
(Surah Aali 'Imran 3:64)
This verse is a call to establish commonality: belief in One God, mutual respect, and sincere engagement. It's not an invitation to hostility, mockery, or arrogance.
And so we should be cautious—even when we believe certain texts have been altered—not to build da’wah on the foundation of ridicule. No Christian has embraced Islam because they saw a meme that insulted the Bible. Many, however, have embraced Islam because they encountered Muslims with humility, clarity, and compassion.
A Note on Neuroscience (Not Revelation)
In modern neuroscience, a simplified model of the human brain describes it as having three main functional layers:
The reptilian brain (instinctual, fight-or-flight),
The mammalian brain (emotional, social bonding),
The cerebral cortex (rational, reflective thinking).
While this is a model used in psychology and neuroscience—not from the Deen—it offers helpful language for understanding how people respond to da’wah. If someone is in a defensive or triggered state (reptilian), they are not likely to process higher-level concepts or spiritual truths. Wisdom, then, is to approach people when they are calm and receptive.
The Prophetic Method of Repeating Three Times
In a Hadith reported by Anas ibn Malik:
“When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would speak, he would repeat the statement three times so that it would be understood.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari)
This technique echoes the process of helping a listener move from instinctual reaction toward deeper understanding. When something is said once, people might react emotionally. The second time, they begin to think. By the third time, they are often truly listening.
A Method for Reading Scripture
This same pattern can be applied when encountering scripture—whether the Quran, Hadith, or even biblical verses being explored with a Christian counterpart. If something feels strange or confronting:
First Reading: You may feel shocked or confused.
Second Reading: You begin to engage the ideas more critically.
Third Reading: You're more likely to receive with clarity and intention.
This reflective rhythm supports sincerity. Are we reading to find truth? Or just to confirm our bias?
The True Goal of Da’wah
Our aim should not be to “win” an argument but to open a door to truth—for ourselves and for others. We don’t need to attack another person’s scripture to present the Quran as divine; we need only present the Quran as it is: wise, beautiful, and unchanging.
May Allah Guide us, and Guide through us. May He Open our hearts to truth, and Open the hearts of others as well. Ameen.
Moving on… Many people, including Muslims, associate Rameses II (Ramses the Great) with the Firʿawn (Pharaoh) of Musa (Moses, peace be upon him). While the Qur’an does not specify the name of Firʿawn, scholars and historians often point to Rameses II because of his long reign (1279–1213 BCE), monumental building projects, and military campaigns, all of which fit the Qur’anic description of Firʿawn as arrogant, oppressive, and self-glorifying.
The “Wives of God” in Ancient Egypt
During the New Kingdom period—especially in the 18th to 20th Dynasties—queens and royal women were sometimes given the title “God’s Wife of Amun” (ḥm.t nṯr n ỉmn). This was a religious and political role, not just ceremonial.
What did this mean?
Religious Function: The title linked the queen to the god Amun, the chief deity in Thebes, and symbolised divine legitimacy of the pharaoh’s rule. She was seen as a sort of consort to the god, performing rituals to appease and serve him, especially in the Temple of Karnak.
Political Power: Over time, the position came with real authority and land holdings, making the “God’s Wife of Amun” a powerful player in state politics. In some cases, the bearer of this title had autonomy over temple estates and could even influence succession.
Theological Implications: The role reinforced the divine status of the royal family. If the queen was “married” to a god and the king was seen as a son of the gods, it created a seamless theological justification for their authority over the people.
Significance in Light of Musa (AS)'s Story
If Rameses II was indeed Firʿawn, then his wives—particularly Nefertari and Isetnofret—may have held such titles. The irony is stark when viewed through an Islamic lens:
Firʿawn proclaimed himself as “your Lord, Most High” (Qur’an 79:24), and his household upheld the illusion of divine authority through religious roles like “God’s Wife”.
Yet despite all this, one of the most beloved and honoured women in Islam is Asiyah, the wife of Firʿawn, who rejected his falsehood and accepted the truth of Allah (Qur’an 66:11).
This contrast—between royal women used to maintain false divinity and one righteous woman who stood up for the truth—adds moral and spiritual weight to Asiyah’s story. It shows how even in the heart of tyranny and shirk (associating partners with God), true faith can shine through.
