'Crucifiction' In Egypt?
Dr. M S M Saifullah
This is one of the last few articles from Islamic Awareness team before it
goes on a short break/holiday, inshallah. Although the rebuttal of the
claim by missionaries that Egyptians did not practice crucifixion was
ready some 8 months ago (when I was a student at University of Cambridge),
other matters seem to have taken more importance. But anyway, let us see
what is going on below. For links etc. please visit the homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/crucify.html
Please let me know of any mistakes.
Wassalam
Saifullah
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Crucifiction' In Egypt?
M S M Saifullah & 'Abd ar-Rahmaan Robert Squires
© 1998 - Islamic Awareness, Atsugi-shi
The Qur'an talks about crucifixion as punishment in Egypt. Below are the
relevent verses.
"Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides,
and I will cause you all to die on the cross."[Qur'an 7:124]
and
(Pharaoh) said: Ye put your faith in him before I give you leave. Lo!
he doubtless is your chief who taught you magic! But verily ye shall
come to know. Verily I will cut off your hands and your feet
alternately, and verily I will crucify you every one. [Qur'an 26:49]
and
(Pharaoh) said: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission?
Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I
will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have
you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain,
which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting
punishment!" [Qur'an 20:71]
The Qur'an is saying that crucifixion was a punishment during Pharaoh's
time. The specifics of the punishment was cutting hands and feet on
opposite sites and crucify on the trunk of the trees.
It has been claimed by Christian missionaries that:
We have no record that Egyptians used crucifixion as
punishment. This only becomes a punishment much later in
history and then in another culture. Such a threat is
historically inaccurate.
This can be seen at:
http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/h005.html
As usual, no references are quoted and hence it is hard to verify the
information. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see if there are no
records of Egyptians using crucifixion as a punishment why does the
on-line Smith's Bible Dictionary says under Crucifixion:
Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the
Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians,
Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times
among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of
execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of
dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It
was unanimously considered the most horrible form of
death.
As noted in the above quote, in Genesis 40:18-19 we read the
interepretation of the dream by Joseph(P). It is talking about the
'Pharaoh' in Joseph's(P) time will hang the person on a tree.
"This is what it means," Joseph said. "The three baskets are three days.
Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree.
And the birds will eat away your flesh." [Genesis 40:18-19]
So, the crucifixion was practiced by the 'Pharaohs' in Egypt during the
time of Joseph(P) much before the time of Moses(P). Hence it would be
appropriate to refer of crucifixion without labeling it as an anachronism
in the time of Moses(P) in Egypt.
Crucifixion amongst the Jews was rare and except for a few instances, the
subject was stoned to death first and then hung on a tree in accordance
with the Biblical passage passage in Deuteronomy.
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is
hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight.
Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on
a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the
LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. [Deuteronomy
21:22-23]
It is not that there are no more references of hanging on the tree type
crucifixion in the Bible.
He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening.
At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and
throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a
large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day. [Joshua 8:29]
With strong connotations of crucifixion, in Galatians, Paul says that
Jesus(P) redeemed people from curse of the law by becoming a curse for
them.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,
for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." [Galatians
3:13]
Further The New International Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that (Under
'Cross'):
Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms
of death known to man. It was practiced, especially in the
times of war, by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians,
Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So dreaded was it that
even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and troubles of
the life were often compared to a cross.[1]
Now the most primitive form of crucifixion was on the trees as the on-line The
Catholic Encylopedia states under Archćology of the Cross and Crucifix:
The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor
infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro,
Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation
of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to
HĂĽschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri
perduellion is pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I,
266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin.,
XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive
form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus
Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII,
xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was
known as a cross (crux).
More research needs to be conducted on various forms of crucifixion in
antiquity, inshallah.
Of course, the last thing the Christian Missionaries would like to do is
to read their own books properly!
And Allah knows best!
References
[1] The New International Dictionary Of The Bible: Pictorial Edition, J D
Douglas, Merrill C Tenny, 1987, Regency Reference Library (USA) & Marshall
Pickering (UK), pp. 242.
--
Dr. M S M Saifullah NTT Basic Research Laboratories
'Islamic Awareness' http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/
Jochen Katz
and the search for truth and the obedience to God be your purpose.
In article <6o3fj4$ni3$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>,
sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp (Dr. M S M Saifullah) writes:
} This is one of the last few articles from Islamic Awareness team before it
} goes on a short break/holiday, inshallah. Although the rebuttal of the
} claim by missionaries that Egyptians did not practice crucifixion was
} ready some 8 months ago (when I was a student at University of Cambridge),
Time seems not to have improved it.
