In what language did God write the Ten Commandments?

“The Ten Commandments should have been written down in Ancient Egyptian language, but that was not the case. So where is the missing link?”

By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat

Did the god of the Israelites deliver the so-called Ten Commandments to Moses orally or in a written form?  The Bible clearly says in several places that he did indeed write the Ten Commandments himself (with his own finger). The clearest verse in regards to this is found in (Ex 31:18).

But then, why did the god of the Israelites have to go to such trouble as to write down the Ten Commandments himself?

What was so special about those ten laws particularly that they advocated common ethics ancient man had already come to know and value – including the idea of one supreme God – through social evolution and not by divine revelation?

Ironically, the man god chose to carry his laws which strongly abhorred the act of killing and stealing, was already a killer and later a warlord who ordered the killing of so many innocent people after having stolen their native land. That leaves one wondering whether those commandments had any moral mandate that should have deterred the children of Israel from committing the war crimes they did in the name of invading/occupying their so called “Promised Land”.

Moreover, most ancient cultures had codes of ethics more or less similar to the Hebrew Ten Commandments, and surprisingly, other cultures had far superseded them.

Ancient Egypt had long abided by 42 moral commandments – known as the laws of Ma’at, written at least 2,000 years before the time of Moses. Ma’at is the Egyptian principle of truth, righteousness and order. Compared to the Egyptian moral laws, the Ten Commandments seem a bit too little and much too late.

Most importantly, what was the language that the god of the Israelites used while chiseling down his tablets and also during his long conversations with Moses? Did the god of the Israelites use Chinese, Greek or Ancient Hebrew as the consensus of biblical scholars tends to believe.

What was the point the Israelite god wanted to make by chiseling down his commandments on stone, rather than articulating them verbally to Moses, as he did the rest of Torah? If those tablets were so divine and holy how did Moses have the guts – no matter what the reason was – to smash them into pieces the minute he descended from the mountain where he had a long chat with his god? Or maybe Moses destroyed those holy tablets because anger management (a value commended by ancient sages) was somehow not included in those Ten Commandments?

Rendering the Ten Commandments in a written form seems kind of strange considering that at the time of the story of the Exodus from Egypt no Israelite slave was literate in Ancient Hebrew or in any other ancient language for that matter.

So why did the god of the Israelites insist on writing down his commandments for an illiterate, aggressive and ungrateful mob of the Israelites?

As a matter of fact, the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet did not evolve before 1000 BC – some three centuries after the time of Moses and his tablets. The language structure is relatively similar to the Ancient Hebrew, which was about to arise around 1000 BC, but the symbols were not Hebrew, they were from an earlier set of pictograph symbols of Ancient Arabian/Yemenite writing.

So, what was the purpose of delivering God’s commandments inscribed on stone tablets when no one could have read them, including Moses who was purportedly raised and educated according to the Egyptian tradition and tongue?

If Moses was (as the misconception/myth goes) brought up as a high-ranking Egyptian he was probably literate only in Ancient Egyptian.

The Hebrews couldn’t have read or written hieroglyphs proper, because that was a closely guarded skill that required years of training and was the exclusive realm of a select class of scribes, usually drawn from elite Egyptian families.

Although no archaeological evidence has ever been recovered to attest to such an event of an Exodus or enslavement in Egypt, but, if the story of Moses did happen in Ancient Egypt, then the Ten Commandments as well as the rest of the Mosaic laws should have been written down in Ancient Egyptian language. But that was not the case according to the scholarly consensus. So where is the missing link?

When Moses was not in Egypt before the Exodus, he was with Midianites not Hebrews. The fact that Moses, after fleeing Egypt, was able to easily communicate/converse with Midianites means that the people of Ancient Egypt and Midian spoke the same tongue, but historically that is not true either.

A (mistaken) consensus among historians views Midian as an Arabian tribe/confederation of tribes that dwelled in the North-Western part of Ancient Arabia. But historians were not mistaken as they identified the Midianites as an Arabian tribe but only when they conveniently located them at the North of the Arabian Peninsula (near Egypt). Whereas according to Ancient Arabian tradition and records the original site of Midian had long been at the West-Southern part of the Arabian Peninsula and specifically at Ancient Yemen. The mountain of Jethro/Shu-ayb (Moses’ Midianite father-in-law) still stands in Yemen as the most prominent peak in the whole Arabian Peninsula.

If the Midianites were Ancient Arabian tribes then they must have spoken some kind of Ancient Arabian language/dialect.

Did Moses speak Ancient Egyptian and Ancient Arabian language, most unlikely. Then, how could that anachronism be straightened out?

Moreover did god speak to Moses in Ancient Egyptian language or in Ancient Arabian tongue? (And please spare me the patronizing voices that will claim that Moses and his god conversed in some unearthly divine dialect — because even the most fundamentalist rabbinical authorities never went that far).

If at the purported time of the Exodus story no written alphabet/written language had yet evolved in the Ancient Near East — except the Egyptian, the Sumerian and the Ancient Arabian/Yemenite, then what was the most likely language the Israelite god used to chisel down his (so-called) Ten Commandments? Of course both the Sumerian and Egyptian seemed highly unlikely.

That would leave us with only one possibility; the Ten Commandments must have been written down in Ancient Yemenite.

Interestingly not very far away from Yemen, the Orthodox Church and priesthood of Modern Ethiopia are adamant that their land has always kept the Arc of the Covenant, something the whole world has long deemed lost and irretrievable.

But that conclusion would dramatically shift the geography of the Exodus story from Ancient Egypt to Ancient Arabia and Yemen. Though it might seem a bit of a stretch for many, but Ancient Arabia and Yemen is actually where the ancient Israelites had originally dwelled and where their stories and legends evolved including that of the Exodus.

The truth of the matter is that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church or what is known as the New Testament was originally based on a genuine Arabian culture and folklore. It is mistakenly known as the Old Testament/or the Hebrew Bible – a totally Greek terminology (To the Arabs and Ethiopians it is only referred to as the Torah)

The Story of Moses and Pharaoh – including the Ten Commandments — is an Ancient folktale of Arabia, and the Torah is one of its ancient books

For further reading and references:

The Bible unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein & Neil Silberman

Deconstructing the walls of Jericho” by Prof. Ze’ev Herzog

Bible came from Arabia” By prof. Kamal Salibi

Egypt knew no Pharaohs nor Israelites” by Dr. Ashraf Ezzat


43 thoughts on “In what language did God write the Ten Commandments?


    The LORD delivers 10,000 Canaanites and Perizzites for slaughter in Bezek. As part of the fun 71 kings have their thumbs and big toes cut off.
    (Judges 1.2,7)

    “And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand … Then Judah went up, and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they killed ten thousand men at Bezek.”
    – Judges 1.2-4.


    1. This whole article was pointless…. should have just googled the word: belief and gone on about your day.. .. … . trying to base an argument on archaeological evidence against “a believer” is just so asinine I cannot even.. No matter what the stance is, whether its to believe or not, NO ONE can prove god does not exist, just like NO ONE can prove he does exist. The way no believers look down on a believers beliefs is the same way a believer looks down on carbon dating or whatever European technology people praise and think its somehow disproven something in bible…. Whatever archaeological evidence is throw at them, they’ll throw believe right back at it. Believers have heard even single argument there is against the bible and there is still an “outnumberable” abundance of believers – Its a no win situation. At the end of the day, as long as no one is bothering you, get on with your life, dude.




    1. What do you think the Messiah was saying in Matthew 10:5 “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans, enter ye not, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and as ye go, preach, saying, the Kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

      He was preaching to the Israelites, trying to control those who had succumbed to zealotry (terrorism), as they tried to evict the Roman conquerors. He was their Messiah (a specially anointed prophet). His job was to prepare them for the future after God destroyed their temple. Our people, the Palestinians, were a mix of Canaanites, Samaritans, Greek Jews, Israelites and Jews from all over the Fertile Crescent who resided in Palestine. A friend of mine, a Palestinian whose father was a Christian from Bethlehem, had his DNA tested and found that he has 37.5% Cohanim genes, which means he is directly descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses (real name Musa). Today’s Jews average 1-2% Cohanim genes. That tells us that we Palestinians are the real deal. Our ancestors were the real Israelites.