One of Rameses II’s wives, the Hittite princess Maathorneferure, was married to him as part of a peace treaty between Egypt and the Hittites. She was given the title “God’s Wife”, but unlike native Egyptian queens such as Nefertari, she did not perform the ritual functions traditionally associated with that role.
Why is that important?
Political Symbolism over Religious Function: In her case, the title served more as a diplomatic gesture—a way to legitimise her position in the Egyptian court and solidify the treaty—not because she had a spiritual connection to Amun or the ritual training required for the role.
Cultural Outsider: As a foreigner, Maathorneferure likely lacked the religious background and acceptance needed to serve in sacred temple duties. This shows that even titles deeply rooted in religious practice could be co-opted for political convenience.
Shows the hollowness of Firʿawn’s system: If Rameses II is indeed Firʿawn, this points to a system that used divine language and imagery to mask political power, often divorced from sincere belief or piety. This contrasts profoundly with the message of Musa (AS), which called for submission to the one true God, not power disguised as religion.
So, even while Firʿawn claimed divinity, and his household carried religious titles, there were cracks in the system—titles given without substance, and people like Asiyah, who saw through it all and turned to Allah in defiance of tyranny.
There is evidence that religious roles for elite women in Egypt, like the “God’s Wife of Amun,” may have influenced later Mediterranean traditions, though not always directly. The concepts of sacred female service, ritual purity, and symbolic marriage to a deity show striking parallels.
Connections Between the God’s Wife of Amun and the Vestal Virgins:
Sacred Female Roles:
In Egypt, the God’s Wife of Amun was seen as a spiritual consort to the god Amun, performing rituals, maintaining temple purity, and legitimising divine kingship.
In Rome, Vestal Virgins were priestesses of Vesta, goddess of the hearth, required to remain celibate for 30 years to maintain ritual purity. They tended the sacred flame and played a role in state ceremonies.
Political and Religious Authority:
The God’s Wife held real economic and political power in Thebes.
Vestal Virgins were unusually empowered for Roman women: they could own property, make wills, and were protected by law. Their presence was also crucial in public rites.
Symbolic Virginity or Celibacy:
While not necessarily celibate, the God’s Wife’s “marriage” to a deity implied exclusive divine loyalty.
The Vestals' enforced virginity similarly marked them as set apart, belonging to the divine.
State Stability Tied to Female Ritual:
Both systems believed the well-being of the state depended on these women fulfilling their sacred duties without corruption or failure.
Influence or Coincidence?
Direct cultural borrowing is debated. But through trade, conquest (like Alexander the Great’s campaigns), and Egypt’s prestige, Greeks and Romans were certainly exposed to Egyptian religious practices. Greco-Roman priestess roles, especially in mystery cults (like those of Isis, Cybele, or Demeter), reflect Egyptian echoes—Isis worship, in particular, spread widely into Rome and carried with it Egyptian ritual structure.
In short, while the God’s Wife of Amun wasn’t a direct prototype, her role sits within a shared Mediterranean-religious culture that likely shaped or resonated with Greco-Roman concepts of sacred femininity and state priesthood.
Context: Maryam (AS) and the Temple Priests
Maryam (AS) was placed in the service of Bayt al-Maqdis (the Temple in Jerusalem) under the care of Zakariyya (AS), a prophet and priest. According to Islamic and Christian sources, she lived a life of purity and devotion, almost like a female ascetic or consecrated virgin, a concept highly unusual for the Jewish priestly system, especially in the Second Temple period.
The Sadducees, who were the elite priestly class overseeing the Temple at that time, were not known for spiritual depth or mysticism. They were largely conservative, tied to political power, and rejected concepts like resurrection and angels, unlike the Pharisees. Yet we find Maryam (AS) in an honoured, sacred space—indicating something exceptional and spiritually significant, outside the norm.
So, was there an influence from Egyptian or Greco-Roman sacred female roles?
1. Hellenistic Influence on Judean Culture
After Alexander the Great conquered Egypt and the Levant, the entire region, including Jerusalem, came under Hellenistic rule for centuries.
Egyptian and Greek religious ideas circulated heavily during this period, especially through cults like Isis, whose worship included celibate priestesses and sacred female roles.
It’s likely that these broader Mediterranean religious motifs, including concepts of ritual purity, divine service, and sacred women, shaped the cultural imagination—even if subtly—in Judean religious thought.