} other matters seem to have taken more importance. But anyway, let us see
} what is going on below. For links etc. please visit the homepage at:
}
} http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/crucify.html
}
} Please let me know of any mistakes.
We sure will. And in the below I gladly acknowledge help from
Jay Smith, the man Saifullah's loves to hate the most. I have
extended and reformulated some of the paragraphs, but most of
the factual data and arguments were provided by him.
} The Qur'an talks about crucifixion as punishment in Egypt. Below are the
} relevent verses.
}
} "Be sure I will cut off your hands and your feet on apposite sides,
} and I will cause you all to die on the cross."[Qur'an 7:124]
This is from the story of Moses, i.e. somewhere between 1450 - 1200 BC
depending on which dating you prefer. It doesn't make much of a
difference.
} and
}
} (Pharaoh) said: Ye put your faith in him before I give you leave. Lo!
} he doubtless is your chief who taught you magic! But verily ye shall
} come to know. Verily I will cut off your hands and your feet
} alternately, and verily I will crucify you every one. [Qur'an 26:49]
}
} and
}
} (Pharaoh) said: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission?
} Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I
} will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have
} you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain,
} which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting
} punishment!" [Qur'an 20:71]
These are the Mose story again.
You actually forgot (at least) one story.
"O my two companions of the prison! As to one of you,
he will pour out the wine for his lord to drink:
as for the other, he will hang from the CROSS, and the
birds will eat from off his head. (so) hath been decreed
that matter whereof ye twain do enquire"... [Qur'an 12:41]
That is from Joseph's story, and usually dated around 1880 BC
if we take the earlier dating of the Exodus. In any case it
is several hundred years earlier still than the Exodus.
Interestingly 7:124 and 12:41 speak of crosses, not of
trees. This is stronger in its anachronism than even 26:49
which only speaks on crucifying on a palm tree trunk.
Would this even qualify for a contradiction? Can the
Arabic word for cross also mean a tree? I don't know,
that is for Arab language experts to decide.
The above are the Qur'anic data. now to the issue whether
there was something like crucifixion at that time.
} The Qur'an is saying that crucifixion was a punishment during Pharaoh's
} time. The specifics of the punishment was cutting hands and feet on
} opposite sites and crucify on the trunk of the trees.
It also mentiones a cross specifically, not just a tree trunk.
It is my personal impression that a cross can be called a tree
(that is where a cross comes from, it is made of a tree, it is
a "processed tree"), but a tree is not called a cross usually.
Just like a car is a heap of metal, but unprocessed metal is
not called a car.
} It has been claimed by Christian missionaries that:
}
} We have no record that Egyptians used crucifixion as
} punishment. This only becomes a punishment much later in
} history and then in another culture. Such a threat is
} historically inaccurate.
}
} This can be seen at:
}
} http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/h005.html
}
} As usual, no references are quoted and hence it is hard to verify the
} information.
I am glad that you drew my attention to this little page.
This discussion will give much reason to update this skimpy
remark with more facts and references.
However, Eeven though I have explained it in detail several times,
see for example ( http://www.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=362389186 )
Saifullah has still not understood the principle of negative
and positive claims. I said "we have no record" and that is
true.
If you want to claim that the Egyptians practised crucifixion
then you have to bring evidence that they did. This actually
you fail to do, even though you make quite some effort to
give the appearance that you did give evidence.
} Nevertheless, it is interesting to see if there are no
} records of Egyptians using crucifixion as a punishment why does the
} on-line Smith's Bible Dictionary says under Crucifixion:
I am glad you asked instead of just claiming the dictionary
is right. Maybe you are indeed open to learn something. Frankly,
this particular dictionary uses a wrong term. That is easy to
show. The Bible dictionaries I consulted do not make the same
mistake (and I saw several of them).
} Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the
} Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians,
} Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times
} among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of
} execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of
} dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It
} was unanimously considered the most horrible form of
} death.
}
} As noted in the above quote, in Genesis 40:18-19 we read the
} interepretation of the dream by Joseph(P). It is talking about the
} 'Pharaoh' in Joseph's(P) time will hang the person on a tree.
}
} "This is what it means," Joseph said. "The three baskets are three days.
} Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree.
} And the birds will eat away your flesh." [Genesis 40:18-19]
}
} So, the crucifixion was practiced by the 'Pharaohs' in Egypt during the
} time of Joseph(P) much before the time of Moses(P). Hence it would be
} appropriate to refer of crucifixion without labeling it as an anachronism
} in the time of Moses(P) in Egypt.