      The Messiah in Matthew was telling his people to avoid the Samaritans because they were distorters of scriptures, and there was too much conflict between them and the Sadducees in Judaea over which legends that they all followed were the accurate ones. The role of the Messiah ‘Isa was to teach them the correct interpretation of their laws, and to understand the original laws of Moses, and prepare themselves for the second Moses, who was foretold in all their prophecies. The second Moses would be the Prophet Muhammad. Both of them emerged from the Arabian Peninsula, where the Israelites originated.

      To reject the Prophet Musa (Moses) and to call him a “terrorist” is to reject the teachings of the Messiah ‘Isa. You have taken religion completely out of context. I understand, it is hard. I see it in the eyes of my kinsmen.



    Regarding the SCRIBES and the PHARISEES and their ORAL TRADITION aka JEWISH TALMUD, most people in the world are ignorant of the cancerous thoughts they have spewed into the minds of Jews and then into the minds of non-Jews, via media and Hollywood.


    BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Kethuboth 11b.

    “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing …like putting a finger in the eye”

    BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Menahoth 43b-44a.

    “A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave”.


    The Talmud is Judaism’s holiest book (actually a collection of books). Its authority takes precedence over the JEWISH Bible in Judaism. Evidence of this may be found in the Talmud itself, Erubin 21b (Soncino edition):

    "My son, be more careful in the observance of the words of the Scribes than in the words of the Torah (JEWISH Bible)."

    Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph:

    "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

    The Talmud (and not the JEWISH Scriptures) is the legal/canonical text which obligates those who follow the Jewish religion. It is from the Talmud that laws, regulations, and world views are drawn. In practice, the everyday life of the modern religious person is drawn and influenced by the Talmud.

    In the late 19th century, most European Jews were a people of the book. But their book wasn’t the JEWISH Bible. It was the BABYLONIAN TALMUD. To this day, the Talmud remains Judaism’s highest moral, ethical and legal authority.


    Second century Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai, one of Judaism’s very greatest rabbis and a creator of Kabbalah, sanctioned pedophilia—permitting molestation of baby girls even younger than three! He proclaimed,

    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and a day is permitted to marry a priest.” 1

    Subsequent rabbis refer to ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia as “halakah,” or binding Jewish law. 2

    Has ben Yohai, child rape advocate, been disowned by modern Jews? Hardly. Today, in ben Yohai’s hometown of Meron, Israel, tens of thousands of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews gather annually for days and nights of singing and dancing in his memory.

    References to pedophilia abound in the Talmud. They occupy considerable sections of Treatises Kethuboth and Yebamoth and are enthusiastically endorsed by the Talmud’s definitive legal work, Treatise Sanhedrin.


    The rabbis of the Talmud are notorious for their legal hair-splitting, and quibbling debates. But they share rare agreement about their right to molest three year old girls. In contrast to many hotly debated issues, hardly a hint of dissent rises against the prevailing opinion (expressed in many clear passages) that pedophilia is not only normal but scriptural as well! It’s as if the rabbis have found an exalted truth whose majesty silences debate.

    Because the Talmudic authorities who sanction pedophilia are so renowned, and because pedophilia as “halakah” is so explicitly emphasized, not even the translators of the Soncino edition of the Talmud (1936) dared insert a footnote suggesting the slightest criticism. They only comment: “Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.” 3

    In fact, footnote 5 to Sanhedrin 60b rejects the right of a Talmudic rabbi to disagree with ben Yohai’s endorsement of pedophilia:

    “How could they [the rabbis], contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon ben Yohai, which has scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?” 4

    1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
    2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
    3 Sanhedrin 76a.
    4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.


    It was in Babylon after the exile under Nebuchadnezzar in 597 BC that Judaism’s leading sages probably began to indulge in pedophilia. Babylon was the staggeringly immoral capitol of the ancient world. For 1600 years, the world’s largest population of Jews flourished within it.

    As an example of their evil, Babylonian priests said a man’s religious duty included regular sex with temple prostitutes. Bestiality was widely tolerated. So Babylonians hardly cared whether a rabbi married a three year old girl.

    But with expulsion of the Jews in the 11th century AD, mostly to European lands, Gentile tolerance of Jewish pedophilia abruptly ended.

    Still, a shocking contradiction lingers: If Jews want to revere the transcendent wisdom and moral guidance of the Pharisees and their Talmud, they must accept the right of their greatest ancient sages to violate children. To this hour, no synod of Judaism has repudiated their vile practice.


    What exactly did these sages say?

    The Pharisees justified child rape by explaining that a boy of nine years was not a “man”. Thus they exempted him from God’s Mosaic Law:

    “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Leviticus. 18:22)

    One passage in the Talmud gives permission for a woman who molested her young son to marry a high priest. It concludes,

    “All agree that the connection of a boy aged nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not.” 5

    Because a boy under 9 is sexually immature, he can’t “throw guilt” on the active offender, morally or legally. 6

    Presumably, the majority of little Jewish boys get raped before they are nine by Rabbis. They get caught doing this constantly.

    And so do the Zionist Roman Catholic priests

    A woman could molest a young boy without questions of morality even being raised:

    “…the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act.” 7

    The JEWISH Talmud also says,

    “A male aged nine years and a day who cohabits with his deceased brother’s wife acquires her (as wife).” 8

    Clearly, the JEWISH Talmud teaches that a woman is permitted to marry and have sex with a nine year old boy.

    5 Sanhedrin 69b.
    6 Sanhedrin 55a.
    7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
    8 Sanhedrin 55b.


    In contrast to Simeon ben Yohai’s dictum that sex with a little girl is permitted under the age of three years, the general teaching of the Talmud is that the rabbi must wait until a day after her third birthday. She could be taken in marriage simply by the act of rape.

    R. Joseph said: Come and hear! A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 55b)
    A girl who is three years of age and one day may be betrothed by cohabitation. . . .(Yeb. 57b)
    A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband’s brother cohabited with her she becomes his. (Sanhedrin. 69a, 69b, also discussed in Yebamoth. 60b)
    It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phineas (who was priest, the footnote says) surely was with them. (Yebamoth. 60b)
    [The Talmud says such three year and a day old girls are] . . . fit for cohabitation. . . But all women children, that have not known man by lying with him, it must be concluded that Scripture speaks of one who is fit for cohabitation. (Footnote to Yebamoth. 60b)

    The example of Phineas, a priest, himself marrying an underage virgin of three years is considered by the Talmud as proof that such infants are “fit for cohabitation.”

    The Talmud teaches that an adult woman’s molestation of a nine year old boy is “not a sexual act” and cannot “throw guilt” upon her because the little boy is not truly a “man.” 9

    But they use opposite logic to sanction rape of little girls aged three years and one day: Such infants they count as “women,” sexually mature and fully responsible to comply with the requirements of marriage.

    The Talmud footnotes 3 and 4 to Sanhedrin 55a clearly tell us when the rabbis considered a boy and girl sexually mature and thus ready for marriage.

    “At nine years a male attains sexual matureness… The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three.”


    The Pharisees were hardly ignorant of the trauma felt by molested children. To complicate redress, the Talmud says a rape victim must wait until she was of age before there would be any possibility of restitution. She must prove that she lived and would live as a devoted Jewess, and she must protest the loss of her virginity on the very hour she comes of age.

    “As soon as she was of age one hour and did not protest she cannot protest anymore.” 10

    The Talmud defends these strict measures as necessary to forestall the possibility of a Gentile child bride rebelling against Judaism and spending the damages awarded to her as a heathen – an unthinkable blasphemy! But the rights of the little girl were really of no great consequence, for,

    “When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (three years and a day) it is as if one put the finger into the eye.” The footnote says that as “tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years.” 11

    In most cases, the Talmud affirms the innocence of male and female victims of pedophilia. Defenders of the Talmud claim this proves the Talmud’s amazing moral advancement and benevolence toward children; they say it contrasts favorably with “primitive” societies where the child would have been stoned along with the adult perpetrator.

    Actually, the rabbis, from self-protection, were intent on proving the innocence of both parties involved in pedophilia: the child, but more importantly, the pedophile. They stripped a little boy of his right to “throw guilt” on his assailant and demanded complicity in sex from a little girl. By thus providing no significant moral or legal recourse for the child, the Talmud clearly reveals whose side it is on: the raping rabbi.


    Child rape was practiced in the highest circles of Judaism. This is illustrated from Yebamoth. 60b:

    There was a certain town in the land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Romanos who conducted an inquiry and found in it the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day, and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest.