2. Resistance and Integration
While Jewish religious leaders (especially the Sadducees) resisted pagan influence, the fact that Maryam (AS) was given a dedicated, semi-monastic role hints at cross-cultural spiritual developments, especially from ascetic movements (like the Essenes) which paralleled some Greco-Egyptian ideas of purity and divine service.
3. Divine Response, Not Institutional Policy
From an Islamic view, Maryam (AS)'s placement in the Temple and her miraculous experiences were divinely ordained, not a product of priestly tradition.
But it’s intriguing that her role parallels figures like the God’s Wife of Amun or Vestal Virgins—women ritually devoted, symbolically or literally pure, serving close to the sacred heart of their society.
Conclusion:
While the Sadducees themselves were unlikely to draw directly from Egyptian models, the wider Hellenistic atmosphere—which had absorbed Egyptian elements—could have indirectly opened the space for exceptional spiritual roles like Maryam’s. Ultimately, though, her station was unique and divinely appointed, transcending cultural influence.
Let’s get back to and explore the idea in light of Asiyah, the wife of Firʿawn and foster-mother of Musa (AS):
Geographical and Historical Context:
Goshen or Avaris (Tell el-Dab’a) was in the eastern Nile Delta, known historically as a Semitic (Asiatic) settlement area—likely home to the Bani Isra'il (Children of Israel).
Tanis, also in the Delta, was a key political and religious centre, but by the time of Rameses II, it was already declining—possibly due to shifting river channels and environmental degradation.
The Hittite princess, married to Rameses II (likely Maathorneferure), was stationed at a holiday residence near one of the river branches. This placement was strategic: close enough to political centres but somewhat isolated—perhaps for ritual purity, diplomatic seclusion, or security.
The Basket Narrative: A Plausible Flow
The Nile flows northward, so a basket placed upstream from Tanis or Goshen could naturally drift toward one of the minor river branches.
If Asiyah—or a member of the royal household like the Hittite princess—was at a seasonal or leisure residence by the river, it makes perfect sense that Musa (AS)'s basket would end up there.
This connects divine providence with geographical reality: the basket does not just miraculously appear—it travels a believable course into the heart of power, just as Allah Willed:
“We returned him to his mother so that her heart might be comforted and she would not grieve, and so that she would know the Promise of Allah is true…” (Qur’an 28:13)
Asiyah’s Role Becomes More Profound
If this residence was the domain of a foreign-born queen, like Maathorneferure, and if Asiyah is either her or associated with her household, then her outsider status could help explain her independent conscience and courage to believe in Musa (AS).
It makes her act of adopting a Hebrew child in defiance of Firʿawn’s order not just a private act of compassion—but a powerful challenge to empire, possibly enabled by her position on the periphery of the inner court.
This reading honours both historical plausibility and spiritual depth. It shows how the divine plan intersects with rivers, ruins, and royal politics.
Archaeological evidence suggests that Tanis (modern San el-Hagar) rose to prominence after the abandonment of nearby cities like Avaris (Tell el-Dab’a) and Pi-Ramesses (Per-Ramesses), likely due to changing Nile channels and silting.
Here’s a breakdown of what happened and why it matters:
1. Pi-Ramesses (likely near Avaris/Goshen)
Built by Rameses II, Pi-Ramesses was a grand royal city with elaborate temples and palaces.
It was located near the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, which began to dry up or shift over time.
As the waterway declined, the city became unsustainable—no longer viable for transport or irrigation.
2. Move to Tanis
Around the 21st Dynasty (after Rameses II), the Egyptians began relocating massive architectural elements—temple blocks, statues, obelisks—from Pi-Ramesses to Tanis.
Tanis was nearby, still in the Delta, and had access to more stable Nile branches.
Archaeologists originally thought Tanis was Pi-Ramesses due to the grandeur of artefacts found there—but later research clarified that Tanis was the recipient of these relocated treasures.
Why This Matters for Musa (AS) and Asiyah
The ruined state of Tanis, and the movements of royal residences, helps situate the Firʿawn of Musa (AS) in a fluid geographic context.
If Asiyah or the Hittite princess was at a riverside estate near Avaris or Pi-Ramesses, the drying up of the river could explain why that estate was abandoned and why artefacts ended up in Tanis.
It also supports the idea that the basket of Musa (AS) floated into an area once central—but later left desolate: a haunting metaphor for the rise and fall of tyrants.
“So We seized him and his soldiers and cast them into the sea. So see how was the end of the wrongdoers.” (Qur’an 28:40)
These abandoned sites, shifted rivers, and reused monuments serve as archaeological echoes of divine justice—the ruins of a power that tried to defy Allah.
Avaris, located at modern-day Tell el-Dab'a in the northeastern Nile Delta of Egypt, was the capital of the Hyksos during the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1650–1550 BCE). There is significant archaeological and historical evidence suggesting the presence of Semitic peoples—likely Canaanites—at Avaris. Here are some key points:
1. Archaeological Evidence
Semitic-style architecture: Excavations by Manfred Bietak and his team uncovered housing structures and tombs in the Levantine (Canaanite) style, different from typical Egyptian design.
Asiatic burial customs: Tombs at Avaris often included donkey burials and grave goods reflecting Levantine customs—typical of Semitic peoples.
Material culture: Pottery, seals, and figurines resemble those found in southern Canaan, indicating strong cultural ties or origins.
2. Linguistic and Textual Evidence
Names and inscriptions: Personal names found on seals and other items at Avaris are Semitic in origin. For example, names ending in "-el" (a Semitic term for God) appear, such as Yakubher.
Egyptian records: Egyptian texts refer to the inhabitants of Avaris as “Asiatics” (Aamu), a term broadly used for Semitic peoples from Canaan/Syria.
3. Biblical and Historical Correlation (Theories)
Some scholars, including Josephus (quoting Manetho), associated the Hyksos with the Israelites or Hebrews, though this is debated. The Hyksos were Semitic but were more likely Canaanite rulers, not Israelites per se.
4. Cultural Artifacts
Weapons and tools: Items found suggest influence from the Levant in metallurgy and warfare.
Religious objects: Artifacts point to the worship of Semitic deities like Baal and Asherah, further indicating a Semitic cultural presence.
1. Formation of the Israelite Nation:
From a historical and Quranic perspective, the Banu Isra'il (Children of Israel) were not yet a formal nation during their time in Egypt. They were a tribal community descended from Prophet Ya‘qub (Jacob), also called Israel. Nationhood—in the sense of having a defined political and religious identity—only truly solidifies after the Exodus, especially with the giving of the Tawrah (Torah) to Musa (Moses) at Mount Sinai.
2. The Quranic Perspective:
The Qur'an acknowledges the presence of Banu Isra'il in Egypt, often referring to them in the context of:
Their oppression by Pharaoh (Fir‘awn) (e.g., Qur'an 2:49, 28:4),
Their rescue by Allah through Musa (e.g., Qur'an 26:17-66),
Their status as a distinct community with divine favour, yet not yet a fully formed nation-state.
For instance:
"And [recall] when We saved your forefathers from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with the worst torment..."
— Qur'an 2:49
So while they were a distinct group, they were not yet a nation in the political or state-forming sense.
3. Egyptian Confusion with Other Semites:
The Egyptians likely did not differentiate between various Semitic groups like:
Early Hebrews,
Canaanites,
Amorites,
Other Levantine migrants.
They broadly referred to them as “Aamu” (Asiatics) in hieroglyphic texts. To the Egyptian state, Semites were all foreign populations from the northeast, many of whom settled in the Nile Delta for economic reasons or were brought as slaves or soldiers.
This means that:
The Banu Isra'il could easily have been socially or administratively grouped with other Semitic peoples.
Only through prophetic guidance and divine events (like the Exodus) did they emerge as a distinct spiritual nation.
Here’s a breakdown of what the Qur’an says:
1. Banu Isra'il Were a Small Group
The Qur’an describes them as a minority within Egyptian society:
"Indeed, these people are a small band..."
"Innahum la-shir-dhimatun qaleelun"
— Surah Ash-Shu‘ara (26:54)
This was said by Pharaoh when he saw them as numerically insignificant, yet threatening enough to his power that he sought to crush them.
2. Pharaoh's Mass Killing of Sons
Pharaoh's persecution is directly linked to a dream or premonition—not simply population control, as sometimes suggested in the Biblical version.
"Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a group among them, slaughtering their sons and keeping their women alive. He was truly one of the corrupters."
— Surah Al-Qasas (28:4)
And further:
"And [recall] when We Inspired to your mother what We Inspired, saying: 'Put him in the chest and cast it into the river...'"
— Surah Ta-Ha (20:38-39)
These verses tie the killing of male infants directly to Musa's birth and Pharaoh’s fear—likely rooted in a dream or omen, which the Qur’an implies but does not describe in detail.
While the Bible (Exodus 1:8–22) speaks of the king fearing Israel's rising numbers and siding with Egypt’s enemies, the Qur’an paints a more nuanced picture: a ruler who divided society, targeted a specific oppressed group, and acted on superstition or prophetic fear—hence the killing of sons.
Summary:
The Qur’an confirms Banu Isra’il were a small, oppressed group in Egypt—not a large nation.
Pharaoh’s killing of male infants was based on a dream or divine warning, not merely fear of numbers.
The Qur’an emphasizes moral corruption, tyranny, and divine justice, correcting the tone and focus of the Biblical narrative.
1. Hyksos in the North (Delta) – Asiatic Rule
"Hyksos" comes from the Egyptian term heqa khasut (Ḥqꜣ-ḫꜣswt), meaning "rulers of foreign lands."
These were Semitic Canaanite rulers, likely from areas corresponding to modern-day Syria-Palestine, who took over the Nile Delta region during the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1650–1550 BCE).
They ruled from Avaris and adopted some Egyptian customs while keeping many of their own. They introduced new technologies, such as the horse-drawn chariot.
2. Nubians/Cushites in the South
At various points, especially during the Middle Kingdom and later, Nubians (Kushites) played significant roles in southern Egypt and Upper Nubia.
Egypt had complex interactions with Kush: sometimes dominating it, and at other times being influenced by or even ruled by it (as in the 25th Dynasty, long after the New Kingdom).
Nubians were both militarily powerful and culturally rich, and they intermarried, contributed to religious life (e.g., worship of Amun), and even served in Pharaonic armies.
3. New Kingdom Unification and Egyptian Identity
The New Kingdom (c. 1550–1077 BCE) begins after the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose I, who established the 18th Dynasty.
This period was marked by a conscious effort to forge a unified and powerful Egyptian identity—militarily, politically, and religiously.
Egyptian kings absorbed and adapted foreign elements (Semitic and Nubian), creating a synthesised Egyptian culture that was:
Politically centralised,
Militarily expansive,
Religiously focused on the cult of Amun-Re (a fusion of native and possibly Nubian influences).
4. A Mixed Yet Unified Identity
Egyptian identity was never racially pure—it was a cultural identity that included:
Semitic migrants, especially in the Delta,
Nubian/Cushite elites and soldiers in the south,
A blending of languages, religious practices, and political ideologies.
So by the New Kingdom, "Egyptianness" was more about loyalty to the state, the gods (especially Amun-Re), and the Pharaoh, rather than race or ethnicity.
By the time of Rameses II (c. 1279–1213 BCE)—the likely Pharaoh during Musa’s (AS) mission—the Banu Isra'il were in a profoundly vulnerable and marginalised position, and the historical context explains why:
1. Post-Hyksos Suspicion
After the Hyksos (Asiatic Semitic rulers) were expelled around 1550 BCE, foreign Semitic peoples in Egypt were viewed with deep suspicion.
The Hyksos' memory lingered as a national trauma—a time when “foreigners” had ruled Egypt.
Pharaohs of the New Kingdom (including Rameses II) were highly sensitive to anything resembling internal Semitic dissent or growing foreign populations.
So Banu Isra’il, being Semitic and residing in the Delta region (Avaris area), were likely lumped together with the remnants or descendants of Hyksos, making them targets of racialised and political oppression.
2. New Kingdom Nationalism
The New Kingdom was an imperialist, centralised, and nationalistic era. Pharaohs portrayed themselves as living gods and defenders of Ma’at (cosmic order).
Any internal group that seemed different, particularly a monotheistic community like Banu Isra’il, would have been seen as a threat to Pharaoh’s divine status.
The Pharaohs embarked on massive building projects (e.g. Pi-Ramesses, temples), and enslaved or conscripted marginalised peoples—likely including the Israelites—for forced labour.
3. Ethnic and Religious Isolation
The Qur’an shows that Banu Isra’il held onto distinct religious and moral values. While they may have been assimilated linguistically or culturally to some extent, they still maintained their belief in the God of Ibrahim (AS), Ishaq (AS), and Yaqub (AS).
This set them apart not just as foreigners, but as monotheists in a deeply polytheistic society, increasing their social vulnerability.
4. The Pharaoh's Fear (and the Dream)
As mentioned earlier, the Pharaoh’s decision to kill their sons wasn’t just population control—it was a fearful reaction to a dream or divine omen, possibly about the coming of a prophet who would overthrow his regime.
Hence:
“Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a group among them, slaughtering their sons…”
— Qur’an 28:4
This was a genocidal policy rooted in fear, nationalism, and a desire to control what was seen as an unstable, semi-foreign labouring class.
In Summary:
By the time of Rameses II:
The memory of Hyksos rule made Semites like Banu Isra’il deeply distrusted.
Egyptian nationalism and imperialism had made any deviation from the state religion and identity dangerous.
The Israelites' ethnic and religious distinctiveness, combined with their economic utility and powerlessness, made them ideal scapegoats and targets for oppression.
Islamic tradition, archaeology, and ancient history all support the idea that Musa (AS) was a dark-skinned man, likely of Afro-Asiatic or East African/Canaanite appearance. Let’s unpack that with Hadith, regional anthropology, and historical iconography.
1. Hadith Description of Musa (AS)
One of the most explicit narrations comes from Sahih al-Bukhari:
“I saw Musa (Moses), and he was a dark brown man with curly hair, as if he was one of the men of the tribe of Shanu’ah.”
(Sahih al-Bukhari, 3437)
“Adam” in Arabic means dark brown, not “white” (as in modern race terms).
The tribe of Shanu’ah were South Arabian and described in early sources as dark-skinned with curly or thick hair.
This aligns Musa (AS) with the look of Afro-Asiatic Semitic peoples from Arabia, East Africa, and Canaan—not modern Western stereotypes.
2. The Ancient Levant and Egypt Were Black and Brown
Sumerians, as mentioned, depicted themselves with deep brown skin, especially the ruling and priestly classes.
Pre-Abrahamic Mesopotamia had clear connections with Nilotic and Cushitic peoples. Trade and gene flow between the Nile Valley and the Fertile Crescent were common.
The Hyksos—likely from the Levant—are portrayed in tomb paintings (like at Beni Hasan) as brown-skinned men with full lips, long faces, and thick, sometimes wide hairdos.
3. Afro-Asiatic Ethnic Continuum
The peoples of:
Upper Egypt and Nubia (Cushites),
Canaan (early Semites),
South Arabia and Ethiopia (Sabaeans, Himyarites), ...all belonged to the Afro-Asiatic language and cultural sphere. Their phenotypes overlapped, often featuring:
Brown to black skin,
Curly or coiled hair,
Broad features.
So it’s historically, linguistically, and anthropologically sound to understand Musa (AS) as looking more like a modern Sudanese, Yemeni, or Afro-Palestinian man than a pale-skinned Middle Eastern or European depiction.
4. Qur’anic & Visual Evidence of Semitic Diversity
The Qur'an gives no racialised descriptions, but it uses terms like "قوما مستضعفين" (oppressed people), implying foreignness and inferiority within Egypt.
Tomb art from the New Kingdom shows Asiatics (Aamu) as brown-skinned with curly or wavy hair, wearing distinctive Levantine dress.
Musa (AS) was raised in the royal court of Pharaoh, which also would’ve included Nubians, Libyans, and Semites, all shown in records as people of colour.
Conclusion
This insight is well-supported:
Musa (AS) was a dark-skinned, thick-haired man, emerging from a Semitic population with deep cultural and biological ties to both East Africa and the ancient Near East. The Hadith confirms this explicitly, and historical evidence does not contradict it—in fact, it helps correct Eurocentric misrepresentations in popular media and art.
The Biblical and Qur'anic descriptions of Yusuf’s (AS) shirt, when viewed alongside archaeological imagery of the Hyksos and Canaanites, offer an insightful convergence of text and artefact. Let’s explore that deeper:
1. The "Technicolour Coat" in the Bible
In Genesis 37:3, it says:
"Now Israel loved Joseph... and he made him a coat of many colours."