Nonsense. This was not crucifixion. Crucifixion means "putting a
living person on a cross in order to kill him" by this procedure.
The above verse makes it clear that the head of the baker is
struck off first (i.e. he is already dead) and then his body
is hung on the tree and eaten by the vultures.
This is not crucifixion at all, but a common practice found
throughout the Old Testament after the death of the person had
already occurred, as a warning to others to not follow a similar
course. Let me quote the New Bible Dictionary, which says,
concerning crucifixion in the Old Testament:
"The Crucifixion of live criminals did not occur in the Old
Testament... Execution was by stoning. However, dead bodies
were occasionally hung on a tree as a warning (Deuteronomy
21:22-23; Joshua 10:26). Such a body was regarded as accursed
(hence Galatians 3:13) and had to be removed and buried before
night came (cf. John 19:31)" (New Bible Dictionary, 2nd Edition,
page 253).
So the cause of death was not by crucifixion (a word which is not
found at all in the Old Testament), and the practice of hanging dead
individuals on trees had nothing to do with death, but as a warning
to others. Saifullah interestingly mentions this in his article,
even quoting Deuternomy 21:22-23, and Joshua 8:29. Yet he doesn't
seem to understand the significance of the fact that the body was
already dead when they hung it up.
It is obvious why Saifullah wants to use the Biblical reference to
claim that the baker was crucified, because the same story of the
baker can be found in Sura 12:41 where the Baker is told by Joseph
that he will be 'hung from a cross'. The writers of the Qur'an
assumed this was crucifixion, an easy mistake for those not
familiar with the practice of stoning or beheading the criminals,
and then hang the body on a tree for all passersby to be
fore-warned.
} Crucifixion amongst the Jews was rare and except for a few instances, the
} subject was stoned to death first and then hung on a tree in accordance
} with the Biblical passage passage in Deuteronomy.
Here is the crux of the issues. THAT is NOT crucifixion. Crucifixion
is the procedure of killing a person. Not what you do with a body
after it is dead.
} Further The New International Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that (Under
} 'Cross'):
}
} Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms
} of death known to man. It was practiced, especially in the
} times of war, by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians,
} Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So dreaded was it that
} even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and troubles of
} the life were often compared to a cross.[1]
}
} Now the most primitive form of crucifixion was on the trees as the on-line The
} Catholic Encylopedia states under Archćology of the Cross and Crucifix:
}
} The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor
} infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro,
} Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation
} of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to
} HĂĽschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri
} perduellion is pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I,
} 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin.,
} XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive
} form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus
} Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII,
} xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was
} known as a cross (crux).
}
} More research needs to be conducted on various forms of crucifixion in
} antiquity, inshallah.
That is certainly necessary. Because none of your above sources
gives a date for crucifixion at Joseph's or Moses time.
} Of course, the last thing the Christian Missionaries would like to do is
} to read their own books properly!
Everyone can judge for himself whether Muslim missionary Saifullah
properly read the Bible and the Qur'an.
Saifullah's quotes from Smith's Dictionary also refers to Esther 7:10
which is first of all, 1300 years too late as a testimony for the story
of Joseph and furthermore states that Haman was hanged on a gallow
('stauroo' in the LXX of Esther 7:10 is the Hebrew 'tala' meaning
'to hang'). He again makes a similar mistake, for this is not a
crucifixion, but a hanging on a gallow.
Where Saifullah's argument is weakest, however, is his claim that
the Egyptians and Jews (along with others) crucified, and therefore
it is reasonable to assume that the Pharoah in Joseph's day also
crucified. This is a common error by Muslims, who tend to telescope
periods of history without looking at the sequence or the context
of those periods. The question then is when did this practice of
crucifixion begin? According to the Britannica Encyclopedia we
find the following:
"Crucifixion, an important method of capital punishment,
particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews,
Carthaginians, and Romans [was practiced] from about the
6th century BC to the 4th century AD. Constantine the Great,
the first Christian emperor, abolished it in the Roman Empire
in AD 337, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous
victim of crucifixion... The [earliest recording] of a
crucifixion was in 519 BC, by Darius I, king of Persia, who
crucified 3,000 political opponents in Babylon" (Britannica
Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, page 762).
The sixth century B.C. is significantly later then the 18th century
B.C. when Joseph was supposedly living. It is quite likely that
the Egyptians did crucify after the 6th century, as a cruel and
effective form of punishment would have quickly been adopted by
others, especially if they had been on the receiving end of such
a punishment.