    The footnote says that she was “married to a priest” and the rabbi simply permitted her to live with her husband, thus upholding “halakah” as well as the dictum of Simeon ben Yohai,

    “A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest.” 12

    These child brides were expected to submit willingly to sex. Yebamoth. 12b confirms that under eleven years and one day a little girl is not permitted to use a contraceptive but

    “must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner.”

    In Sanhedrin 76b a blessing is given to the man who marries off his children before they reach the age of puberty, with a contrasting curse on anyone who waits longer. In fact, failure to have married off one’s daughter by the time she is 12-1/2, the Talmud says, is as bad as one who “returns a lost article to a Cuthean” (Gentile) – a deed for which “the Lord will not spare him.” 13 This passage says:

    “… it is meritorious to marry off one’s children whilst minors.”

    The mind reels at the damage to the untold numbers of girls who were sexually abused within Judaism during the heyday of pedophilia. Such child abuse, definitely practiced in the second century, continued, at least in Babylon, for another 900 years.


    Perusing the Talmud, one is overwhelmed with the recurrent preoccupation with sex, especially by the most eminent rabbis. Dozens of illustrations could be presented to illustrate the delight of the Pharisees to discuss sex and quibble over its minutest details.

    The rabbis endorsing child sex undoubtedly practiced what they preached. Yet to this hour, their words are revered. Simeon ben Yohai is honoured by Orthodox Jews as one of the very greatest sages and spiritual lights the world has ever known. A member of the earliest “Tannaim,” rabbis most influential in creating the Talmud, he carries more authority to observant Jews than Moses.


    1 Yebamoth 60b, p. 402.
    2 Yebamoth 60b, p. 403.
    3 Sanhedrin 76a.
    4 In Yebamoth 60b, p. 404, Rabbi Zera disagrees that sex with girls under three years and one day should be endorsed as halakah.
    5 Sanhedrin 69b.
    6 Sanhedrin 55a.
    7 Footnote 1 to Kethuboth 11b.
    8 Sanhedrin 55b.
    9 Sanhedrin 55a.
    10 Kethuboth 11a.
    11 Kethuboth 11b.
    12 Yebamoth 60b.
    13 Sanhedrin 76b.


  4. In all your articles all you ever do is attack Christianity and Judaism. Why don’t you attack Islam? Hinduism or Buddhism? Are you threatened by Christianity because you know deep down inside there is evidence backing it up? You go out of your way to ignore all the archeological evidence for Christianity. Islam is filled with the most idiotic teachings in history. There role model is Muhammad a war criminal,pedophile and rapist. He plagiarized from Christianity to form his religion. Why don’t you talk about how atheism caused more deaths in one century than all of history. How atheism is illogical because the complexity and organization of the world points to God. One cell is as complex as New York City and we have trillions of cells. But i know you will keep attacking Christianity the religion which gave the world morals order and the blessings you take for granted.


      Those who criticize your article, are BRAINWASHED!
      Before these people even begin to question, they should make a small purchase: WILFUL BLINDNESS by Margaret Heffernan. The book is about Cognitive dissonance or Why we ignore the obvious at our peril. People who have their beliefs questioned, automatically go into defense mode and refuse to listen, because they are fearful and uncomfortable. And that is why we have religions, political parties etc, that should have been rejected years ago.
      Judaism – Christendom – Islam are the 3 Abrahamic Cults of Death, which have drenched the earth with the blood of their victims.
      Atheism/Communism are also Cults!

      is arguably the most vile character in all fiction; Jealous & Proud; Petty, Unjust, Unforgiving Control Freak; a Vindictive, Bloodthirsty Ethnic Cleanser; a Misogynistic, Homophobic, Filicidal, Pestilential, Megalomaniacal, Sadomasochistic, Capriciously Malevolent Bully.”

      Most of the publishing houses in the United States, are Jewish.
      Most of the Paper-back houses are Jewish.
      All big 7 reprint houses are Jewish.
      Most of the literary editors are Jewish.
      Most of the op-ed, opinion writers in American newspapers, are Jewish.
      Dawkins wanted his books published!
      If you expose the true parasitic character of the Jew, in a book, it won’t be reviewed and if it is, it will be attacked as anti-Semitic. Telling the Truth in America and most parts of Europe is classed as anti-Semitic.
      And that is why Dawkins hadn’t the “balls” to use those 7 words.


      1. Hell sir,hope all is well!


        The LORD delivers 10,000 Canaanites and Perizzites for slaughter in Bezek. As part of the fun 71 kings have their thumbs and big toes cut off.
        (Judges 1.2,7)

        “And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand … Then Judah went up, and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they killed ten thousand men at Bezek.”
        – Judges 1.2-4.



        “The king tried to escape, but soldiers from Judah caught him. They cut off his thumbs and big toes, and he said, “I’ve cut off the thumbs and big toes of 70 kings and made those kings crawl around under my table for scraps of food. Now God is paying me back.” The army of Judah took the king of Bezek along with them to Jerusalem, where he died.”
        ‭‭Judges‬ ‭1:6-7‬ ‭CEVDCI‬‬


  5. You also claim egypt had no Pharaohs and Israelites so yet again should we ignore the best scholars, historians and evidence to make you happy? You want to change history because you don’t want to admit the truth. Jews no matter how bad they are now we’re salves in Egypt. As for Pharaohs that’s a fact that shouldn’t even be contested.


    1. Sam, food for thought: Where was the “Egypt” of the biblical narrative? The story of the Exodus could never have occurred during the biblical time frame. It contradicts all the archaeological evidence, and that has been known for decades. However, it does not mean that there were no Israelite slaves in a land that was once under control of the same people who established themselves in today’s Egypt. You have to go back 4 to 5 millennia to find the evidence for that, and you do have to study linguistics, the ancient languages that permeated themselves in both the biblical texts and the Quran. The Quran actually takes us to the exact location, but no one, not even Muslims, are examining it carefully. The Quran states clearly that Islam is the same religion that existed since Abraham. That is why all the prophets are glorified in the Quran. Focusing on a modern version of religious history only blinds one to historical accuracy.

      As for the rest of you, leave politics aside. You cannot mix politics and scholarship. Once you begin to show hatred, all your arguments fall into the dust bin.


  6. Your constant revision of history to fit your own fantasy is very sad and wrong. We are to believe somehow you know more than some of the greatest scholars,archeologists and historians in our world? Do you want us to ignore all the archeologist discoveries proving the Old and New Testament historically accurate? Moses is very much believed to be literate as you said he was apart of the royal family. The ancient world was very babaric. People around the world did have some morals because of God given consciences. However they were never great up until jewish law and the Ten Commandments. The amount of history evidence you ignore to push your narrative is sad. There is lots of prove for the Old Testament and the Israelite history.
    Also Christianity was responsible for modern human rights and the greatest moral,charitable and legal order the world has ever seen. without the Ten Commandments and Christian rules the world would be still living in barbaric pagan times in which Egyptians also acted like babrabrians. People around the world would still be doing human sacrifices and all types of craziness. You claim the 42 Egyptians teachings however they were never rules or laws they were optionable. Only two of them are similar to the Ten Commandments such as the adultery one. Again this can be explained by the fact that people did have a conscious. however to more better form these morals and conscious God needed to give the Ten Commandments and than finally Christian morals.






    1. No that was all the ancient Aramaic speaking people such as Assyrians and babylonians who are now Christians and still not arabs. Arab means invaders in Aramaic.


      1. Arab
        a member of a Semitic people, originally from the Arabian peninsula and neighbouring territories, inhabiting much of the Middle East and North Africa.

        What the JEWS are doing to the ARABS in Palestine is ANTISEMITIC!



      2. Sam, are you aware that Aramaic was spoken throughout the Middle East as far as Afghanistan in ancient times? The Assyrians and Babylonians were Israelites, and make sure you differentiate between an Israelite and a Jew. Jews were indigenous to Judea, and Israelites were all over the Middle East and made pilgrimages to the Temple in Judea on holidays. Most of the Babylonians became Muslim after the conquests, and were ancestors of today’s Shi’ites who divided into various sects. The Messiah ‘Isa spoke Aramaic, which was the lingua franca of the entire Fertile Crescent. The ancestors of today’s Assyrians were actually followers of the real Messiah ‘Isa, but were so confused by what happened in Palestine during the wars and crucifixion, that they were prone to hearsay as the early Christians tried to spread the message promoted by their cult. Three centuries ago, they claimed to the missionaries from the West, that they were Israelites and were waiting for a final Messenger. However, the missionaries offered them wealth and education, and with it came indoctrination. That is why they are “Christians.” Three hundred years ago, they rejected the cross in their houses of worship and said it was part of the distortion of their religion. They prayed just like Israelites did and still performed sacrifices.


