In what meaning pharoah claimed to be only God/god by AHLUSSUNNAHWAL JAMAAH

Concerning the ancient Egyptian religion during the time of the Pharaohs, the Qur'an reports three interesting statements. Firstly, when Prophet Moses calls Pharaoh to worship one true God, the call is rejected. Instead Pharaoh collects his men and proclaims that he is their Lord, most high. Hath the story of Moses reached thee? Behold, thy Lord did call to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa, "Go thou to Pharaoh for he has indeed transgressed all bounds: And say to him, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Wouldst thou that thou

shouldst be purified (from sin)? - And that I guide thee to thy Lord, so thou shouldst fear Him?'" Then did (Moses) show him the Great Sign. But (Pharaoh) rejected it and disobeyed (guidance); Further, he turned his back, striving hard (against God). Then he collected (his men) and made a proclamation, Saying, " I am your Lord, Most High". [Qur'an 79:15-24]

Secondly, when Moses goes to Pharaoh with clear signs, they are rejected as being "fake". Pharaoh then addresses his chiefs by saying that he knows of no god for them except him. Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god /God do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38]

The last[Thirdly] statement comes in connection with the victory of Prophet Moses over the magicians of Egypt. Here the chiefs of Pharaoh say to him that this victory of Moses over the magicians could result in an abandonment of you (i.e., Pharaoh) and your gods (Arabic: wa yadaraka wa Ä lihataka) in favour of the God of Moses. And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: "Do you leave Musa and his people to make mischief in the land and to forsake you and your gods/Gods?" He said: "We will slay their sons and spare their women, and surely we are masters over them." [Qur'an 7:127]

However, according to Christian missionaries, the statement reported in the Qur'an 28:38 is in "direct contradiction" to Qur'an 7:127. In other words, the Pharaoh claims that he is the only god for his people, the Egyptians, in direct contradiction to 7:127 where the chiefs of his people express concern that Moses' victory could lead to the downfall of their traditional Egyptian gods (in the plural).

Commenting on the Qur'an 28:38, another Christian missionary says: This is an enormous historical error. The Pharaohs believed themselves divine, however there is no evidence that any Pharaoh considered himself the one and only god. Amenhotep is considered to be a monotheist, however he did not hold himself to be the one and only god, he believed that title belonged to the god Aten [also called Aton]. The god Ra was considered the highest god in ancient Egypt, not the Pharaoh. [Let this objection be marked since lack of evidence cannot be a Historical Error [HR] Since it is Possible that Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;a:n is reporting some thing which is not reported by the records of History. What if there is some thing reported in New Testamentum which is not recorded in Historical Records. ]

In order to support their claim of "direct contradiction", they quote Muhammad Asad, a wellknown Qur'an translator, who considers that the Qur'an 28:38 should not be "taken literally" as the Egyptians also worshipped many gods. Given the fact that Asad is better known for his translation of the Qur'an rather than his scholarship in the religion of ancient Egypt, the missionaries then go on to explain the alleged "discrepancy" without any recourse to reliable, verifiable historical sources. As one navigates the jumbled maze of verbiage one encounters apparently innocuous questions such as: [1]

Did the Egyptians have many gods or only one god? Since this may not have been the same at all times, we would have to ask more specifically: What was the religion of the Egyptians at the time of the Exodus? [These we have borrowed from Islamic Awareness] The question is that why the missionaries have used such material to shew that there are internal contradictions in Holy Qur’an.? This is because their enmity of Qur’an has reached to its maximum. If such a problem has been in their beloved books they would have tried to solve the problem instead of claiming objections as one may see in the case of several objections on their beloved books.We do hope that even Christian scholars of major Christian sects like Catholism , Orthodox , and Protestant , shall second us that these objections on the Text of ‘Aya:t are wrong and incorrect. www.Islamic- awareness .org have tried to make response it its own way and we have tried to response in another way. We have tried to discuss the problem in another way. The Basic Error in the Objection:= The missionaries have some how assumed that the Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] were as opposites as in Semitic Religions [SR] nounly [namely] Judaism,Christianity and Islam which are Pure Monotheistic Religions. Thus all the cases of claims of Contradictions are based on the basic assumption that the Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] was a Pure Polytheism. Ifthis assumption is wrong and incorrect then all the claims of contradiction are not only falsified but disproved.

Kathenotheism instead of Pure Monotheism [PM] and Pure Polytheism [PP]. Their idea about God and gods was not so simple and it is not a correct scholarship that they are attempted to be studied in light of SR. Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] may be studied in the light of Hindu Texts since it was much close to Henotheism as Major Hindu Sects [MHS] are. 1 At first sight, Hinduism seem to be unequivocally Pure Polytheistic: there are certainly many gods. Indra is the king of the Gods and God of the rain (much like his Greek and Roman cousins Zeus and Iupiter); Varuna the God of the heavenly vault and the moral law (related to the Greek Ouranos); Agni the God of fire (cf. the Latin ignis, and the English “ignite”); and so forth. Each individual worshiper would know, and might use, several different poems to different Gods. Always there was an awareness of the multiplicity of the gods. At time of war, or drought, one prayed to Indra; in a sacrifice, one invoked Agni (the sacrificial fire); and so forth. We can detect both what might be called PERSONAL polytheism (one person worshipping several gods) and Communal polytheism (several people worshipping several gods and respecting, or at the very least acknowledging the existence of, one another’s gods).The same is true of Ancient Egyptian Religion. AER is some how a Henotheism or

2 But the polytheism of Vedic religion sometimes functioned as a kind of Serial Monotheism [SM]that the Vedic scholar Friedrich Max Müller (1823-1900) named “Henotheism” or “Kathenotheism,” the worship of a number of gods, one at a time, regarding each as the supreme, or even the only, god while you are talking to him. Thus, one Vedic poem will praise a god and chalk up to his account the credit for separating heaven and earth, propping them apart with a pillar, but another Vedic poem will use exactly the same words to praise another god. (In addition, each god would have characteristics and deeds that were his alone; no one but Indra kills the demonic serpent of drought.) Bearing in mind the way in which the

metaphor of adultery has traditionally been used by monotheistic religions to stigmatize polytheism (“whoring after other gods”), and used by later Hinduism to characterize the love of god (as in the Bengali tradition of Krishna and Radha), we might regard this attitude as a kind of theological parallel to serial monogamy, or, if you prefer, open hierogamos: “You, Vishnu, are the only god I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.” “You, Varuna, are the only god I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.” ” “You, Juliet, are the only woman I've ever loved; you are the only one.” This the concept which cannot be understand if the believes are divided into only two sets:1) Pure Monotheism. 2)Pure Polytheism. Since there are some more sets of believes. When a God/god is discussed he as discussed as IF he is the Only God/god and there is No God/god beside that God/god, even if multitudes of Gods/gods [of either gender] are believed.