Saifullah seems to state that the first occasion of crucifixion
was mentioned by Cicero, yet he died in Dec. 7, 43 B.C. He then
goes on to quote Justus Lipsius, who did his work in the 16th
century AD on Cicero and Tacitus, both of whom were close to the
Roman era of the 1st century B.C. and A.D. They only talk about
crucifixion, defining it, not stipulating when it was created;
thus Saifullah would do well to re-read the very sources he
maintains we missionaries refuse to follow.
I hope this is helpful. I will continue to include this error
in my papers as it seems to me an obvious example of a common
problem of the writer of the Qur'an; the borrowing of stories,
many times from the Bible, without understanding the context
behind the stories, and therefore making gross historical
errors, which can be identified as such with a little
disciplined research.
Conclusion: Saifullah's title for this posting is more
appropriate than he intended it to be. We only need to
change the last character:
'Crucifiction' In Egypt!
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Dr. M S M Saifullah
> May the peace of the Lord be with you
> and the search for truth and the obedience to God be your purpose.
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance:
> Time seems not to have improved it.
Why not wait for some more time and see what happens to it, inshallah.
> That is from Joseph's story, and usually dated around 1880 BC
> if we take the earlier dating of the Exodus. In any case it
> is several hundred years earlier still than the Exodus.
> Interestingly 7:124 and 12:41 speak of crosses, not of
> trees. This is stronger in its anachronism than even 26:49
> which only speaks on crucifying on a palm tree trunk.
> Would this even qualify for a contradiction? Can the
> Arabic word for cross also mean a tree? I don't know,
> that is for Arab language experts to decide.
Yes, what we are not aware of is the kind of cross which was used during
that time. But crucifixion was definitely a punishment during the time of
Joseph(P) and it would be wrong to say that it is an anachronism during
Moses(P) time. With the passing time, the modes of crucifixion can change
as one can see from the books of history.
The word used in Arabic is saleeb and its usages. I will be glad if
someone can consult an Arabic dictionary and inform us about what it used
to mean and what is means.
> It also mentiones a cross specifically, not just a tree trunk.
> It is my personal impression that a cross can be called a tree
> (that is where a cross comes from, it is made of a tree, it is
> a "processed tree"), but a tree is not called a cross usually.
> Just like a car is a heap of metal, but unprocessed metal is
> not called a car.
Just to let Katz inform what is there in his scriptures:
Or in Acts, concerning Jesus(P), we read:
We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in
Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, [Act 10:39]
Now what Katz is trying to inform us is that a cross is a 'processed
tree'. Why is it then Jesus (P) was hung on the tree not on a 'processsed
tree' according to this chapter of Acts? Definitely Jesus (P) was not hung
on the tree, if we were to compare it with the story of Joseph(P).
> I am glad you asked instead of just claiming the dictionary
> is right. Maybe you are indeed open to learn something. Frankly,
> this particular dictionary uses a wrong term. That is easy to
> show. The Bible dictionaries I consulted do not make the same
> mistake (and I saw several of them).
So, what Katz is now saying is that the Bible dictionaries are not
reliable whereas his statement is more reliable than anything else. okay
let us go ahead and see whether there is any truth in there.
> Nonsense. This was not crucifixion. Crucifixion means "putting a
> living person on a cross in order to kill him" by this procedure.
> The above verse makes it clear that the head of the baker is
> struck off first (i.e. he is already dead) and then his body
> is hung on the tree and eaten by the vultures.
What a load of nonsense! How does Katz know that this method of
crucifixion was lifting off the head was not practiced long time ago. Or
he is simply defining his terms to prop up the argument. So, how about
some evidence from historical sources that your Bible is correct when it
comes to saying that this form of crucifixion existed in Egypt during
Joseph's time. After all the burden of proof falls back on the person who
makes a positive claim.
> So the cause of death was not by crucifixion (a word which is not
> found at all in the Old Testament), and the practice of hanging dead
> individuals on trees had nothing to do with death, but as a warning
> to others. Saifullah interestingly mentions this in his article,
> even quoting Deuternomy 21:22-23, and Joshua 8:29. Yet he doesn't
> seem to understand the significance of the fact that the body was
> already dead when they hung it up.
By the way, I already mentioned that in the homepage
Crucifixion amongst the Jews was rare and except for a few instances, the
subject was stoned to death first and then hung on a tree in accordance
with the Biblical passage in Deuteronomy.
Reading problems again, is it? or defining problems?
> Here is the crux of the issues. THAT is NOT crucifixion. Crucifixion
> is the procedure of killing a person. Not what you do with a body
> after it is dead.