  8. Thank you for giving us the means to “crack” the codes and thus make fart the last locks of the totalitarian grid that the oligarchy tries to close us on the face !
    I translated this article into my blog and relayed this article in my blog, as following ►

    Looking forward to hearing from you soon – JBL1960


  9. Yo Bro,
    For most people in the world today, the film, THE 10 COMMANDMENTS, is the Word of God.
    Hollywood has brainwashed them with its BS and most of them have NEVER read the Hebrew/Jewish Bible, with a critical mind, as you and I have.
    It was Sigmund Freud and his nephew, Edward Bernays, who helped with the brainwashing.
    Google: PROPAGANDA by Edward Berneys.

    July 9, 2015
    Richard Gunderman
    Chancellor’s Professor of Medicine, Liberal Arts, and Philanthropy, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis

    “The most interesting man in the world.” “Reach out and touch someone.” “Finger-lickin’ good.” Such advertising slogans have become fixtures of American culture, and each year millions now tune into the Super Bowl as much for the ads as for the football.
    While no single person can claim exclusive credit for the ascendancy of advertising in American life, no one deserves credit more than a man most of us have never heard of: Edward Bernays.

    I first encountered Bernays through an article I was writing on propaganda, and it quickly became clear that he was one of the 20th century’s foremost salesmen of ideas. The fact that 20 years have elapsed since his death provides a fitting opportunity to reexamine his legacy.

    Bernays pioneered public relations
    Often referred to as “the father of public relations,” Bernays in 1928 published his seminal work, Propaganda, in which he argued that public relations is not a gimmick but a necessity:

    The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.

    Bernays came by his beliefs honestly. Born in Austria in 1891, the year Sigmund Freud published one of his earliest papers, Bernays was also Freud’s nephew twice over. His mother was Freud’s sister Anna, and his father, Ely Bernays, was the brother of Freud’s wife Martha.

    The year after his birth, the Bernays family moved to New York, and Bernays later graduated from Cornell with a degree in agriculture. But instead of farming, he chose a career in journalism, eventually helping the Woodrow Wilson Administration promote the idea that US efforts in World War I were intended to bring democracy to Europe.

    Bernays rebrands ‘propaganda’
    Having seen how effective propaganda could be during war, Bernays wondered whether it might prove equally useful during peacetime.
    Yet propaganda had acquired a somewhat pejorative connotation (which would be further magnified during World War II), so Bernays promoted the term “public relations.”

    Drawing on the insights of his Uncle Sigmund – a relationship Bernays was always quick to mention – he developed an approach he dubbed “the engineering of consent.” He provided leaders the means to “control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it.” To do so, it was necessary to appeal not to the rational part of the mind, but the unconscious.

    Bernays acquired an impressive list of clients, ranging from manufacturers such as General Electric, Procter & Gamble, and the American Tobacco Company, to media outlets like CBS and even politicians such as Calvin Coolidge. To counteract President Coolidge’s stiff image, Bernays organized “pancake breakfasts” and White House concerts with Al Jolson and other Broadway performers. With Bernays’ help, Coolidge won the 1924 election.

    Bernays’ publicity campaigns were the stuff of legend. To overcome “sales resistance” to cigarette smoking among women, Bernays staged a demonstration at the 1929 Easter parade, having fashionable young women flaunt their “torches of freedom.”

    He promoted Lucky Strikes by convincing women that the forest green hue of the cigarette pack was among the most fashionable of colors. The success of this effort was manifested in innumerable window displays and fashion shows.

    In the 1930s, he promoted cigarettes as both soothing to the throat and slimming to the waistline. But at home, Bernays was attempting to persuade his wife to kick the habit. When would find a pack of her Parliaments in their home, he would snap every one of them in half and throw them in the toilet. While promoting cigarettes as soothing and slimming, Bernays, it seems, was aware of some of the early studies linking smoking to cancer.

    Bernays used the same techniques on children. To convince kids that bathing could be fun, he sponsored soap sculpture competitions and floating contests. These were designed to prove that Ivory bars were more buoyant than competing products.

    Bernays also used fear to sell products. For Dixie cups, Bernays launched a campaign to scare people into thinking that only disposable cups were sanitary. As part of this campaign, he founded the Committee for the Study and Promotion of the Sanitary Dispensing of Food and Drink.

    Bernays’ ideas sold a lot more than cigarettes and Dixie cups
    Even though Bernays saw the power of propaganda during war and used it to sell products during peacetime, he couldn’t have imagined that his writings on public relations would become a tool of the Third Reich.

    In the 1920s, Joseph Goebbels became an avid admirer of Bernays and his writings – despite the fact that Bernays was a Jew. When Goebbels became the minister of propaganda for the Third Reich, he sought to exploit Bernays’ ideas to the fullest extent possible. For example, he created a “Fuhrer cult” around Adolph Hitler.

    Bernays learned that the Nazis were using his work in 1933, from a foreign correspondent for Hearst newspapers. He later recounted in his 1965 autobiography:
    They were using my books as the basis for a destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me, but I knew any human activity can be used for social purposes or misused for antisocial ones.
    What Bernays’ writings furnish is not a principle or tradition by which to evaluate the appropriateness of propaganda, but simply a means for shaping public opinion for any purpose whatsoever, whether beneficial to human beings or not.

    This observation led Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter to warn President Franklin Roosevelt against allowing Bernays to play a leadership role in World War II, describing him and his colleagues as “professional poisoners of the public mind, exploiters of foolishness, fanaticism, and self-interest.”

    Today we might call what Bernays pioneered a form of branding, but at its core it represents little more than a particularly brazen set of techniques to manipulate people to get them to do your bidding.

    Its underlying purpose, in large part, is to make money. By convincing people that they want something they do not need, Bernays sought to turn citizens and neighbors into consumers who use their purchasing power to propel themselves down the road to happiness.

    Without a moral compass, however, such a transformation promotes a patronizing and ultimately cynical view of human nature and human possibilities, one as likely to destroy lives as to build them up.

    One of the best books on this subject is called “Toxic Sludge is Good for You”. by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber.
    They currently have a network of websites: The Center for Media and Democracy, Sourcewatch and PR Watch. These are outstanding sources if yo u want to research if there is corporate funding, influence and right wing think tanks invoked in the news you see and the authors of those articles


  10. Dear Ashraf

    Interesting thought, much of which was circulating for many years. Keeping in mind what James Henry Breasted wrote in the thirties in the magnificent “Dawn of Conscience” that the Ten Commandments are nothing more than ten of the 42 negative commands of Ma’at as you stated. ‘Moses and Monotheism” by Sigmund Freud published in 1939 held the same view.

    It is generally accepted by many historian and supported by Finkelstein and Silberman in the “Bible Unearthed” that there were no documented history for the Israelites until the seventh and the sixth centuries BC. Before that few land dwellers scattered in the land of Canaan who were of no social or political and specifically of no military or cultural impact.

    According to Karen Armstrong in her excellent book “A History of God” she points out that the Israelites of the sixth century BC never heard of Moses or knew of his book, apart from few mythical verbal information.

    It then appears to me that what was the language of God in the Book of Moses is unimportant, for it did not exist until it was composed in the newly developed Hebrew language about the sixth century BC. At the tenth century and not before then, there were proto-Canaanite and old Semitic script that eventually became the Hebrew and the Arabic languages. The language of the Jews then was Canaanite. These languages appear to have arisen from hieroglyphic, though there are other suggestions of Afroasiatic languages origin

    Finally, over the last few centuries BC, it was in the nature of the Jews to steal cultural and religious thoughts and even historical facts from the surrounding cultures where they lived, such as from Egypt and Babylonia. The first is particularly important during the Septuagint in Alexandria in the third century BC, to translate the Torah when they transplanted Egypt and its history into their “mythology”.

    I have enjoyed reading your essay.