One must consider such words in light of Henotheism, Kathenpotheism andMonolatrism. The may be a type of Polytheism but Certainly not Pure Polytheism. For sake of simplicity the word Polytheism is only used for the Pure Polytheism in this entire essay or article. The idea of “the [only] one” as applied to several different members of a polytheistic pantheon also appears in some of the later verses of the Rig Veda: “They call it Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and it is the heavenly bird that flies. The wise speak of what is One in many ways; they call it Agni, Yama, Matarishvan.” [1.164.46] 1 The idea that one could choose between members of a pantheon of gods was integral to Vedic religion. For example, each stanza of one Vedic poem ends with the questioning refrain, “Who is the god whom we should worship with the oblation?” 3 Thus: “He by whom the awesome sky and the Earth were made firm, by whom the dome of the sky was propped up, and the sun, who measured out the middle realm of space— who is the god whom we should worship with the oblation?” [10.121] The Atharva Veda, too, a fourth Veda composed in around 900 BCE, asked not only who the god was, but how many gods there might be: “Who and how many were those Gods who fastened together the chest and neck of the Primeval Man? How many fixed his breasts? Who formed his elbows? How many joined together ribs and shoulders?” [10.2.4] The texts that followed the Vedas, called the Brahmanas (mythological, philosophical, and ritual glosses on the Vedas), were composed at a time (c. 800 BCE) when the Brahmin priests had taken on greater control and influence; troubled by the open-ended refrain of the Rig Vedic poem, they invented a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun Who (Ca\Ka, cognate with the Latin quis, French qui,INTERESTINGLY there is a dogma of Ka in Ancient Egypt as well.). Read back into the Vedic poem (as it was in later Vedic commentaries 2 ), this resulted in an affirmative statement: “Indeed, Who is the god whom we should honor with the oblation,” somewhat reminiscent of the famous Abbott and Costello routine ("Who's on first?"). This sacerdotal arrogance closed down some of those openings through which fresh theological air had flowed in the Veda. The question became the answer. 3

In this way it is clear that AER was not a Polytheism but a Henotheism .In the ancient Egyptian Religion the same idea was used . The Egyptian Monarchs were believed to be Gods or Gods’ Incarnates [Incarnation(s)Of God]. In this case when Pharaoh claimed "O Chiefs! no god do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38], he did say it in the very same sense as in Henothiesm religions.

“You, Vishnu, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.” “You, Varuna, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.” So it is some how evident that there are some common elements in all Henotheistic religions, examples of which has been provided. So if Pharaoh said that he was the only God/god he said more or less in the Henotheistic meaning and not in the Monotheistic meaning. In Upanishads one find a Monism which is sometime confused by Monotheism. But they are different. There are several Gods mentioned in Vedas. But how many Gods are there. Upnishad provides an other reply. Upnishad says

In a dialogue 4 in which, in response to the pupil's repeated question, "But how many gods are there, really?" the increasingly impatient teacher replies, first, "Three hundred and three, and three thousand and three," then "Thirty-three," then, "Six," then, "Three," then, "Two," then, "One and a half," and, finally, “One." 3 This “One” is the emblem not of monotheism but of Upanishadic monism, which assumes that all living things are elements of a single, universal being (often called brahman), reached by individual meditation, a philosophy often contrasted with the polytheistic world of group sacrifice to multiple gods. The doctrine of the Upanishads is also sometimes characterized as pantheism (in which God is everything and everything is God) or, at times, panentheism (in which God encompasses and interpenetrates the universe, but at the same time this God is Greater then the Iniverse and other than it. The vague monism of the Vedas was sharpened by the more systematized Vedantic monism of the Upanishads. Coming back to Egypt from India it is some what clear that Egyptian also believed in One God along with multitudes of Gods/gods.

Ancient Egyptians often did chose to worship some or one of the many Egyptian gods/Gods, but at the same time they continue to acknowledge the existence of the other Egyptian gods whom they did not worship. This type of worship of one god/God (OR some gods/Gods) among many gods/Gods is not Monotheism But Henotheism ,rather a form of Henothiesm, since there are several forms of it. Henotheism is the belief in and the worship of one god while accepting the existence of other gods.[or worshipping some gods while accepting other gods which are not worshipped . This may be termed as Poly-Henotheism or Polyhenotheism]. It is pointed out that the many gods /Godsof Ancient Egyptians were simply various forms, appearences, culminations,menifestations,incarnations and emanations) of a Single Supreme Being (God). This is where the idea of monotheism comes in. A belief in a Single Supreme Being is Monotheism. But the belief that the many gods is Polythiesim even if they are all included in the One, Single, Supreme Being. Therefore, , this Dogma of Manifestation is Poly-Monotheistic. These Egyptian /Gods/gods eg Horus ,Osiris, even Ra himself, were believed to

be "manifestations, , or personified attributes of Only One God", the invisibleSupreme Being [ God/god]. These[Less

Than Supreme Being] were not believed to be separate gods, but incarnations or manifestations of one and same Supreme Being[God/god] the one and only God/god, inseparable [in a meaning] from Him. A similar confusion is found in some Hindu Texts and Sects say Vaishnavism.

The confusion partly arises because, unlike most religious traditions, Vaishnavism acknowledges a form of Polymorphic Monotheism [which is actually not a type of Monotheism but Henotheism].. That is to say, it holds that there is one Supreme BeingGod/god who appears in numerous manifestations, each distinct and unique. These manifestations, moreover, are considered equal and yet hierarchical as well. They are one, and yet different. Yet it may be said that all forms[ Word FormNot in the meaning of Essence/Nature] of God are one, as in the following quote from Srila Prabhupada: How ever in Ancient Egypt it may be differentiated that the Manifestations were not necessary Equal. Some traces of trichotomy are even found in Hinduism .One such example is as follow:= Jayadeva Goswami's Gita Govinda (circa twelth century) also proclaims Lord Krishna's primary position among incarnations [of God], reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam. After listing ten prominent incarnations of Vishnu in the book's first chapter, Jayadeva concludes by stating that Krishna is their source. In fact, Jayadeva implies Krishna's preeminence throughout the Gita Govinda and states it explicitly in Act 1, Verse 16 (daśakriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah): "O Krishna, I offer my obeisances unto You, who assume these ten spiritual forms." The same concept appears in ancient Egypt at particular times.

5:= At first glance it appears that Monotheism and Polytheism not only grew up side by side in Ancient Egypt but the also learned to live together, to grant one another’s existence.But this is a birds eye view. A deeper study implies that it was a Form of Henotheism which did developed in Egypt , as it appeared in Ancient India [AI].

The number of scholars exclusionary focus on those portions of found texts which support either monism or polytheism amounted to mistaking Kathenotheistic Polytheism for Monistic Monotheism.

Monism in Egypt acknowledged the reality of the gods/Gods of the pantheon but accorded them a secondary, illusory status in comparison with the enduring, real status of the underlying monistic God. Thus like many gods/Gods of the Hindu Pantheon were often grouped under a monistic umbrella/armour, so that all gods/Gods are said to be aspects of one particular god/God (sometimes Vishnu, sometimes Shiva) or, more often, aspects of the universal, ineffable Brahman or Barmh) the same may be said for Egyptian God and Gods/gods . As in India at other times, individual, effable gods/Gods are said to be the manifestations of the true god/God that is “without qualities” (nir-guna) [Barmh/Barhaman], but the manifestations are characters “with qualities” (sa-guna)—with names, adventures, distinct appearances. 5

All of these theological variations, and many more, appear in the Puranas, the encyclopedic Sanskrit (and, later, vernacular) texts that expound the myths, rituals, and philosophies of sectarian Hinduism. Here we encounter the several avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu, which make Vishnu a kind of walking one-god polytheism; at times he appears as a fish, as a boar, as various human beings (Rama, Krishna, even the Buddha), all of which were originally individual deities who later became absorbed into the overarching figure of Vishnu. His incarnations are often said to be “partial”: while Vishnu appears as Krishna, for instance, the god Vishnu also remains in his heaven, entirely complete. In contrast with the complete lives that Vishnu takes on in his avatars, the god Shiva becomes multiple by manifesting himself in various forms, usually during relatively brief masquerades. An other rather simple explanation of Monism Polytheism amalgam is that There is only One God [Barmh/Brahman] Who Manifested in Angel or Cherub like characters Vishnu , Shieu, Barhama. This is the prime Manifestation (PM).