Keep your definitions to yourself.
> That is certainly necessary. Because none of your above sources
> gives a date for crucifixion at Joseph's or Moses time.
Okay Katz, since you are saying that your Bible is correct why not prove
to me from the non-Biblical sources that the piece of crucifixion
mentioned in the time of Joseph existed in Egypt. After all, it is not
always that the onus is proof is shifted on us.
> Saifullah's quotes from Smith's Dictionary also refers to Esther 7:10
> which is first of all, 1300 years too late as a testimony for the story
> of Joseph and furthermore states that Haman was hanged on a gallow
> ('stauroo' in the LXX of Esther 7:10 is the Hebrew 'tala' meaning
> 'to hang'). He again makes a similar mistake, for this is not a
> crucifixion, but a hanging on a gallow.
We can also say that the Bible writer made a mistake when they said in
Acts, concerning Jesus(P):
We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in
Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, [Act 10:39]
Jesus(P) was not hung on the tree. He was crucified on the cross. oh no!
now the meaning of the crucifixion changes. A new term has to be defined
for the what it means to call crucifixion.
By the way, I did not say what Katz is saying. I quoted from your own
Bible dictionary. So, if you have any complaints please address to them,
not to me. Please read your own Bible dictionaries carefully.
Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the
Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians,
Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans.
Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter
of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was
unanimously considered the most horrible form of death. (Smith's
Bible Dictionary)
Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known
to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the
Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So
dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and
troubles of the life were often compared to a cross. (The New
International Dictionary Of The Bible)
Now if these conflict with what you have quoted, it is definitely not my
problem. You guy better have a common idea about what crucifixion was
before defining the crucifixion itself.
> I hope this is helpful. I will continue to include this error
> in my papers as it seems to me an obvious example of a common
> problem of the writer of the Qur'an; the borrowing of stories,
> many times from the Bible, without understanding the context
> behind the stories, and therefore making gross historical
> errors, which can be identified as such with a little
> disciplined research.
Yes, if you are interested in a little disciplined research you would at
least bring the historical evidence for the mode of killing in the story
of Joseph(P). We will then see how many proofs have you got to prop up
your Bible.
Concerning the borrowing theories, we have aleady witnessed quite a bit of
it concerning Haman which the Christians themseleves do not have any
historical proof to support it and started calling contradiction in the
Bible.
> Conclusion: Saifullah's title for this posting is more
> appropriate than he intended it to be. We only need to
> change the last character:
>
> 'Crucifiction' In Egypt!
Not to fast! What we have not yet investigated is how the crucifixion
changed in history.
Wassalam
Saifullah
Dr. M S M Saifullah
1. According to the dictionaries which he quoted concerning the issue of
crucifixion say a different story and some of his Bible dictionaries say
something else on crucifixion. The Bible dictionaries that I quoted to
support my claim that crucifixion was practiced among Egyptians as
mentioned in the Qur'an are the following:
Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the
Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians,
Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans.
Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter
of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was
unanimously considered the most horrible form of death. (Smith's
Bible Dictionary)
Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known
to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the
Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So
dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and
troubles of the life were often compared to a cross. (The New
International Dictionary Of The Bible)
These Bible dictionaries do not say what kind of crucifixion was practiced
in those time and as far as I am aware of neither does the Qur'an except
that it states crucifixion on palm trees (There is a historical evidence
that such a practiced of crucifying on tree existed in the ancient times).
Allah knows best. But they are categorically mentioning Egypt concerning
crucifixion.
Now since Katz say that his sources tell a different story and hence his
claim still stands, I can do the same and say that his other Bible sources
negate his own claims. Now how can one get away from such a discrepancy.
The other way is...
2. To show the evidence from the history that the 'Pharaoh' during the
time of Joseph(P) used to practice the crucifixion as claimed by the
Bible. Is it not a high time that we go for non-scriptural sources to see
whether such an act was carried out by the 'Pharaoh' during the time of
Joseph(P)? And please refrain from Holy-Ghost-came-and-told-me stuff. It
is no proof. We all agree that the Bible and the Qur'an mention some form
of crucifixion and it needs to be supported by the history. Before saying
that it is a contradiction in either of the books, the facts should be
proven historically, i.e., an extra-scriptural source such as Egyptian
hieroglyphs etc.
So, Katz get us some evidence from the historical sources that proves the
crucifixion story of Joseph(P) in the Bible. Definitely, it is not Muslims
who have to run for evidences all the time.