    Osama Koriech

    Liked by 1 person

    1. All the people you cite have a anti religious bias. There is plenty of evidence of the Israelites and Moses before 7th century BC. Many historians believe this. Also if you believe there was a written Hebrew language in the 6th century than obviously that means they were a lot older. There is no evidence that Jews stole any religious,historical facts or ideas. You come to that conclusion because of the lie of post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning “after this, therefore because of this.” similarities to something does not men’s someone copied it.





        “I form the LIGHT, and create DARKNESS. I make PEACE, and create EVIL.
        I the LORD do all these things.” – Isaiah 45.7.

        All cultures have anthropomorphized their gods into humanoid (if sometimes grotesque) form. Were the Jews the exception? Hardly. We know precisely what the Hebrew god looked like. We are, after all, fashioned in his own likeness! “Yahweh”, in fact, is an abbreviation of the longer name, “Yahweh Sabaoth.” It means, “He who musters armies.” Thus Yahweh’s name identifies the god primarily as the military leader of the tribe. No wonder the God bequeathed to the world by the Jews turned out to be a monster.


        “The Lord is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.” – Exodus 15.3.


        God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
        (Genesis 22.2)

        Boy terrified in ritual abuse in the mountains -Yahweh cult’s ‘Test of Fear’
        “God put Abraham to the test … Abraham built an altar … bound Isaac hand & foot … took the slaughtering knife to kill his son … But the angel of the Lord began calling … ‘Do not put out your hand against the boy …. for now I know that you fear the Lord …’ (Genesis 22.1,12)

        The story of Isaac is NOT a condemnation of child sacrifice. Isaac was spared not because human sacrifice was seen to be wrong but because Isaac was the “child of promise” and needed to survive. The yarn requires the normality of human sacrifice. Abraham was praised for his willingness to appease Yahweh by killing his own son. The sham murder of Isaac (the ‘Aquedah’) was the prototype for a ‘redemptive sacrificial death’ subsequently re-worked as the crucified Jesus.

        It should be noted that in the biblical text, Isaac (like Jesus) is repeatedly called “the only son” of Abraham (Genesis 22.2., 12., 16.) even though Abraham actually has another, older son, Ishmael.

        Moses orders Levite fanatics to murder 3000 golden-calf enthusiasts.
        (Exodus 32.27,29)


        “‘Today,’ Moses said, ‘you have consecrated yourself to Yahweh, at the cost of your sons and brothers. And so he bestows a blessing on you today.'”

        When the Lord says kill everyone He means EVERYONE!
        Saul loses out:
        “You didn’t kill enough,” says the Lord. “You can’t be king!”

        “And Saul defeated the Amalekites … and devoted to destruction all the people … But Saul spared Agag and … all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction.
        And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” … Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully … And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD in Gilgal. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.”
        – 1 Samuel 15

        The LORD delivers 10,000 Canaanites and Perizzites for slaughter in Bezek. As part of the fun 71 kings have their thumbs and big toes cut off.
        (Judges 1.2,7)

        “And the LORD said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand … Then Judah went up, and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand; and they killed ten thousand men at Bezek.”
        – Judges 1.2-4.

        Elisha orders the assassination of Jezebel.
        (2 Kings 9,5,37)

        Joshua Slaughters 31 kings
        (Joshua 12.1,24)

        Elijah Murders 450 Priests of Baal.
        (1 Kings 18.40)

        Samson Slays 1000 Philistines (with an ass’s jawbone! )
        (Judges 15.16)

        King Amaziah of Judah (c. 801–783 BC) throws 10,000 captive Edomites from the top of a rock.
        (2 Chronicles 25.12)

        Usurper Jehu tricks all the priests of Baal into temple slaughter.
        (2 Kings 10.19.30)

        “Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, Go in, slay them; let none come forth. And they smote them with the edge of the sword; and the guard and the captains cast them out, and went to the city of the house of Baal. And they brought forth the images out of the house of Baal, and burned them.”



    2. Why don’t you people ever talk about how Muslims stole credit from all there supposed discoveries and inventions from others in the Middle East such as Christians,Assyrians and babylonians who are now Chaldean. Muslims are also the ones who through Muhammad plagiarized from the Bible to create the Quran and there fake religion. I hear Egyptians Muslims even somehow claim Islam created everything that ancient egyptians did. Even though Islam did not even exist than.


  11. Dr. Ezzat, I have been reading your posts for a long time, and am still waiting for you to figure out what happened in history. You are correct about the beni Isra’il being originally from Arabia, and you are right that the Exodus never took place in today’s Egypt, but you haven’t figured out the time frame. Forget about the biblical chronology and location of key biblical events. The scribes in Judaea fudged their history because they were following oral traditions of the remnants of their people who survived a thousand years of warfare, plagues, and pagan traditions before they congregated in Palestine. The Israelites were scattered all over the Fertile Crescent for thousands of years before the alleged Book of Moses was composed. I will give you a few clues. There were no Ten Commandments. The laws were written on clay tablets in the third millennium BCE, and they were far more detailed than ten commandments. During that time, all writing was on clay tablets and the language was not Hebrew. Hebrew evolved from an original language that ceased to exist at the end of the second millennium BCE. There have been enormous linguistic studies done by scholars for the last seventy years, tucked away in the Vatican library and many universities in the West. There are references connected to ancient languages within passages in the Quran that direct us to the location of the Exodus. The trouble is, other than me, no one is looking. And you are also right, that even if Western scholars dared to figure out how the puzzle pieces fit together, they would not announce it if it contradicts what they prefer to believe. Even Salibi never figured it out. He only scratched the surface in a limited region. As for Finkelstein and Silberman, they have also limited their research. Only the second phase of Israelite history took place in Palestine during the first millennium BCE. This was not the location of any of the early prophets before Elijah (Elias). None of the scholars are thinking outside the box. When you get a bit closer to figuring it out, I’ll let you know. Right now, I am enjoying watching you try. Best regards.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “None of the scholars are thinking outside the box.” Margaret S King

      Let me throw a spanner in the works!


      Every Muslim believes that the Bible has been corrupted or lost, either partially or fully.
      There is just one question Muslims need to answer.

      When was it corrupted or lost? BEFORE or AFTER the time of Muhammad.
      (By corruption, I mean a change in the message or the doctrines of the Bible as claimed by many Muslims.)


      First of all, let’s find out what the Quran says about the Bible.

      The Quran clearly speaks of the earlier revelation (Bible) to be a true revelation of God and affirms faith in the Bible.

      Sura 3:70, 98,99 – states that in Muhammad’s time there were in Arabia both Jews and Christians known as the People Of the Book.

      Sura 5:43 acknowledges they DID have a book. It was not lost. Sura 35:25 talks about the Bible as the scriptures that give light

      Other verses you can read are: Sura 32:3; 5:68; 7:169; 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

      In addition, you find that the word Injil (Gospel) is mentioned 12 times. The Word Zabur (Psalms) is mentioned 13 times. The word Torah is mentioned 18 times. Not once does the Quran associate any kind of alteration or corruption in all these references. If those books were indeed corrupted, Allah would have made it abundantly clear, not just once or twice but over and over again,every time that Injil, Zabur and Torah is mentioned. In fact, the references speak highly of the sciptures (e.g. Torah – 32:23, 21:48 ; Zabur – 17:57, 4:163 ; Injil – 5:46-48. 19:30. 57:27)

      This is further confirmed by verses such as Sura 35:25 which says that the books were sent by God Most High and received with divine guidance, so they cannot be corrupted. Sura 5:48 says that the Quran was given to CONFIRM the Old Testament and New Testament. Not to REPLACE. Sura 10:94: Allah says, “And if you are in doubt regarding what we have sent down to you, ask those (Christians) who read the scriptures before you.” Note: the verb “read” is in present continuous tense meaning “those who are reading”. This means they had the book, they were reading it and it was not corrupt and not lost. Otherwise, why would Allah ask Muhammad and Muslims to read a corrupt or lost book?

      Is there a verse that implies the Bible has been changed. Yes, see Sura 3:78: “And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, “This is from Allah ,” but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.”
      This is not referring to an alteration in the written word. It is pointing to individuals, maybe a group, who were teaching teaching false things from the scripture using their tongues. They were teaching lies by twisting the truth.

      This means that during the time of Muhammad, the Bible was true, genuine, authentic and uncorrupted and not lost.

      Based on this, we can come to the conclusion that: The Bible was NOT corrupted BEFORE the time of Muhammad.

      Therefore, the Bible must have been corrupted AFTER the time of Muhammad? Could this be true?

      Since the Quran was completed around the 8th century and since the evidence from the Quran itself claims the Bible was not corrupted at that time. Let’s hear from the great Muslim teachers, scholars and theologians who came after the 8th century.

      Could it have been corrupted in the 9th century?
      Ali al-Tabari (died 855 AD) accepted the Gospel texts. So did Amr al-Ghakhiz (869 AD) and also Bukhari himself who wrote the hadith (810-870 AD)

      How could there be any alteration in the Book whose words’ sharpness has reached a great level of circulation in the East and in the West? … For no change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds.
      (Al-Razi (865 – 925) One of the most famous Muslim scholars, called “the Imam of Muslim Imams)

      These great scholars said, NO, it was not corrupted in the 9th century.

      Could it have been corrupted in the 10th century?
      NO, says Al-Mas’udi (956 AD). It is preserved.

      Could it have been corrupted in the 11th century?
      NO, says Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037 AD). The Bible is authentic.

      Could it have been corrupted in the 12th century?
      NO, says Al-Ghazzali (1111 AD). This is one of the greatest muslim scholars who ever lived. And he was convinced the Bible is true.

      Could it have been corrupted in the 14th century?
      Ismail ibn Kathir =(1301–1373) was a Muslim Muhaddith (narrator), Faqīh, Mufassir, and Historian. He is the author of the most respected and widely used tafsir.
      [Quoting Muhammad talking of the Jews and Christians]”David died in the midst of his friends. They were not led astray, nor changed [their books]. The Friends of Christ stayed in His ordinances and guidance for two hundred years”

      Could it have been corrupted in the 15th century?
      NO says, Ibn-Khaldun (1406 AD).

      Could it have been corrupted in the 19th century?
      NO, says Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1898) , famous muslim philosopher & founder of the Aligarh College said, “In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)…was practiced.”

      As far as the text of the Bible is concerned, it has not been altered. No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.

      Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817 – 1898), was a prominent and influential Muslim modernist

      Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849 – 1905), was an Egyptian jurist and religious scholar:

      … the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious…We believe that these Gospel accounts are the true Gospel




        Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and one of his companions
        “They corrupt the word” means “they alter or change its meaning”, yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly

        The word “Tahrif” [corruption] signifies to change a thing from its original nature; and there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what proceeds from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meanings of the word of God.

        Al-Razi (865 – 925) One of the most famous Muslim scholars, called “the Imam of Muslim Imams”.

        How could there be any alteration in the Book whose words’ sharpness has reached a great level of circulation in the East and in the West? … For no change can occur in a book that is well circulated among men. Every wise man can see that the alteration of the Bible was impossible for it was well circulated among men of different faith and backgrounds.

        Al Tabari (838 – 923) openly acknowledged that the authentic Taurat and Injil remained in the hands of the Jews and the Christians. His only charge was that they did not always understand or accept the true meaning of their teachings:

        … the first one which came into existence, is the Torah, which is in the hands of the People of the Book…As to the Gospel which is in the hands of the Christians, the greater part of it is the history of the Christ, His birth and His life.

        Fakhruddin Razi (1149 – 1209), was a Persian Sunni theologian.

        The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation.

        Sayyid Ahmad Khan (1817 – 1898), was a prominent and influential Muslim modernist

        As far as the text of the Bible is concerned, it has not been altered. No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.

        Ibn Mazar and Ibn Hatim state,

        in the commentary known as the Tafsir Durr-I-Mansur, that they have it on the authority of Ibn Muniyah, that the Taurat (i.e. the books of Moses), and the Injil (i.e. the Gospels), are in the same state of purity in which they were sent down from heaven, and that no alterations had been made in them, but that the Jews were wont to deceive the people by unsound arguments, and by wresting the sense of Scripture … Shah Waliyu ‘Illah (in his commentary, the Fauzul âl-Kabir), and also Ibn ‘Abbas, support the same view.

        T. P. Hughes in “Dictionary of Islam”

        Dr. Mahmoud Mustafa Ayoub (born 1938), is a Muslim scholar and professor of Islamic Studies and Comparative Religion at Temple University (USA).

        Contrary to the general Islamic view, the Qur’an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the text of their scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by misapplying their precepts, or by altering words from their right position.

        … both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament took their final form long before the rise of Islam. The Qur’an speaks of both the Torah and the Gospel as in them is guidance and light. It calls on the two faith-communities to judge by what God had revealed in their Scriptures. It also speaks that both Jews and Christians altered words from their right places and had forgotten some of what God had revealed for them. This does not mean distorting, adding, and deleting of the Scriptures. Therefore, Qur’anic references to tahrif, or alteration, are more to interpretation rather than changing the texts.

        Muhammad ‘Abduh (1849 – 1905), was an Egyptian jurist and religious scholar:

        … the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious…We believe that these Gospel accounts are the true Gospel.
        … as God says in the beginning of the Qur’an: “And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. These depend on guidance from their Lord. These are the successful.” (2:4,5)

        “Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But as far as corruption is concerned, not even one among all the verses of the Qur’an mentions that the Injil or the Tawrat is corrupted. In the concerned passages it is written that the Jews – yes the Jews, not the Christians – alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted. For it does not necessarily follow that these Scriptures are corrupt because of the wrong opinion of some uninformed persons.

        Ismail ibn Kathir =(1301–1373) was a Muslim Muhaddith (narrator), Faqīh, Mufassir, and Historian. He is the author of the most respected and widely used tafsir/

        [Quoting Muhammad talking of the Jews and Christians]

        “David died in the midst of his friends. They were not led astray, nor changed [their books]. The Friends of Christ stayed in His ordinances and guidance for two hundred years”

        Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi

        The ordinary Muslim people acknowledge that the Injil is the Word of God. Yet they also believe through hearsay (taqlidi ‘aqida) that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community in this world whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands, and then, after restlessly patching it with sackcloth, they must throw dust in the eyes of the people? True, some religious communities change the meaning (tahrif-i ma’nawi) of their Scriptures. To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God. It is to pour ridicule not only upon the Qur’an but upon all the Books. Abrogation always arises because of error. Laws of earthly kingdoms are abrogated because experience has proved that they are harmful. But God makes no mistake, nor does He lack experience.

        Mawlawi Chirag ud-Din

        The Qur’an commands us to believe and to honour the previous Scriptures and apostles. According to Surah (Nisa): “O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His messenger and the Scripture which He hath revealed unto His messenger, and the Scripture which He revealed aforetime.” (4:136) ”When, therefore, it is commanded to believe in these Holy Scriptures, why consider the study of these Scriptures reprehensible? For when the order to believe the Qur’an and the Holy Scriptures is one and the same, how can one conclude that reading the Qur’an is a meritorious act, but that reading the Holy Scriptures is a punishable offence?

        Abdullah Saeed

        A significant point of tension between today’s Muslims and the ‘People of the Book’ (Jews and Christians) is the common Muslim belief that the Jewish and Christian scriptures that exist today are corrupted and cannot be relied upon in any matters of faith, religion or law. Although this is a popular view, most classical scholars of the Qur’an were far more cautious in their understanding of Qur’anic texts on this issue. This article explores the Qur’an’s references to distortion of scriptural meaning and text, and the views of scholars, particularly Tabari, Qurtubi, Razi, Ibn Taymiyya and Qutb. Qur’anic words such as tahrif are popularly accepted today as referring to deliberate distortion of scripture; however, classical scholars have interpreted the Qur’an’s references in a number of different ways. Almost all suggested that distortion occurred mainly through interpretation and not in the text itself. Although the Qur’an refers to tahrif (distortion), it also exhibits the utmost respect for previous scriptures. Early Muslims adopted a narrow view of scripture, partly because of the nature of the Qur’an, and also in response to the more established religions of Judaism and Christianity, to assert the ‘purity’ of the Qur’an and Islam. Saeed notes that the Jewish and Christian scriptures that exist today are, according to most scholars, largely unchanged since the time of Muhammad and should be respected now as they were then

        Introduction to Abdullah Saeed’s

        “The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures”

        So WHEN was it corrupted? No one knows. Who made this allegation? And what is their evidence to say this? Any muslim who claims the Bible is corrupted will be going against the declarations of all these famous Muslim scholars above. They’d be rolling in their graves if they hear you saying such things. Are you greater than any of these men?

        Let’s say, for argument’s sake that the Bible was ‘somehow’ corrupted while all these scholars were sleeping and didn’t know what they were taking about. This would lead to further complications and questions for you to answer.

        Like these concerns, for example: By 400AD, more than 200 years before Muhammad was born, the Bible was already available widely in different continents, distributed far and wide, in multiple translations. How was the text corrupted or changed? Did someone go all over the world to collect all the original bibles to burn them? How is it possible to locate and destroy every single copy? Couldn’t someone have kept their Bible hidden? When were the new Bibles written? Did they make the same changes/alterations in the hundreds of different translations? Who were these expert linguists who were recruited for this gigantic tasks of re-writing the bible in different translations and languages? Wasn’t there even one good Christian or Muslim or Jew who saved his “original” bible and then produce it to prove to the world that the “new” bible is different from the old original one? And who would decide what changes to make in the text of the Bible to say something other than the original? If the Jews did it, Christians would not agree. If Christians did it, the Jews would retaliate. And why didn’t any Muslim speak up or provide the evidence of the “original” bible if there was indeed corruption throughout the ages?

        In fact, as early as the 11th century, Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammad, had said, “The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation.”

        If you insist that somehow corruption did take place after the time of Muhammad, it leads to further difficulties, that is detrimental to the Quran and directly to Allah himself. The Quran claims that no one can change the Word of God. Sura (6:34); 10:34 Muslims would say that this only applies to the Quran. Really? Then you’re contradicting Sura 2:136 which says there is no distinction between Allah’s revelation. A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 4:136; 29:46.

        Even so, if the original revelations of Allah were corrupted, what does this speak of Allah? Why couldn’t Allah preserve his words? Were the people who corrupted his words greater than Allah since it is their corrupted words that have been preserved for more than 2000 years rather than Allah’s original words which have been corrupted or lost. Any Muslim who claims the Bible is corrupted is claiming that Allah is too weak to protect his own words.

        Finally, archaeological evidence. This seals it.

        Manuscripts discovered from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries, are virtually the same with the Bible today. They are available for any scholar, Muslim or Christian or Jewish or atheist, to study and examine and analyze. Even you can view the famous Codex Sinaiticus, containing the entire Bible, from 300+ AD, right this minute from your computer. Go to: This document was already available more than 300 years BEFORE Muhammad was born. Anyone can go ahead and compare this ancient document to the current Bible in your hands. Scholars who have conducted extensive research and studies on these manuscripts can say definitively that today’s Bible is virtually unchanged. Some minor variations do not change anything in the message of the Bible or the doctrines of Christianity.

        This means that after the time of Muhammad, the Bible has still been proven to be true, genuine, authentic and uncorrupted and not lost.

        Based on this, we can come to the conclusion that: The Bible was NOT corrupted AFTER the time of Muhammad.

        So why do Muslims still believe that the Bible is corrupted?

        Please tell me again when it was corrupted?


      2. Oh my, where do I begin? I usually do not respond to tirades like yours, but I will state a few things you should think about.

        What makes you think the word “Injil” is equivalent to the Synoptic Gospels, that the Quran clearly states were incorrect. The story of Mariam’s birth in Palestine was a lie. The story of the so-called cousin named “Elizabeth” was a lie. The Quran corrects those stories and if you read them carefully, you would realize none of them happened in Palestine. The location of Mariam’s birth was not in Bethlehem as the New Testament describes. There were no date palm trees in that location ever, under which she gave birth. If you studied what Palestine was like two thousand years ago, you would realize the Quran was stating sometime that many of the religious scholars among the Israelites already knew.

        When the Quran states that Allah gave mankind the Injil, what on earth makes you think that is the same as the “Bible” or the “Gospels”? The Quran states clearly that the Israelites and Jews fudged their religious texts many times. Surah 2 is filled with such references: Note: 2:78-79. The Quran states that they took the stories out of their correct chronology and location (Surah 5:41). So how do you surmise that the Quran supports the Synoptic Gospels composed by a handful of derelict Jews and Samaritans in Palestine after the fall of the second Temple? The Quran is filled with references to how the Jews fudged their own literature. Even the stories in the Old Testament, alleged “Book of Moses,” which has been debunked by scholars, were taken out of their correct chronology and location.

        The name of the Messiah in the Synoptic Gospels is given as “Jesus.” That was the Greek translation of the Hebrew name “Yeshua,” short for “Yehoshua,” and abbreviated to “Joshua.” That is a completely different name from the Messiah mentioned in 100 Surahs in the Quran. His name was ‘Isa. Not the same. Why do you think the Jews rejected the cult of Christianity that appeared after the crucifixion of a man named Yeshua? Because Yeshua was the “false Messiah,” and the rabbinic sages knew it. The Quran clearly states that ‘Isa was not crucified, but it was made to look as though he was. And of course, as you say, Allah trusted the rabbis and doctors of law with “Allah’s Book.” (Sarah 5:44) Why do you assume that the “Book” is the same as the Christian Gospels? Biblical scholars know that the Gospels are drawn in part from a missing text that they have named the “Quelle” document. Biblical scholars know that the Gospels were corrupted and the Quran confirms it. You are not reading the Quran carefully. Unless you understand the context, the thousands of years of history of the Israelites in the Near East, you simply won’t get what the Quran is about.

        If you understand biblical language, you would be able to figure out that the prophets in the Old Testament, no matter how much fudging is within those pages, were foretelling the arrival of the Prophet Muhammad. So was the New Testament, no matter how much it was corrupted. The entire Middle East was expecting him. That is why Islam succeeded. That is what the controversy was regarding the Messiah ‘Isa. He told his followers, the rabbis and doctors of law, that the final Messenger would come from Arabia. Why do you think the High Priest persecuted him? Why do you think so many Jews, followers of the Sadducees, were so upset with the Messiah ‘Isa? They refused to accept that their final messenger of God, falsely believed by them to be the second “Messiah,” would come from the Arabs, the descendants of an Israelite slave (Haggar). They rejected the real Messiah ‘Isa, whose followers were the rabbis and doctors of law, and began to worship the man who martyred himself on the cross, that poor fellow named “Yeshua” or “Jesus,” who literally died for the sins of his people. If you dig hard enough, you would figure out the historical name for Yeshua. Poor man had no idea that a huge world religion would be invented by a derelict group and followed by half the world’s population.

        As for the descendants and students of the rabbis and doctors of law who were students of the real “Injil,” guess what? They became Muslim when the armies of Islam liberated the Fertile Crescent from the Byzantines. The Islamic conquests were all foretold in scripture and if you understood the language, you would see that the followers of the Pharisees knew exactly what was to happen in the future. Judas was a derelict, a Sadducee pretending to be a Pharisee. He and his group of revolutionaries were deviants and that is why they were criticized by the Messiah ‘Isa. It is because of their actions that Allah destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. They all knew the exact date when the Temple would be destroyed.

        The rabbis and doctors of law were located mainly in Mesopotamia, heartland of the Pharisees (Fars or Persia). Their scholars were named the “Nasara,” which the translation of the Quran in English falsely names them “Christians.” The Nasara existed even in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. They drew their membership from all the sects that were considered to be Israelite. The Nasara were preparing their people for the arrival of the Prophet Muhammad and their enemies were the Christians, who they regarded as spies of Rome (the Byzantines), who had distorted their religion. Some of the greatest commanders of the Islamic armies, who went as far as conquering Morocco and Spain, were “Nasara.” That is why the Quran states that of all the people who would welcome the Prophet Muhammad and who would have tears in their eyes for joy, would be the Nasara (Surah 5:83). It states clearly that they were the scholars, “men devoted to learning.” Obviously, that is not a reference to the Christians who pitted themselves against Islam for the past 1400 years. In Surah 82, it states that the “strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and pagans.” The Jews refused to accept that their final Messenger would come from the Arabs. They still do, and they are still waiting for that non-existent Jewish Messiah who would liberate them from their enemies and rebuild their Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Poor fools have no idea how to read their own literature.

        Rather than taking Surahs out of the Quran and assuming you understand them, I would be reading the material more carefully.

        Liked by 1 person



      4. I am also a Palestinian from a Christian family. That is why I spent my life seeking the truth when the biblical stories were filled with contradictions. I do not follow traditions blindly, but God gave us a brain and asked us to seek the truth, because He is the God of Truth. Jesus (Yeshua) was born in Palestine, and most likely in Bethlehem, like my relatives. But that does not mean Yeshua was the real Messiah. Blind faith is not an admirable quality. I am a scholar and the Messiah ‘Isa was a scholar. All prophets spoke against blind faith in tradition, and urged their followers to reject their families if they asked them to follow their traditions blindly. The rabbinic sages and the Prophet Muhammad stated clearly that the scholars are the inheritors of prophecy, because they study the religious texts in a manner that no lay person can possibly comprehend.


      5. Hi MARGARET S KING,
        I see you are a great fan of PEDOPHILES and SODOMITES.


        EARLY LIFE
        Ginsberg was born into a Jewish family in Newark, New Jersey, and grew up in nearby Paterson. His father Louis Ginsberg was a poet and a high school teacher. Ginsberg’s mother, Naomi Livergant Ginsberg (who was affected by epileptic seizures and mental illnesses such as paranoia) was an active member of the Communist Party and often took Ginsberg and his brother Eugene to party meetings. Ginsberg later said that his mother “made up bedtime stories that all went something like: ‘The good king rode forth from his castle, saw the suffering workers and healed them.'”

        As a young teenager, Ginsberg began to write letters to The New York Times about political issues such as World War II and workers’ rights. When he was in junior high school, he accompanied his mother by bus to her therapist. The trip disturbed Ginsberg — he mentioned it and other moments from his childhood in his long autobiographical poem “Kaddish for Naomi Ginsberg (1894-1956).” While in high school, Ginsberg began reading Walt Whitman; he said he was inspired by his teacher’s passion in reading.

        In 1943, Ginsberg graduated from Eastside High School and briefly attended Montclair State College before entering Columbia University on a scholarship from the Young Men’s Hebrew Association of Paterson. In 1945, he joined the Merchant Marine to earn money to continue his education at Columbia. While at Columbia, Ginsberg contributed to the Columbia Review literary journal, the Jester humor magazine, won the Woodberry Poetry Prize and served as president of the Philolexian Society, the campus literary and debate group.

        Ginsberg worked for a while as a clerk in the Gotham Book Mart, a renowned bookstore and literary hotspot, where he undoubtedly came in contact with many renowned authors and poets.

        He talked openly about his connections with Communism and his admiration for past heroes of Communism and the labor movement at a time in America when the Red Scare and McCarthyism were recent memories. Later he travelled to several Communist countries to promote free speech. He claimed Communist countries, China for example, welcomed him in because they thought he was an enemy of Capitalism but often turned against him when they saw him as a trouble maker. In his poem “America”, written on 17 January 1956 in Berkeley, a line reads “America I used to be a communist when I was a kid I’m not sorry…” followed directly by “I smoke marijuana every chance I get….”

        Ginsberg admired Castro along with many other quasi-Marxist figures from the 20th century. In 1965 Ginsberg was deported from Cuba for publicly protesting against Cuba’s anti-marijuana stance; Ginsberg’s expulsion was also said to have come after he had described Che Guevara as “cute”.

        Che Guevara was a MASS MURDERER!

        The Cubans sent him to Czechoslovakia, where one week after being named the King of a May Day parade, Ginsberg was labeled an “immoral menace” by the Czech government because of his free expression of radical ideas, and was then deported. Vaclav Havel points to Ginsberg as an important inspiration in striving for freedom. Biographer Jonah Raskin writes that despite Ginsberg’s often stark opposition to communist orthodoxy, he held “his own idiosyncratic version of communism”.

        In 1970 Ginsberg objected to being characterized as a Communist, stating publicly,

        “I am not, as a matter of fact, a member of the Communist party, nor am I dedicated to the overthrow of [the U.S.] government or any government by violence. … I must say that I see little difference between the armed and violent governments both Communist and Capitalist that I have observed …”

        The character of Ginsberg in Jack Kerouac’s On the Road is named Carlo Marx.

        One contribution that is often considered his most significant and most controversial was his openness about homosexuality. Ginsberg was an early proponent of freedom for men who loved other men. In 1943 he discovered within himself “mountains of homosexuality.” He expressed this desire openly and graphically in his poetry. He also struck a note for gay marriage by listing Peter Orlovsky, his lifelong companion, as his spouse in his Who’s Who entry. Later homosexual writers saw his frank talk about homosexuality as an opening to speak more openly and honestly about something often before only hinted at or spoken of in metaphor.

        In writing about sexuality in graphic detail and in his frequent use of language seen as indecent he challenged—and ultimately changed—obscenity laws. He was a staunch supporter of others whose expression challenged obscenity laws (William S. Burroughs and Lenny Bruce, for example).

        Burroughs and Ginsberg: Literary Heroes and Totally Gross Sex Predators
        by Choire Sicha August 3, 2010
        Yesterday we got some hate-mail-really though it was more like mildly upset mail-about referring to William S. Burroughs as a “dirty old poet.” And while I really like me some Burroughs-I did sit around and listen to “You’re the Guy I Want To Share My Money With” as a teen, so!-I realized that I also deeply, terribly dislike him. You know why? Those guys were all the worst. Setting aside the drugs and alcohol and their sons claiming to have been molested, at the age of 14, by friends of their father’s, and, yes, the wife-shooting, it’s also true that Burroughs and Allen Ginsberg (a NAMBLA member, lest we forget) and their gang-some of whom are somehow still living, so, let’s not name names-were literary rockstars who kept a steady supply of boy groupies as disposable sex toys.

        Pretty much it was as gross as anything you can imagine about the lifestyle of a hair metal band in the 80s. By the first-hand accounts I’ve been told, they didn’t care if the boys were 15 or 22 or were clearly extremely damaged from terrible childhoods; also, some of the groupies had sex with them all. And I’ll always think of Burroughs as “old” because, first, he was born in 1914, after all, and to people born in the 60s and 70s, Ginsberg and Burroughs and their pals all were unspeakably old, in that way that anyone over 40 is already unfathomably old to someone who is 18.

        And sure, lots of this was truly consensual, even the stuff that’d be considered statutory rape! And there’s a whole crop of a generation that can pipe up at a dinner party and be all, “Burroughs? Ha, I remember when we shared a huge spike of heroin and we had sex! Hilarious! Can you imagine?” It’s a good story!

        (Related: one of the things I find refreshing about many of the gay millennials, by the way, is that it seems like more of them feel comfortable with and only largely attracted to people their own age. That’s a good development.)

        But just like “free love” so often meant that “chicks” should stop being “uptight” and have sex with whatever man wanted them to put out, fundamental to the whole post-beatnik and “groovy” literary and art scene of gay men was an idea that these, yes, old dudes came to think that it was their right to leverage their literary reputations to screw whichever troubled young boy most recently wanted their autograph.

        So on some level, I’ll always carry some enormous dislike for the characters that pop up to be the new-again counterculture heroes in movies like Milk and Howl. They were, apart from some of their excellent qualities, also totally skeevy, gross, drugged-out predators.

        Ginsberg also spoke out in defense of the freedom of expression of NAMBLA.[20]. He defended his membership by stating
        “Attacks on NAMBLA stink of politics, witchhunting for profit, humorlessness, vanity, anger and ignorance.”
        Ginsberg stated “I joined NAMBLA in defense of free speech…”
        In “Thoughts on NAMBLA”, published in Deliberate Prose, Ginsberg elaborated on these thoughts, stating “NAMBLA’s a forum for reform of those laws on youthful sexuality which members deem oppressive, (it is) a discussion society not a sex club.” Ginsberg expressed the opinion that the appreciation of youthful bodies and “the human form divine” has been a common theme throughout the history of culture, “from Rome’s Vatican, to Florence’s Uffizi galleries, to New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art”, and that laws regarding the issue needed to be more openly discussed. When he proved his point about free speech Ginsberg quit NAMBLA.

        Ginsberg also talked often about drug use. Throughout the 1960s he took an active role in the demystification of LSD and with Timothy Leary worked to promote its common use. He was also for many decades an advocate of marijuana legalization, and at the same time warned his audiences against the hazards of tobacco in his Put Down Your Cigarette Rag (Don’t Smoke):”Don’t Smoke Don’t Smoke Nicotine Nicotine No / No don’t smoke the official Dope Smoke Dope Dope.”

        This is the person Margaret S King quotes as one of her authorities in her first book: The Exodus in the Quran.

        That for me sums you up!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.