6: It is the Bhagavatam, in fact, that makes the most famous declarative statement about Krishna's primary position IN RELATION TO OTHER MANIFESTATIONS,APPEARENCES,CULMINATIONS,INCARNATIONS OF GOD.: "All of the above-mentioned incarnations,manifestations,culminations et cetera are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krishna is the original Personality of Godhead." (Bhag. 1.3.28) Actually, the First Canto’s entire Third Chapter serves to prove THIS point: Its first four verses glorify the Vishnus who appear in the beginning of creation, and then it lists a number of important incarnations, including Krishna Himself. It is only at the end of the list that we find the words krishnas tu bhagavan svayam—"Krishna is God Himself"—words that ring loudest for theBhagavatam's traditional commentators. Prabhupada's commentary on that text is clear: "In this particular stanza Lord Sri Krishna, the Personality of Godhead, is distinguished from all other incarnations." And later in that purport: "According to Srila Jiva Goswami's statement, in accordance with authoritative sources, Lord Krishna is the source of all other incarnations. It is not that Lord Krishna has any source of incarnation." According to Sri Jiva Goswami, one of the patriarchs of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, this verse (krishnas tu bhagavan svayam) is theparibhasa-sutra of the entire 18,000verse Bhagavatam. A paribhasa-sutra states the central theme of a literary work. In his Krishnasandarbha(Anuccheda 73), Sri Jiva elaborates, writing that the many verses of theBhagavatam might be compared to an army, with this verse the monarch who commands that army. He further shows that, according to this verse and many others, Krishna is the original form of God and the ideal object of pure devotional service. Jayadeva Goswami's Gita Govinda (circa twelth century) also proclaims Lord Krishna's primary position among incarnations, reinforcing the teaching of the Bhagavatam. After listing ten prominent incarnations of Vishnu in the book's first chapter, Jayadeva concludes by stating that Krishna is their source. In fact, Jayadeva implies Krishna's preeminence throughout the Gita Govinda and states it

explicitly in Act 1, Verse 16 (daĹ&#x203A;akriti-krite krishnaya tubhyam namah): "O Krishna, I offer my obeisances unto You, who assume these ten spiritual forms."

In the Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu, Rupa Goswami lists sixty-four characteristics or qualities exhibited by living beings. Fifty of these, he writes, can be found in an ordinary soul (jiva) in minute proportion, while Lord Brahma, Lord Shiva, and other demigods may possess as many as fifty-five. Vishnu, he continues, displays up to sixty of these qualities. But the remaining four are found only in Krishna, escaping all other manifestations of the Supreme. The four qualities unique to Krishna are as follows: Embedded in these scriptural explanations of Krishna's supreme position is something more fundamental: Krishna's supremacy underscores the superiority of love over power, sweetness over opulence. Most concepts of God, even in the Vaishnava tradition, naturally evoke awe and reverence, but Krishna evokes intimacy and personal loving relationship. It is this, beyond all else, that distinguishes Him among manifestations of the Supreme. And love, as we all know, is the highest phenomenon in all of existence. After all, when confronted with a choice between power and love, who would choose the former? Srila Prabhupada writes in Chapter Ten of Teachings of Lord Chaitanya:"There is no beauty to compare with that of Krishna, who is the origin of Narayana and all other incarnations, for no one possesses beauty equal to or greater than Krishnaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s. Otherwise, why would the goddess of fortune, the constant companion of Narayana, give up His association and engage herself in penance to gain the association of Krishna? Such is the superexcellent beauty of Krishna, the everlasting mine of all beauty. It is from that beauty that all other beautiful things emanate." Conclusion of sixth primilinary:= In Krishna Sect of Hinduism we find that there is only one God/god Who Manifests in several Forms [ Some what Analogous to Hypostases] yet Krishna is unique in several respects. Based on them Krishna is the greatest of All Manifestations.

Some examples from Sanskrit Canons:= [A] Lord Krishna is the supreme absolute controller, whose form comprises immortality, omniscience and bliss. He is without beginning, the origin of all, the cause of all causes and the source of the Vedas. Brahma Samhita, chapter 5, verse 1

A number of Indian Scholars of Sanskrit Scriptures believe that Krisna is the human Incarnation of Vishnu who is in turn is the angelic or bodily incarnation of Barmh or Brahman. So if an incarnation calls himself as The Barmh or Brahman then this means that the Incarnation is predicating its own self to the One that is Incarnated or Manifested of both. 7

[B] He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds-he, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

[10:4-5] [C] I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

[10:8] These words cannot be said even by Vishu or Sheu . Since only Barmh or Brahman Hath the right to say it. But If Krishna who is a human Incarnation of Superhuman/angelic Incarnation then the only possible way to understand these words is be supposing the prerequisite that Incarnations whether prime or secondary or tertiary can be predicated to the Barmh or Barhaman. [D] Arjuna

said: You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal divine person. You are the primal God, transcendental and original, and You are the unborn and all-pervading beauty. All the great sages such as Nārada, Asita, Devala, and Vyāsa proclaim this of You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me. [10:12-13 This is sufficient enough to prove that atleast some Hindus interpret this verse as the predications stated above. [E]] Indeed, You alone know Yourself by Your own potencies, O origin of all, Lord of all beings, God of gods, O Supreme Person, Lord of the universe![10:25] [F] I am the Self, O Guḍākeśa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the end [ALPHA AND OMEGA]of all beings.

Chapter 10, Verse 20 [G] Of the Vedas I am the Sāma-veda; of the demigods I am Indra; of the senses I am the mind, and in living beings I am the living force [knowledge].

Chapter 10, Verse 22 This verse is very important henotheistic verse since it shews that all other manifestations and incarnations are less than the incarnation known as Krishna. [H] 17. I am the father of this world, the mother, the dispenser of the fruits of actions, and the grandfather; the (one) thing to be known, the purifier, the sacred monosyllable (Om), and also the Rig-, the Sama- and Yajur Vedas. [17 [I] 11. Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.

Kathenotheism where a particular manifestation or a particular incarnation of Supreme Being [God/god] is predicated to the Supreme Being or the Supreme Being is predicated to the said Incarnation or Manifestation or Culmination. This aspect of Henotheism, Monolatrism, Kathenotheism etc. are still a field of research. Examples from Gita may be interpreted differently by different Hindu Sects and Cults, but the general impression of Mahahbharat(a) and its part Bhagvat Gita is that Krishna was a ruler and a human being [at least in appearance] who claimed to be the Supreme Being. The human Incarnation i.e the body of Krishna as seen be the viewers in Gita and Bharata is predicated by Krishna to Supreme Being. Now if the human person Krishna is not denying Vedic Gods/ gods the only possible conclusions are as follows:= 1] He is predicating His own Self to Supreme Being. 2] He is Predicating Supreme Being to His ownSself. 3] He is declairing him self as most high incarnation among all Incarnations,Menifestations,and Culminations. These are the complex cases of Henotheism ,Monolatrism and

One may read entire Bhagvat Gita with this approach and it is most likely to second this view that in Henotheis,Monolatry and Kathenotheism an Incarnation or a Manifestation or a Culmination of the Supreme Being [God/god] is predicated to the Supreme Being and vise versa. The Predication may be termed as Predicatheism . As the Supreme Being is considered as the only Supreme Being, the Manifestation or Incarnation or Culmination whether as a human being or an angelic or super human being in the predication is the Henotheistic only God/god and not the Monotheistic only God/god.

A type of Henotheism implies that the principal god/God exists in a context of other gods/Gods. But another types implies that there is a Principle God/god That Exists in context of His Manifestations, Incarnations and Culminations. This explains better the religions [with all their cults and sects] that we find in ancientIndia and Ancient Egypt then the simple Pure Polytheism.This type is termed as Summodeism. 9

Summodeism, may be defined as the worship of a Supreme Being who sits at the head of a pantheon of other Gods/gods who are just s manifestations , incarnations,culminations etcof this High god/God or Supreme Being . Thus, in a summodeistic system, the existence of multiple gods only occurs because a single, high god/God is able to incarnate, to manifest and to culminate into many different Gods/gods. A form of Summodeism is common with Predicatheism. This is the belief that is found in Bhagvat Gita. Which is the irrefutable evidence that such believes did exist in the ancient world.