Wassalam
Saifullah
ps: I will be away for about half a month on a holiday, inshallah. In the
meantime, I will be asking people to check some sources for me on this
issue.
Dr. M S M Saifullah
> So the cause of death was not by crucifixion (a word which is not
> found at all in the Old Testament), and the practice of hanging dead
> individuals on trees had nothing to do with death, but as a warning
> to others. Saifullah interestingly mentions this in his article,
> even quoting Deuternomy 21:22-23, and Joshua 8:29. Yet he doesn't
> seem to understand the significance of the fact that the body was
> already dead when they hung it up.
Yes, it is even a bigger problem to associate this as a prophecy
fulfillment because the cursed man is first put to death and hung on the
cross. Nothing of that sort was done to Jesus(P).
Further
> It is obvious why Saifullah wants to use the Biblical reference to
> claim that the baker was crucified, because the same story of the
> baker can be found in Sura 12:41 where the Baker is told by Joseph
> that he will be 'hung from a cross'. The writers of the Qur'an
> assumed this was crucifixion, an easy mistake for those not
> familiar with the practice of stoning or beheading the criminals,
> and then hang the body on a tree for all passersby to be
> fore-warned.
Katz is mixing up too things. First the stoning and hanging which is for Jews.
Pharaohs and Kings of Egypt were not Children of Israel to obey the Torah
and its commands. Hence it is not suprising to see that there is nothing
like stoning first then hung on the tree in the case of Pharaohs.
Secondly, beheading the criminals and then hanging on the tree is
mentioned in connection with the story of Joseph(P). Will Katz bring an
Egyptian source to show us that such a thing existed in ancient Egypt? Let
us see in the near future if he would be honest enough to prove his story.
So, afterall, what Saifullah showed was that your Bible itself needs to be
refered and proved (which is not yet done in this case!) before calling
something a contradiction in another book.
Well, the Bible scholars knew the issue of crucifixion and its variants in
Egypt as well as during the time of Jesus(P). It is only Katz who wants to
add a new definition to crucifixion by adding more nonsense to
> Nonsense. This was not crucifixion. Crucifixion means "putting a
> living person on a cross in order to kill him" by this procedure.
> The above verse makes it clear that the head of the baker is
> struck off first (i.e. he is already dead) and then his body
> is hung on the tree and eaten by the vultures.
His own scholars say that:
Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the
Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians,
Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans.
Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter
of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was
unanimously considered the most horrible form of death. (Smith's
Bible Dictionary)
and
Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known
to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the
Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So
dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and
troubles of the life were often compared to a cross.(The New
International Dictionary Of The Bible)
> Saifullah's quotes from Smith's Dictionary also refers to Esther 7:10
> which is first of all, 1300 years too late as a testimony for the story
> of Joseph and furthermore states that Haman was hanged on a gallow
> ('stauroo' in the LXX of Esther 7:10 is the Hebrew 'tala' meaning
The Smith's Bible dictionary also says something about Egyptians, is it
not? The story of Esther is borrowed from Persian novella and Judaised.
So, please keep your borrowing theories to yourself. If Muslims are going
to know it, it would be rather bad for Missionaries. Why not also check
the Ugartic sources in the Bible? Will be an eye-opener, I am sure,
inshallah.
> Where Saifullah's argument is weakest, however, is his claim that
> the Egyptians and Jews (along with others) crucified, and therefore
> it is reasonable to assume that the Pharoah in Joseph's day also
> crucified. This is a common error by Muslims, who tend to telescope
> periods of history without looking at the sequence or the context
> of those periods. The question then is when did this practice of
> crucifixion begin? According to the Britannica Encyclopedia we
> find the following:
Where Katz's has no argument is that he does not show the Egyptian
evidence of the crucifixion related story in the Bible. But he wants
evidence from Muslims for everything. By the way, why not the Biblical
scholars come together and agree on one thing?
Yes, below will show how microscopic is your knowledge concerning the
contextual analysis of the Qur'an concerning the stories of the
Prophets(P).
> That is from Joseph's story, and usually dated around 1880 BC
> if we take the earlier dating of the Exodus. In any case it
> is several hundred years earlier still than the Exodus.
> Interestingly 7:124 and 12:41 speak of crosses, not of
> trees. This is stronger in its anachronism than even 26:49
> which only speaks on crucifying on a palm tree trunk.
> Would this even qualify for a contradiction? Can the
> Arabic word for cross also mean a tree? I don't know,
> that is for Arab language experts to decide.
Katz is suggesting that in the story of Moses the crucifixion mentioned in
7:124 and 26:49 there is a contradiction because one mentions palm trees
and the other does not. The only thing he is unaware of is that of how the
Qur'anic exegesis is done. For a brief perusal to enhance his miniscule
knowledge in this field let me quote the following article which appeared
in 'Approaches To The Qur'an' Edited by Hawtings and Sharif.
Briefly, the Muslim exegetes from the earliest times have realized that
the Qur'an explains itself when it comes to the story of Prophets(P) and
other issues. And even to this day, the Missionaries and their Middle
Eastern friends who are supposedly very good at "Islamic Knowledge" do not
know such a thing.
So, let us see the article now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Context and internal relationships: keys to quranic exegesis
A study of Surat al-Rahman (Qur'an chapter 55)
M.A.S. Abdel Haleem
SUMMARY
CONTEXT AND INTERNAL RELATIONSHIP
The Qur'an was the starting point of numerous branches of Arabic and
Islamic studies. In his Itqan, Suyuti dedicates a chapter to al-'ulum
al-mustanbata min al-Qur'an1 in which he quotes from the commentary of
Al-Mursi a passage listing various sciences based on the Qur'an and
developed to serve it, and to serve Islamic studies in general: branches
such as phonetics, grammar, usul, fiqh, tafsir, balagha and others.
Balagha was undoubtedly one of the most important subjects for quranic
exegesis, and began and developed around the central question of the
appreciation of the style of the Qur'an and its i'jaz in particular, as
witnessed by such titles as Dala'il al-i'jaz of 'Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani.
The importance of balagha, especially 'ilm al-ma'ani and 'ilm al-bayan,
for tafsir in general is universally recognized and the attention paid to
it by such commentators as Zamakhshari and Razi gives their work
particular distinction.
One of the important contributions of scholars of balagha was their
recognition of the concept of maqam (the context of the situation) and
its role in determining the utterance and providing the criterion for
judging it. A central issue in 'ilm al-ma'ani is: mutabaqat al-kalam
li-muqtada'i 'l-hal (the conformity of the utterance to the requirements
of the situation).
[ref: Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Rahamaan alQazwini" Sharh al-Takhlis, Damascus,
1970, p. 14]
Al-Khatib al-Qazwini explains:
The context that demands the definite, generalization, advancement of part
of a discourse, and inclusion (of particular words) differs from the
context that demands the indefinite, specification, postponement and
omission; the context of separation differs from that of joining; the
situation that requires conciseness differs from that requiring
expansiveness. Discourse with an intelligent person differs from
discourse with an obtuse one. Each word with its companion is suited to a
particular context. A high standard of beauty and acceptability of speech
depends on its appropriateness to the situation and vice versa.
Tammam Hassan points out that when scholars of balagha recognized the
concept of maqam, they were one thousand years ahead of their time, since
the recognition of maqam and maqal as two separate bases for the
analysis of meaning has been arrived at only recently as a result of
modern linguistic thinking. When they said li-kull maqam maqal (each
context demands its own distinctive form of speech) and li-kull kalima
ma'a sahibatiha maqam (each word, with its companion, should have its own
context) they hit on two remarkable statements that could be applied
equally to the study of other languages. When Malinowski coined his
famous term 'the context of the situation' he did not know that scholars
had formulated the same concept a thousand years earlier under the name
maqam.
[ref: al-Lugha 'i-'arabiyya ma'naha wa mabnaha, Cairo, 1973, p. 337 and 372]
Scholars of usul al-fiqh have recognized the importance of the notions
of maqam and maqal for the study of the Qur'an. In his muwafaqal
Shatibi states:
The science of ma'ani and bayan by which the i'jaz of the Qur'an is
recognized, revolves around knowing the requirements of the situation
during the discourse from the point of view of the discourse itself, the
discursant, the discursee or all of them together; for the same statement
can be understood in different ways in relation to two different
addressees or more. A question with one and the same form can imply other
meanings, such as agreement, scolding etc. Likewise an imperative can
have the meaning of permission, threat, incapacity/impossibility
[ref: Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi, al-muwafaqat fi usul al-ahkam, III, Cairo,
1341AH, p.202.]
Another key tool of quranic exegesis is the internal relationships between
material in different parts of the Qur'an, expressed by quranic scholars
as: al-Qur'an yufassiru ba'duhu ba'dan (different parts of the Qur'an
explain each other). Utilization of such relationships is considered by
Ibn Taymiyya to be the most correct method of tafsir (asahh al-turuq).
[ref: Muqaddimat al-Tafsir, volume VIII, in Majmu' fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah,
Riyadh, 1382AH, p. 362] He explains; 'What is given in a general way in
one place is explained in detail in another place. What is given briefly
in one place is expanded in another.' Shatibi states that many quranic
verses/passages can only be properly understood in the light of
explanations provided in other verses or suras. [op cit. 254] This old
concept in quranic studies may, thus, be viewed within the framework of
the modern linguistic concept of 'intertextuality' which involves the
dependence of one text upon another.
Certain themes have been treated in more than one place in the Qur'an,
including, for instance, God's power and grace, the hereafter, stories of
earlier prophets, etc. The conciseness or expansion in one place or
another depends on muqtada'i 'l-hal, and an expanded statement in one
place clarifies a concise one in another. Sound linguistic analysis
surely requires that a technique of comparison in such situations should
not be ignored. commenting on stories of earlier prophets, Shatibi again
remarked that their purpose was to strengthen the Prophet in the face of
various forms of denial and obstinacy from his opponents at different
times. The form of the story would echo a situation similar to that which
the Prophet was facing.
The particular from of the narrative varies according to the situation,
while all of it is true, factual, with no doubt about its being correct 8
Suyuti mentions a feature of quranic style that further illustrates the
internal relationships of quranic passages, namely, al-iqtisas for which
such examples as the following were given:
wa-lawla ni'matu rabbi la-kuntu min al-muhdarin (37.57) with reference to
: ula'ika fi'l-adhabi muhdarun (34.38) and yawma 'l-tanadi (40.32) with
reference to wa-nada ashabu ;l-jannati ashaba 'l-nari (7.44).
Readers of the Qur'an recognize this feature clearly. Take for example a
verse from the Fatiha, that practising Muslims recite many times daily:
sirat alladhina an'amta 'alayhim (1.7) and how it is clarified with
reference to alladhina an'ama 'llahu 'alayhim mina 'l-nabiyyina
wa'l-siddiqina wa'l-shuhada'i wa;l-salihina (4.69). More examples will
be met in the discussion of Surat al-Rahman.
The importance of context in determining the meaning of any discourse,
Qur'an or otherwise, is now established beyond doubt. The style of the
Qur'an being what it is, the importance of internal č„šelationships in
understanding the text of the Qur'an cannot be seriously challenged.
Context, with the expression it demands, and internal relationships which
call for comparison between different related statements in the Qur'an
focus our attention on the quranic text itself, which must surely take
priority over any other approach to understanding and explaining the
Qur'an.
--------------------------------------
> goes on to quote Justus Lipsius, who did his work in the 16th
> century AD on Cicero and Tacitus, both of whom were close to the
> Roman era of the 1st century B.C. and A.D. They only talk about
> crucifixion, defining it, not stipulating when it was created;
> thus Saifullah would do well to re-read the very sources he
> maintains we missionaries refuse to follow.
Well, the Catholics have problem quoting it. Please take your complaints
to them. I am quoting what they have said. Again, if the Bible scholars
can decide on something, it will do us lot of good.
Secondly, mentioning the names of the pagans like Tacitus or Africanus is
a very favourite hobby of Katz's crony Joseph Smith at Hyde Park Speakers'
corner to support the alleged crucifixion of Jesus(P). Missionaries take
lot of solace in the testimony of pagans as if Jesus(P) asked them to
starting believing in their testimony. Strange bedfellows and marriage of
conveniences!
Wassalam
Saifullah
Jochen Katz
} > That is from Joseph's story, and usually dated around 1880 BC
} > if we take the earlier dating of the Exodus. In any case it
} > is several hundred years earlier still than the Exodus.
} > Interestingly 7:124 and 12:41 speak of crosses, not of
} > trees. This is stronger in its anachronism than even 26:49
} > which only speaks on crucifying on a palm tree trunk.
} > Would this even qualify for a contradiction? Can the
} > Arabic word for cross also mean a tree? I don't know,
} > that is for Arab language experts to decide.
}
} Yes, what we are not aware of is the kind of cross which was used during
} that time. But crucifixion was definitely a punishment during the time of
} Joseph(P) and it would be wrong to say that it is an anachronism during
} Moses(P) time. With the passing time, the modes of crucifixion can change
} as one can see from the books of history.
On what basis do you say that "crucifixion was definitely
a punishment during the time of Joseph"????
You have not brought any evidence for this.
The baker was not crucified (killed by crucifixion), but
he was beheaded and then his dead body was put on display
by hanging it up on a tree.
That is VERY different.
} > Here is the crux of the issues. THAT is NOT crucifixion. Crucifixion
} > is the procedure of killing a person. