1

Concerning the ancient Egyptian religion during the time of the Pharaohs, the Qur'an reports three interesting statements. Firstly, when Prophet Moses calls Pharaoh to worship one true God, the call is rejected. Instead Pharaoh collects his men and proclaims that he is their Lord, most high.

Hath the story of Moses reached thee? Behold, thy Lord did call to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa, "Go thou to Pharaoh for he has indeed transgressed all bounds: And say to him, ‘Wouldst thou that thou shouldst be purified (from sin)? - And that I guide thee to thy Lord, so thou shouldst fear Him?'" Then did (Moses) show him the Great Sign. But (Pharaoh) rejected it and disobeyed (guidance); Further, he turned his back, striving hard (against God). Then he collected (his men) and made a proclamation, Saying, "I am your Lord, Most High". [Qur'an 79:15-24]

Secondly, when Moses goes to Pharaoh with clear signs, they are rejected as being "fake". Pharaoh then addresses his chiefs by saying that he knows of no god for them except him.

Pharaoh said: "O Chiefs! no god /God do I know for you but myself... [Qur'an 28:38]

The last[Thirdly] statement comes in connection with the victory of Prophet Moses over the magicians of Egypt. Here the chiefs of Pharaoh say to him that this victory of Moses over the magicians could result in an abandonment of you (i.e., Pharaoh) and your gods (Arabic: wa yadaraka wa ālihataka) 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 Qur’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. ]

2

In order to support their claim of "direct contradiction", they quote Muhammad Asad, a well-known Qur'an translator, who considers that the Qur'an 28:38 should not be "taken literally" as the Egyptians also worshipped many gods.[1] 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:

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 have tried to discuss the problem in another way.

The Basic Error in the Objection:=

The missionaries have some how assumed that the Monotheism and Polytheism in Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] were as opposites as in Semitic Religions [SR] nounly [namely] Judaism,Christianity and Islam which are Pure Monotheistic Religions. Thus all the cases of claims of Contradictions are based on the basic assumption that the Ancient Egyptian Religion [AER] was a Pure Polytheism. Ifthis assumption is wrong and incorrect then all the claims of contradiction are not only falsified but disproved.

AER is some how a Henotheism or 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

3

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.

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,

4

called the Brahmanas (mythological, philosophical, and ritual glosses on the Vedas), were composed at a time (c. 800 BCE) when the Brahmin priests had taken on greater control and influence; troubled by the open-ended refrain of the Rig Vedic poem, they invented a god whose name was the interrogative pronoun Who (Ca\Ka, cognate with the Latin quis, French qui,INTERESTINGLY there is a dogma of Ka in Ancient Egypt as well.). Read back into the Vedic poem (as it was in later Vedic commentaries 2 ), this resulted in an affirmative statement: “Indeed, Who is the god whom we should honor with the oblation,” somewhat reminiscent of the famous Abbott and Costello routine ("Who's on first?"). This sacerdotal arrogance closed down some of those openings through which fresh theological air had flowed in the Veda. The question became the answer.

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

“You, Vishnu, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.” “You, Varuna, are the only god/God I've ever worshiped; you are the only one.”

So it is some how evident that there are some common elements in all Henotheistic religions, examples of which has been provided.

So if Pharaoh said that he was the only God/god he said more or less in the Henotheistic meaning and not in the Monotheistic meaning.

In Upanishads one find a Monism which is sometime confused by Monotheism. But they are different. There are several Gods mentioned in Vedas. But how many Gods are there. Upnishad provides an other reply. Upnishad says

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.

5

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.

6

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.

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

7

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 18,000-verse Bhagavatam. A paribhasa-sutra states the central theme of a literary work. In his Krishna-sandarbha(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 (daśakriti-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 Krishna’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:=

8

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 inturn 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.[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

9

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.

These are the complex cases of Henotheism ,Monolatrism and 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

10

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. 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

11

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.

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.

12

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.[2] 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.[3]

In ancient Egypt provides a very important piece of Information [the Great Temple at Abu Simbel, SeeFigure 2]. It does shew the "Lord of Two Lands ‘Usermare-setpenre’" (= Ramesses II) offering to "Ramesses-meryamun" (= Ramesses II). Obviously, Ramesses II is worshipping Ramesses II here. However, we also note that the worshipper and the one who is worshipped have two different names and that these names are pronomen and nomen of Ramesses II, respectively. A closer look at the iconography reveals that the worshipper and he who is worshipped are not identical. He, to whom the offering is made, is adorned with a sun-disk and has a curved horn around his ear, depicting his divinity. Therefore, Ramesses II is not simply worshipping himself, but his divine/Divine Self/self.[18]

In other words the Self of incarnation of God and Self of Incarnated God are in close relation with one another. This is just an attempt to represent this concept in form of picture.

As one can see from the examples just discussed, the Pharaoh exalted himself as Lord. From an Incarnation of God to the Incarnated God Himself .That is he used to predicate his self to the Supreme Being.The institution of Lordship in ancient Egyptian belief cannot be underestimated. It was the way in which ordinary Egyptians understood the residence of their gods on earth.[19]

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

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.

in

During the time of Ramesses II, the deification/Deification of Pharaoh reached its peak as evidenced in numerous cult statues as well as supporting hieroglyphs and papyri.[6] Keeping this

13

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.. 

It may be reminded and recalled that:=

“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.

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.

14

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.

15

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 Qur’an in regard to the believes of Pharaoh and his Courtiers and Nobilities. There is

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

16

:= “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.

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

17

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.

18

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

19

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 – 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 is a big difference between being a manifestation of something (something that was made known) versus being an incarnation of something; something (i.e. an entity, a deity, a spirit, an angel, a god) that is able at will to change its normal physical state of existence and “appear as” something else (i.e. appearing as a human being, a burning bush, a donkey, etc.).  

to mistaking Kathenotheistic Polytheism for Monistic Monotheism.

20

to mistaking Kathenotheism or Henotheism for Pure Monotheism or Pure Polytheism.

N

21