7:= Reason: Even If Krishna is either a unique Manifestation/Form/Hypostase of Supreme Being yet at several times Krishna Speaks as if He is the Very Supreme Being Himself and not just as a Manifestation/Hypostasis in the Essence,Nature,Form,SubstanceExistence (Beingness) and Godhead of the Supreme Being. The only reason which may be given is that each one of the Essence,Nature etc Of Supreme Being is highly communicable to each one of the Forms, Manifestations, Hypostases, Culminations, Appearances et cetera of the Supreme Being. A manifestation or an Incarnation or a Culmination was predicated to the Being which Was Manifested or Culminated or Inacarnated, and vice versa. This was the reason that when an Incarnation like Krishna conversed with his devotees say Arjun(a), he spoke as if He is the Very Supreme Being Itself not just an Incarnation of the Supreme Being. Coming back to Egypt it may be said that Pharaoh was not a Philosopher yet he did know his Henotheistic believes and his courtiers must also know their Henotheistic believes. Pharaoh must have known his believes and he must have known the Henotheistic Religion of Egypt. It need not to be a Philosopher to believe in a religion whether it is Polytheistic or Monotheistic or Henotheistic or Cathenotheistic etc. Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Indians both did not believe in the plurality of Supreme Beings. What Pharaoh did say was that he was the greatest Manifestation Of Supreme Being. Pharaoh at that was speaking as if he was not a Manifestation of Supreme Being but the very Supreme Being Himself. Predicating himself as a Manifestation to the Supreme Being, 8:= Monism is some time considered as a kind of Monotheism. But Monism may be Polytheistic or Monotheistic or Henotheistic or Kathenotheistic. Similarly Monotheism may be Monistic or Non Monistic, Polytheism may be Monistic or Non Monistic etc. The same is true for Pantheism and Spinozaism. 9:= Pharaohs

have often been characterized as gods/Gods on earth. While the kingship as an institution may have continued fairly constantly throughout more than 3,000 years of history

of ancient Egypt, just what the office signified, how the kings understood their role, and how the general populace perceived the king do not constitute a uniform concept that span the centuries without change. In other words, the ancient Egyptians' view of the king, implied by various historical references, was not static. It underwent changes during the more than 3,000 years of Egyptian history. From the early times the epithet nṭr referred directly to the king as a god. Sometimes the term occurred alone and at other times it appeared with a modifying or descriptive word. In ancient Egypt provides a very important piece of Information [the Great Temple at Abu Simbel, SeeFigure 2]. It does shew the "Lord of Two Lands ‘Usermare-setpenre’" (= Ramesses II) offering to "Ramesses-meryamun" (= Ramesses II). Obviously, Ramesses II is worshipping Ramesses II here. However, we also note that the worshipper and the one who is worshipped have two different names and that these names are pronomen and nomen of Ramesses II, respectively. A closer look at the iconography reveals that the worshipper and he who is worshipped are not identical. He, to whom the offering is made, is adorned with a sundisk and has a curved horn around his ear, depicting his divinity. Therefore, Ramesses II is not simply worshipping himself, but his divine/Divine Self/self. [2]

[3]

[18]

other words the Self of incarnation of God and Self of Incarnated God are in close relation with one another. This is just an attempt to represent this concept in form of picture. As one can see from the examples just discussed, the Pharaoh exalted himself as Lord. From an Incarnation of God to the Incarnated God Himself .That is he used to predicate his self to the Supreme Being.The institution of Lordship in ancient Egyptian belief cannot be underestimated. It was the way in which ordinary Egyptians understood the residence of their gods on earth. [19]

By the early New Kingdom, deification of the living king had become an established practice, and the living king could himself be worshipped and supplicated for aid as a god. [5]

As wesee Some Krishna

worshippers that Krishna is not only predicated to Vishnu but also to the Barmh or Brahma:n the Supreme Being of Hinduism. The same it is the case that the very same

was true for Egyptian Gods in AER.

DEIFICATION 11

PHARAOHS

A] APharaohs were believed to be Divine from the very beginning.How ever the emphasis on their Godhood was different in different times.

. Generally the Egyptian kings were not considered as equal to haveanly asGods/gods like Osiris, Re Amun,Aten etc. The Divinity of the dead kings is more obvious than the Divinity of the a living king, While what we might call full deification occurred for some monarchs within their lifetimes, it was usually in death that this state, however, was reached and a good deal of evidence seems to show that the deceased Egyptian king was venerated as a ‘full’ god/God.’.

But from early times the epithet netjer (ntr) referred directly to the king as a god/God. Sometimes the term occurred alone; at other times it appeared with modifying or descriptive words. Another epithet from early times referred to the king as a descendant of a god — s’ R’, ‘son of Re. Throughout the Old Kingdom the kings were said to have the powers of the Gods/gods: Hu (divine utterance), Sia (divine knowledge) and Heka (divine energy and knowledge of magic). The God/god who was generally believed in the incarnation of the kings was Re, the creator and preserver of the world.Althouth he was himself a Menifestation of the Supreme Being as it must be kept in mind. Some Texts found in Pyramids inform that Heavenly Gods/gods could be worried ,warned, threatened, or hurt ,rewarded or punished according to their acts and doings in regard to Pharaohs of Egypt. For example see Utterance 485 in Papy I. It is found that the Heavenly Gods/gods Who will take the Pharaoh [Earthly God/god According to AER] shall live and ,endure. Bulls shall be slaughtered for them and he shall ascend to the Mansion of Horus (which is in skies, as a reward from the Pharaoh).

But strange punishments are declared for those Gods/gods who do not make the Pharaoh to ascend to skies, as no sacrifice, not possessing of leopard skin and even preventing them from ascension to the Mansion stated above. From this perspective it clearly exposes that the king was honored as an Incarnation God/god and the incarnate powers of the Heavenly Some Heavenly Gods/gods. Some heavenly Gods/gods were honored in the human king.” Human God/god figures were respected as Incarnation of Celestial god-like /God-like powers.Yet they may be considered as lesser Gods/gods than the heavenly and celestial Gods/gods. Human Gods/gods [Pharaohs] were considered lesser then the Heavenly Gods/gods in general, and some heavenly Gods/gods were considered less than the other heavenly Gods/gods. But the heavenly Gods/gods were not believed to be immortal. Death and Mortality were possible for them. Isis threatened Seth to eat his one of the two limbs. This proves that injuries were possible for them. A s a big fish eats the small fish a greater God/Goddess/god/goddess could eat the small one (at least in parts). The Pharaoh God/god Unas was said to eat some Gods/gods in after life. These shew that Pharaohs were believed to be lesser than some celestial Gods/gods particularly those whose incarnations they were believed to be but they were considered greater and more Powerful than at least some of them. This also does shew beyond any shadow of doubt that even the heavenly Gods/gods were believed to be perishable ,mortal and annihilatable. There were instances when a living king did declared himself fully Divine/divine within their lifetimes. . . . The living Deification of Amenophis III and Rameses II during their reigns are certainly attested.

In the case of Amenophis III we find that the king began the increasing solarization of Egypt’s major cults and of his own kingship. According to Raymond Johnson “the king declared himself deified and merged with the solar disc, the Aten.” According to Shaw, monuments dating from his reign “name Rameses himself as the god.” We find the king taking divine prerogatives in his representations, such as those showing him with the curved beard of the gods, with the horns of Amun and wearing the lunar crescent and sun disc or presenting an offering before a statue of himself. In the inner shrine of the great rock cut temples of Abu Simbel, Rameses III was to do likewise. Rameses II did have four statues cut to represent Ptah, ReHorakhte, Oriris (himself) and Amun-Re, seated side by side. That the king is not simply depicted in the company of the gods is clear, since the figures are shown as incontrovertible equals,rather greater then them.

Since It has even been suggested by some that in this group the king might be represented as an embodiment of all these national gods.A human Incarnation of not just one God/god but a number of Gods/gods. Implying more Powerful God/god then all ofGods/gods present there. But it is a more powerful explanation that he considered himself as an incarnation of Supreme Being whose manifestations were the rest of Gods/gods in the representation stated above. During the time of Ramesses II, the deification/Deification of Pharaoh reached its MAXIMUM as evidenced in some cult statues as well as supporting hieroglyphs and papyri. Keeping this in mind, let us now look at the two statements made in the Qur'an, i.e., Pharaoh - the god of Egypt - and his gods/Gods..So Some Pharaohs did exalted their positions from an average God/god to more glorified rather the incarnation of the Supreme Being or Re. [6]

Monotheistic Tendencies Supreme Being in Henotheism may be seen in some Indian cults which do believe that Barmh or Barhaman is the Supreme Being.

In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is without attributes and strictly impersonal. It can be best described as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. Some Hindu sects do worship many Gods/gods. Some Hindu cults worship Them is different from them and other ancient people say the Hittites or the Mediterranean people. They believe in different types of Manifestaions and Incarnations of the Supreme Being. They believe that Supreme Being is but Only Supreme Truth indivisible and Eternal. Some Egyptian Scholars did claim that this type of Henotheistic Supreme Being was also the belief of Ancient Egypt.

According to Budge: The late Dr. H. Brugsch collected a number of the epithets [published in “Religion” pages 99-101] which are applied to the gods, from texts of all periods; and from these we may see that the ideas and beliefs of the Egyptians concerning God were almost identical with those of the Hebrew and Muhammadans at later periods. When classified these epithets read thus [Budge provides more examples, we’ll just stick to a few] :-

1] “ God is One and alone, and none other existeth with Him; God is the One, the One Who hath made all things.”

“God is a spirit, a hidden spirit, the spirit of spirits, the great spirit of the Egyptians, the divine spirit.”

“God is from the beginning, and He hath been from the beginning; He hath existed from of old and was when nothing else had being. He existed when nothing else existed, and what existeth He created after He hand come into being. He is the father of beginnings.”

â&#x20AC;&#x153;God is the eternal One, He is eternal and infinite; and endureth for ever and aye; He hath endured for countless ages, and He shall endure to all eternity.â&#x20AC;?

i) According to E.de Rouge , the Unity of a Supreme Being and Self Existing Being in His Eternity, A Limitless and Eternal Reproduction thereby as God/god, the Attributing of the Creation of the World and All Living Beings to the Supreme [Being] God/god the Impartiality and the Dogma of Reward and Punishment [all are Attributed to the Supreme Being]. (reworded, or original see:The Gods of Egyptians or Studies in Egyptian Mythology by Emest Alfred Wallis Budge} ii)According to Mariette , at the heat (centre) of the Egyptian Pantheon sours of a God/god [Supreme Being] Who is One ,Impartial,Unreachable,Invisible,Hidden,Unaccessable,Creator of the Earth .One Who Existed Before All Things Which Exist. One That Represent the Pre and Abstract Idea Of Deity [I,E athe Supreme Being] . One That is not Specialized by any one of the personage of Egyptian Pantheon. iii)According to the Proves presented by M.Pierret the found texts prove that Egyptian believed in One God/god Who Was without a Second [even in the Company of Lesser Gods/gods], Infinite and Eternal. We have now to consider the visible emblem, and the type and symbol of God, namely the Sun-god Ra, who was worshiped in Egypt in prehistoric times. According to the writings of the Egyptians, there was a time when neither heaven nor earth existed, and when nothing had being except the boundless primeval water, which was, however, shrouded with thick darkness. In this condition the primeval water remained for a considerable time, notwithstanding that it contained within it the germs of the things which afterwards came into existence in this world itself. iv) No Egyptian God/god other than this God/god is the personification of this God/god not even Re/Ra was regarded as the personification . How ever at times some of them were considered as His Personification. iv) Genesis of Egyptian Texts informs that:= The spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for creative activity, and having uttered the word, the world sprang straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in the mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its creation. The next act of creation was the form of a germ, or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form was embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit. LATTER the spirit of the primeval water felt the desire for creative activity, and having uttered the word, the world sprang straightway into being in the form which had already been depicted in the mind of the spirit before he spake the word which resulted in its creation. The next act of creation was the form of a germ, or egg, from which sprang Ra, the Sun-god, within whose shining form was embodied the almighty power of the divine spirit.

This does shew that Re is the first of Not-Supreme Being Gods/gods but not the Supreme Being Itself. An analogy may be found that BETWEEN Barmh /Barahman and Indian Gods/gods 15

Vishnu,Sheu,Narayan and Barhama.All the four are manifestations of Barhama.[ a VERSON of Indial Cults]. It may be reminded and recalled that:= 1]There is a Difference between Monotheistic Monism and Henotheistic Monotheism. Monism may be Polytheistic or Monotheistic, or Henotheism et cetera. A Polytheistic Monism may be easily confused with Henotheism. Yet it is very close to it. 2]There is a difference between Monotheistic Tendencies and Monotheism in general and Pure Monotheism in Particular as there are differences between Pure Polytheism and Polytheistic tendencies. 3]It may be noted that the Strict Islamic Pure Monotheism apply the word Shirc/Schirc/Shirk not Only to Polytheism but Polytheistic tendencies, even to some forms of less Pure Monotheism. 4] It appears that either Pharaoh declares himself as an Incarnation of Supreme Being or Re which is in turn is an incarnation of Supreme Being.{Not for all times but for the given instant}. If the latter case is true even then he is predicating himself to the Supreme Being, making him greater than all other [Not Supreme Being] Egyptian Gods/gods. Not equal to the Supreme Being but the very Supreme Being.[The instantaneous Predication of the Incarnation to the Incarnated].

Denouncers Of Egyptian Monotheism Contrary to scholars like Budge,De Rauge,Drioton etc. some scholars disbelieve in Egyptian Monotheism outside Atenism. They argue that Monotheism was not found in Egypt . Front Fort proposed a theory in an attempt to end this discussion and to end the debates on the Egyptian Monotheism outside Atenism.[See :Egypt: Trunk Of Tree;Vol 1&2 by Simson Nojovits]. Similarly Erik Hornung denied Monotheistic Scholars:=

According to Hornung: In any given period many Gods.gods, even minor ones, were described as superior to all other Gods/gods. He also argues that the unspecified "god" in the wisdom texts is a generic term for whichever deity the reader chooses to revere.The combinations, manifestations, and incarnations of eachGod/ god were constantly shifting, they were always restricted to a finite number of forms,

never becoming fully interchangeable in a monotheistic or

pantheistic way. Henotheism, describes Egyptian religion better

than other labels. An Egyptian could worship any deity at a particular time and credit it with supreme power in that moment, without

denying the other Gods/gods or merging them all with the god that the Egyptian person did focus on. Even if Brugsh and his supporting scholars are wrong and if Horsnung is correct and right even then these verses of Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an stated above can be explained according to Hornung and Frank Fort theories. Frank Fort opined that the dogma of human incarnations Of [Not -Supreme Being ]Egyptian Gods/gods in Egyptians is very old one.

But in must be noted that they are correct if they best ends the Discussion of Egyptian Monotheism But not the Monotheistic tendencies in Egyptian Henotheism. Hornung's arguments influenced other scholars of Ancient Egyptian Religion, Yet it is just a probable conjecture a number of scholars still support Burgsch etc. Some opine that that Egyptian Gods/ gods were more unified than Hornung claims. It is more safe to give equal probability to either side since Henotheism with a Supreme Being is found on earth though a continent away, yet every thing shews the sane tendency in Ancient Egypt if not with Certainly then with some probability; a probability which if not greater than its rivalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s probability then not less then it or not more less then it. If its rival is assigned by the probability of 0.6 it cannot be assigned by any value less then 0.4. 17

Hornung, Erik (1982) [1971]. Conceptions of God in Egypt: The One and the Many. Translated by John Baines. â&#x20AC;˘

COMMENTS:= A]If There still be a Supreme Being with a number of Lesser Gods/gods in which the Supreme Being Manifests in Ancient Egyptian Religion then this tendency is not Monotheism but Henotheism. Scholars like Brugsch etc.found some similarities between the Supreme Being of Egyptian Henotheism and Supreme Being of Monotheistic Religions and they confused Monotheism and Henotheism in Ancient Egypt. An Eternal Omnific Supreme Being does not prove Monotheism. As we have seen in Some Indian Sects and cults that the also believe in a Single Supreme Being which they name as Brahman or Barmh. See above. It is incorrect to believe that Polytheism demands plurality of such Supreme Beings. Although some Indian Cults do believe in Eternity of Spirits and Atoms but they do not consider them as Supreme Beings. To Believe in Plurality Of Supreme Beings is a rere case even in Polytheism. Indian Henotheistic Religion may be explained as follow:= They do believe in Manifestations and Incarnations of Supreme Being but the Divinity is the Quality of the Supreme Being. Each Manifestation is God/god in regard to the Divinity of the Supreme Being and is sometime predicated to the Supreme Being. So plurality of Gods/gods[Manifestation Gods/gods] with the only Divinity common to them, the Divinity of the Supreme Being. The same may be safely be said for the Egyptian Supreme Being without confusing it with Monotheistic Supreme Being. So the belief in a Supreme Being not a Sufficient Condition of Monotheism as incorrectly assumed by some Egyptologists. But as in some types of Monotheism there are Polytheistic tendencies , there are Monotheistic tendencies in some Henotheistic Religions. It is the source of a number of fallacies that Polytheistic and Henotheistic religions deny a Supreme Being as in Monotheistic Religions.It is a sourse an other number of fallicies that Polytheistic and Henotheistic Religions believe in a number of Supreme Beings. B] If there was no concept of the Supreme Being in Egypt then No Egyptian God/god was Eternal, Self Existing and Uncreated. In this case the first one [at least one] of them must have emerged from nothingness without being made. That is neither made nor eternal. In this case the post powerful one of them had his incarnations and manifestations. [Probably the one who was Neither Made not Eternal]. C] It is more likely that they did believe in an Eternal Supreme Being analogous to Barmh of Indian Cults and sects. One may see the Hymn of Creation of Vedas which proves a Supreme

Being Eternal and Uncreated. How ever there may be a number of differences between Henotheistic Supreme Being and Monotheistic Supreme Being. But if a Hentheistic Supreme Being is Eternal and Not Made then such a Supreme Being must be greater than all Not Eternal Gods/gods, which may be the Incarnations and Manifestations of the Henotheistic Supreme Being. D] The predication of an Incarnation or a Manifestation to the Supreme Being is a normal practice in Henotheistic religions since an Incarnation or a Manifestation was believed to be communicable to the Supreme Being and not separate or alien to the Supreme Being otherwise it would have ceased to be a Manifestation or Incarnation. This is the difference between a normal human being and an incarnation human being. One may see Krisna worshipper do not consider each and every human being as a Divine Incarnation but the believe Krisna was so. The even consider the human body of Krishna as imperishable and immutable, which is perpetual and doesnot change with time. A number [not all] Hindus regard their Gods/gods andGoddesses/ goddesses as manifestations of the Supreme Being, Brahman/Barms. In the Vedantic schools of Hinduism, Brahman is the name of Indian Supreme Being given to the concept of the immutable, infinite,unmade, immanent and transcendent Being that is the Divine Ground of all Beings . This Supreme Being is the Cosmic Spirit , and is regarded to be Genderless, Omnipotent, and Omniscient. It can be described as infinite Truth, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. There is a remarkable similarity between this set of attributes and those ascribed by Christians, Muslims and Jews to the one God of classical monotheism. But still it is a Henotheistic Supreme Being.Each Manifestation of the Supreme Being is God/god in regard to the Divinity of the Supreme Being and not by a Divinity of itself. This is a Monotheistic Tendency which transforms Polytheism in to Henotheism. Coming back to Egyptian Gods/gods and the Ancient Egyptian Religion we once again summarize the discussion as follow:= First they believed in a number of Gods/gods in their Pantheon. Second they approach to a God/god as the Only God/god while he was the Grammatical Second Person to a Speaker. A God/god as the Unique God, the Only God and beside whom there is no God/god beside that God/god. If there is a Concept of Supreme Being Ancient Egypt OUT SIDE ATENISM, the Concept may have some dissimilarities from the concept of Supreme Being of Semitic Religions , and may have some similarities as well. But if it is supposed that there was no such concept even then this tendency is undeniable. Even then Pharaoh was considered as an Incarnation of a Powerful Celestial God/god. We opine that the tendencies of Monotheism were confused by Monotheism by scholars like Brugsch etc. 19

But one may also note that Denial of Monotheism is different from the Dinial of a Surpreme Being, It requires a separate discussion and debates are likely to be continued. Those who want to see some more discussion may read books like Egypt, Trunk of the tree, and the book Vol I and II ; AND The Gods of Egypt or studies in Egyptian Mythology etc.]

WHAT IF SOME THING IS INFORMED FROM THE OMNISCIENT AND NOT FOUND IN HISTORICAL RECORDS. As ALL-H is the Omniscient Supreme Existent He Doeth Know every thing and many things in the history which did cease to exist in past and are neither conveyed to the natter generation nor received by them so that there is no evidence from this channel, can be directly narrated by Omniscient Supreme Perfect Existent ALL-H . This is not a contradiction with any historical record what so ever. Only atheists can deny this Possibility and Contingency since they disbelieve in Divinity and Omnipotence of Divinity. 10:=On microscopic study of DIFFERENT TYPES of concepts about God/god and Gods/gods may confusions of Missionaries are proved to be due to wrong ,incorrect and false assumption. If they are not deliberately confusing Egyptian Henotheism ,Katheneism and Egyptian Monistic Henotheism with Polytheism they are unintentionally doing the same. As they have no sympathy with same way they use to study they verses of Nuvum Testamentum and Biblica Hebraica. There are several reason for their ruthless attitude towards Qur’a:n and ‘Ah:adi:s’ , but if they had adopted a logical approach they would have not made such objections. 11:= In many languages of the world a single word is used for two case sensitive words God and god [ plural : Gods and gods] . This cause a hidden confusion which and shift in meanings with out being deducted. The best way to overcome the problem is to write “ God/ god” or “god/God”For singular AND “Gods/gods” or gods/ Gods” for plural. 12:=

Question: How alike are Indian Heneotheism and Egyptian Henotheism? And is there any way in which the Egyptians could realistically have had significant contact with Indians, enough to borrow elements from it or versa?, Or they have been influenced by Indians or vice versa? To answer the first, Indian Henotheism differs in several significant ways from Egyptian religion. 1) There were and there still are multitudes of Indian Cults and Sects which did and still do differ in the explanations of their version of Henetheism. There may be a number of sects in Egyptian Religons but not only less in number but their differences may be less significant. 2) Egyptian

Henotheism did not evoluted since it died latter with the end of Pharoahs. But Indian Henotheism is still evoluting. 3) Natures of Culminations,Incarnations,Manifestations may be different in between the majorities ofAncient Egypt and Ancient India. 4)If Brugsch is incorrect then there is a difference of Henotheistic or Polytheistic Supreme Being , when Some Indian cults believe in It Egyptians did not, Byt it is very difficult to claim that there was no Egyptian cult which believed in a Supreme Being. Actually there is a shortage of religious Canons of Egyptain, and the texts found so far cannot be considered as comprehensive Egyptian Canon. So one might be careful while rejecting Brugsh. Both countries of two different continents do share the central notions of Henotheism, if not the details, of Henotheism. It may be noted that the examples from Sankrit Scriptures are provided as evidences that such believes did exist and are not imaginary products proposed to response some objections.

Comparision:= It is pointed out that the many gods/Gods of Ancient Egyptians were simply various forms, appearences, culminations and emanations) of a single Supreme Being (God). This is where the idea of monotheism comes in. A belief in a single Supreme Being is Monotheism. The belief that there many gods/Gods is Polythiesim [from the point of view of PM]even if they are all included in the One Single and Only Supreme Being. [ But from the point of view of divisions of different types of concepts of Gods it is Henotheism ].Therefore, , this Dogma of Manifestation is Poly-Monotheistic. Or more correctly Henothiesm or Kathenotheism. Egyptian gods/Gods like Horus ,Osiris, even Ra himself, were believed to be "manifestations, , or personified attributes of Only One God", the invisible God. These were not believed to be separate gods/Gods, but incarnations or manifestations of one and same God the one and only God, inseparable from him. Ancient Egyptian Religion is not Pure Polytheism:= Ancient Egyptian Religion was not Pure Monotheism:=

As it is shewn that Egyptian Religion was not only Different from Pure Monotheism but also from Pure Polytheism, it is also a mistake to consider it as Monistic Monthiesm. It was in its form one of the forms of Kathenotheistic Polytheism or Kathenotheism .A kind

of Henotheism. Pharaoh himself exalted from an Incarnation of God to the Greatest among all incarnations and manifistations of God. The most high Incarnation , which is higher than all other Culminations , Manifestations,Incarnations et cetera. Interesting parallels are found in some Indian Cults.Some examples from Sanskrit Holy Scriptures [SHS] have been cited above. Although it may be incorrect to consider that Indian Religions and Ancient Egyptian Religions were one and the same with the only difference of Nouns of Gods/gods , they do have similarities in them .Missionaries have incorrectly assumed that there is a contradiction in two verses of Qurâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;an in regard to the believes of Pharaoh and his Courtiers and Nobilities. There is 21

no such alleged contradiction. Actually they have incorrectly assumed somehow that Ancient Egyptian Religion was Pure Polytheism. But it is not the case. Ancient Egyptian Religion was a form of Henotheism, Polythiestic Monism and Kathenotheistic Polythiesm. This complex nature of their religion is similar to the complex nature of Ancient Indian Religion . So at least they are certainly not unique. It is virtually impossible to suggest that two different countries of two different continents borrowed from one another ,it is the almost certainly the conclusion that parallel thoughts and ideas developed with some very strong similarities between the religion systems of the two. Quranic Statements and Ancient Egyptian Religion. As Quranic statements must be viewed as according to the general Egyptian Believes,it is clear that there is no Contradiction in the Text Of Holy Qur’a:n. Rather Qur’a:n is just narrating their believes , and two narrate some thing is one thing and to contradict it self is another thing. I there is a contradiction from the Polemical point of view in Henotheism,it is beyond the scope of narration of their believes.To criticize a Dogma is one thing and to quote a Dogma is another thing. At these points Qur’an is not criticizing the believes of Pharaoh and his Courtiers and Nobalities. Qur’a:n is just narrating their dialogues which did occur in the past , and their respective speakers spoke according to their Religion ,Theological Backgrounds and Dogmas. EXPLANATION OF QUR’ANIC VERSES AS ACCORDING TO THE HENOTHEISM. As Missionaries have repeatedly attempted to explain these verses of Holy Quran as according to Pure Polytheism , thus claiming that there is a contradiction is Qur’an, the proper explanation of these verses\sentences of Quran must be studied AS according to Henothiesm and Kathentheism. The sentence of Pharoah to theChiefs, “ No god/God do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38]only means := “I am your only God/god”. Such staqtements must be taken in Henotheistic and Kathenotheistic meaning and not in Pure Monotheistic meaning. The very same sense or meaning of Henotheism or Kathenotheism or Monolatry. So this is not a Contradiction in Qur’an but Qur’a:n is narrating the Monotheistic Tendencies in Egyptian Henotheism.

As “Henotheism” is the belief of a number of gods/Gods, worshipping or praysing one at a time and regarding each as the Supreme, or even the only god/God as if there is no god/God beside Him, while one is talking to him. Thus, If a person who is a claimant of deification, believed to be a God/god can talk about himself as the only God/god and he knew no other God/god beside himself for the people in his kingdom; there is no deviation from the general believes which are held by him and his subjects. [As an Only God/god the God/god doeth not know any other God/god . Pharaoh claimed not to know any other God/god for his subjects Henotheistically and certainly not Monotheistically.] The very same meaning “ Thou Art X Thou Art the Only God/god which I worship; Thou Art Y Thou art the Only God/god I worship”. If a person believer of Henotheism or Kathenotheism who is also a claimant of being God/god can also say “I am the only God/god of You [You: in plural meaning]”

That may be defined as” the worship of a number of gods/Gods, one at a time, regarding each as the supreme, or even the only, god while you are talking/praying to him/Him.

Now as the Pharaoh regarded himself as a god/God he was saying the very same thing for himself, and his nobilities, chiefs ,and courtiers who were also Henotheists and Kathennotheists did under stand the words of the Pharaoh in the very same sense as in the mind of Pharaoh. If the Pharaoh of Moses [ Fir”aun u Musa] was a Pure Monotheist and if his Courtiers were Pure Polytheists then there would have a contradiction , But both of them were Henotheits or Kathenotheists or both. So there is no contradiction according to Ancient Egyptian Religion.

“And the chiefs of Pharaoh's people said: "Do you leave Musa[Moshe/Moses] and his people to make mischief in the land and to forsake you and your gods/Gods?" ……..” [Qur'an 7:127] At this time the Courtiers, Chiefs and nobilities were also speaking not as Pure Polytheists [PP]as incorrectly assumed by missionaries and those who have missed the point, but as Henotheists and Kathenothiests.Since these two also allow to state a number of Gods/gods as well in a single sentence.It may appear contradictory to a Pure Monotheist or a Pure Polytheist yet it does not appear contradictory to a Henotheist at all. At one time a Henotheist may acknowledge a number of Gods/gods and at other time claim any one of them as the only God/god , [ some time this may be explained as he is the One that is Manifested in a number of Gods/gods including himself as well in the manifestations]. This does not mean that he is not the Manifestation, but it only means that the Supreme Being may be called by the nouns of His manifestations and any one of the manifestation may be ascribed by the qualities and attributes of the Supreme Being of Whom he is the manifestation. But at other times the distinction between Manifestation and the Manifested are maintained and are considered. This makes things very clear that Qur’a:n is not contradicting It Self but stating different statements of the Henotheistic Religion of Ancient Egypt. We have quoted from ancient India just to prove that such believes are not just inventions to defend Qur’anic Truth but did exist and do exist in the world. SOME POLEMICAL DISCUSSIONS:= If there has been no evidence in the least meaning of the word evidence, that there are some similarities between Asian India and African Egypt in their respective religious believes even then the objection of Missionaries would have been incorrect, since it is based upon the baseless, and proof-less supposition that Ancient Egyptian Religion was a Pure Polytheism. Since in pure polytheism the claims like (i) Only One God/god, (ii) Several Gods/gods contradict each other. But in Henotheism such statements are not contradictory. So if it can be supposed with out any evidence that Ancient Egyptian Religion was PP then it can be equally supposed even if there was no evidence that It was a form of Henotheism. So the probability of each one would have been exactly equal. But in presence of evidences it is not the case. So the objection based on a false supposition is it self a proof that Missionaries have committed a great error. AkhenAten was a monotheistic Pharaoh. Even the Egyptian Monotheistic Pharaoh’s God is spoken by Akhen Aten as if God/god Aten is the Pharaoh himself who is the Incarnation, Embodiment of Aten. So if a Monotheistic Pharaoh could have such an approach, a Henotheistic Pharaoh would have greater tendency to declair himself as an Incarnation of God [Supreme Being] or the God Incarnate or Incarnated God or IncarnatenGod.

To assume that Pharaoh of Moses was a Monotheist according to Qur’a:n implies that the assumer is claiming that this Pharaoh was Aten Akhen. Since he is the only Pharaoh who was a Monotheist. Yet he might be an Incarnatist rather than a non incarnist. But such implications are not correct.

For sake of an argument if he was this Pharaoh then this means that at the time of Moses there were still some Courtiers who were Henotheists. Pharaoh had taken no steps to convert them to his Monotheism at least up to that time. The claim that the Pharaoh claimed to be the only God/god [ that he knew no other God/god] in the Monotheistic meaning was interesting consequences. This consequence is unacceptable.

The claim that Qur’an hath committed error in regard to the believes of Pharaoh and his courtiers is as incorrect as the claim that Egyptian Monotheism is the cause of Hebraic Monotheism . If it is asked that is there a contradiction in Henotheism the answer is that if there is even then to quote or to report a contradiction is one thing and to contradict is an other thing. If Henotheism is a Self Contradictory Dogma then it is not that Quran is contradicting Itself as incorrectly supposed but Qur’an is just quoting two contradictory statements of two one of Pharaoh and other of his courtiers. In this case it is not the case that One Holy Verse is Contradicting the other Holy Verse, but Pharaoh and his courtiers contradicted each other and Quran only reports their statements.

‘. SOME DEFINATIONS:

1]Kathenotheism is a belief that multiple deities exist, and different deities are supreme among them at different times. 2]Monolatrism Monolatrism or Monolary is belief in multiple deities/Deties but worship of only one of THEM at a time as if the worshipped One is the Only Deity at the time. It is time dependent oneness. 3]Henotheism:=

According to the American Heritage Dictionary, Henotheism is the belief in one god without denying the existence of others. Hinduism is a classic example of this belief in practice. Hindus generally worship one god, yet acknowledge that there are many other gods that can be worshiped as well. The religion of the ancient Greeks and their worship of the Olympians is another well-known example, with Zeus being the supreme ruler of eleven other gods. All twelve were worshiped, each individually by a different sect or temple. 4:= The word Monolatry/Monolatrism is based upon the Greek roots monos, which means one and latreia, which means service or religious worship. It seems to have been first used by Julius Wellhausen to described a type of polytheism in which only one god is worshipped even though the existence of other gods is accepted. The reason for the difference in treatment is the premise that only one of the many gods actually deserves to be worshipped â&#x20AC;&#x201C; often this may be due to a special relationship the god has with the people in question. 5:= Summodeism, may be defined as the worship of a Supreme Being who sits at the head of a pantheon of other Gods/gods who are just s manifestations , incarnations,culminations etcof this High god/God or Supreme Being . Thus, in a summodeistic system, the existence of multiple gods only occurs because a single, high god/God is able to incarnate, to manifest and to culminate into many different Gods/gods. Manifestation:= There are two different meanings of Manifestation 1] If a thing becomes some thing that it is initially not with or with out conversion, mutation etc it is called Manifestation. 2] To become known through some thing other that itself There is a big difference between being a manifestation of something (something that was made known) in the first meaning and the second meaning. In this article we have used the word in the first meaning. Incarnation:= Special case of Manifestation [in the first meaning]. To Manifest in a corporeal thing. Manifestation is a general word in regard to its firt meaning than incarnation and incarnation is its special case. For example if a thing manifest in spirit or in a spiritual being or a human being the word manifest is correct for all these cases. But the last one is called incarnation. Supreme Being:= The words â&#x20AC;&#x153; Supreme Beingâ&#x20AC;? is used in this article in the following meaning := 1] An Eternal and Uncreated Being , which neither Hath a Beginning nor an End. Such a Being is also believed to be infinite and a Creator [Omnific] in General. 25

But a Non â&#x20AC;&#x201C;Supreme Being [God/god] is a Being that is neither Eternal nor Uncreated [ i.e not unmade]. A number of Egyptian Gods/gods came in existence and were not believed to be Eternal. If a being is believed to be Self Created and Not Eternal is not a Supreme Being. Or a being that came in existence from non existence with out a creator is also a Not Supreme Being or Un Supreme Being. We consider a Supreme Being as God/god in Monotheistic or Henotheistic or Polytheistic religions.

Vedic Hymn Of Creation:= Sacred Snskrit Scriptures in Holy Sanskrit Canom Sanskrit Rig-Veda, Book 10

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], at sacred-texts.com

HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

1. THEN was not non-existent[Asat] nor existent[Sat]: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water? 2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing [Sanskrit Supreme Being], breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever. 3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit. 4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the nonexistent. 5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder 6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this

creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? 7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. HYMN CXXX. Creation. Sacred Sanskrit Scriptures in the Holy Sanskrit Canon.

Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], at sacred-texts.com

HYMN CXXX. Creation.

1. THE sacrifice drawn out with threads on every side, stretched by a hundred sacred ministers and one,— This do these Fathers weave who hitherward are come: they sit beside the warp and cry, Weave forth, weave back. 2 The Man extends it and the Man unbinds it: even to this vault of heaven hath he outspun, it. These pegs are fastened to the seat of worship: they made the Sāma-hymns their weaving shuttles. 3 What were the rule, the order and the model? What were the wooden fender and the butter? What were the hymn, the chant, the recitation, when to the God all Deities paid worship? 4 Closely was Gāyatrī conjoined with Agni, and closely Savitar combined with Usnih. Brilliant with Ukthas, Soma joined Anustup: Bṛhaspati's voice by Brhati was aided. 5 Virāj adhered to Varuṇa and Mitra: here Triṣṭup day by day was Indra's portion. Jagatī entered all the Gods together: so by this knowledge men were raised to Ṛṣis. 6 So by this knowledge men were raised to Ṛṣis, when ancient sacrifice sprang up, our Fathers. With the mind's eye I think that I behold them who first performed this sacrificial worship. 7 They who were versed in ritual and metre, in hymns and rules, were the Seven Godlike Ṛṣis. Viewing the path of those of old, the sages have taken up the reins like chariot-drivers. Next: HYMN CXXXI. Indra.

Many problems arise by mistaking Kathenotheism or Henotheism for Pure Monotheism or Pure Polytheism. Some do arise by supposing that the Belief in Supreme Being is a specific characteristic of Semitic religions but some Polytheistic ,Henotheistic ,Kathenotheistic etc, religion do believe in a Supreme Being but this is a Monotheisic tendency in them not a Monotheism in any one of them.

Comparision:=

Darby Bible Translation And Pharaoh said, Who is Jehovah, to whose voice I am to hearken to let Israel go? I do not know Jehovah, neither will I let Israel go.

King James 2000 Bible And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go

Jubilee Bible 2000 And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go? I do not know the LORD, neither will I let Israel go. Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god /God do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38]