This phrase has long been interpreted as a symbol of favour and status, something that made Yusuf’s (AS) brothers envious.
The Hebrew term is “ketonet passim”, which may imply a long-sleeved or ornate garment, possibly colourful or richly woven.
2. The Qur’anic Emphasis on the Qamīs (Shirt)
The Qur'an references Yusuf’s (AS) shirt three times, each time full of symbolism:
Qur'an 12:17 – His shirt is stained with false blood.
Qur'an 12:25 – It is torn from the back during the incident with the governor’s wife.
Qur'an 12:93 – It’s the means of healing Yaqub’s (AS) blindness.
This repetition suggests the shirt is more than fabric—it symbolises truth, identity, divine protection, and emotional connection.
3. Archaeological Imagery: Canaanites in Egypt
At Beni Hasan (a Middle Kingdom tomb site), there's a famous mural (~1900 BCE) showing "Aamu" (Asiatic foreigners) entering Egypt.
Key visual features of these Canaanites:
Wearing multicoloured, striped garments—often in tunic style.
Long sleeves and decorative patterns.
Full garments, unlike the bare-chested style of most Egyptian men.
Hair was thick, tied, or worn in full styles—different from the clean-shaven Egyptians.
This directly supports the idea that Yusuf (AS), if Canaanite, would have worn such a garment—and it would have stood out in Egypt as exotic, foreign, and possibly noble.
4. Cultural Significance of the Garment
In a society where clothing reflected class and identity, Yusuf’s shirt would have:
Marked him as favoured by his father.
Signalled foreign origins when he was enslaved or rose to power.
Become a divine sign—used to expose lies and restore sight.
So what was once just an article of clothing became a literary and spiritual symbol, rooted in both historical fact and divine wisdom.
Final Reflection
The Qur’an’s attention to Yusuf’s shirt aligns with actual archaeological representations of Canaanite attire during the relevant era.
Recent archaeological findings, especially DNA analyses from burial sites in the northeastern Nile Delta (like Tell el-Dab'a, associated with Avaris—the Hyksos capital), have shown a predominance of females among the non-local burials. This challenges the older, militaristic narrative that the Hyksos were invaders from Canaan who violently conquered Egypt. Instead, the data suggest a more gradual migration, possibly involving family units or even primarily women arriving through marriage, trade, or servitude—more of a cultural infiltration than a military conquest.
Now, regarding Sayyiduna Musa (AS): if we take the Qur’anic account seriously as a historical lens, it’s plausible that there was a systematic targeting of male children from Bani Isra’il by Pharaoh’s regime (Surah Al-Qasas 28:4 and Surah Al-Baqarah 2:49 mention the slaughter of sons and sparing of women). This state-sponsored patricide would naturally skew the population over time, leaving a demographic legacy of more women than men.
This raises compelling possibilities:
Could some of the Hyksos-linked women be the surviving matriarchs of earlier Semitic peoples who settled or were enslaved in Egypt?
Could the biblical and Qur’anic descriptions of a long-term oppression of Bani Isra’il align with the gender disparity found in the graves?
Around 1669 BCE, the "years of plenty" described in the story of Yusuf (AS) may have occurred under Hyksos rule—foreign Semitic kings who controlled northern Egypt. Yusuf (AS), possibly seen as a fellow Semite, rose to power and introduced grain storage reforms that helped Egypt survive famine. These reforms may have strengthened Egypt’s economy and centralised power, laying the groundwork for its later imperial expansion after the Hyksos were expelled.
Correction:
The Merneptah Stele is often cited as the earliest reference to "Israel," but this is misleading. The hieroglyphs don't phonetically match the Hebrew "Yisra’el" (ישראל) and likely refer to a people group or region in Canaan—not a nation. At the time (c. 1207 BCE), a unified nation of Israel did not yet exist. The inscription more accurately reflects a loose group of Semitic-speaking tribes, not the established Israelite identity we see later in history.
Just as the story of Nūḥ (AS) describes a flood that wiped out his people, not the entire world, the story of Mūsā (AS) is also specific: it was the people of Fir‘awn—his court, army, and followers—who were destroyed, not all of Egypt. The Qur’an uses precise terms like “Fir‘awn’s people” (Qasas 28:4, Yunus 10:90).
Join the email list for more…
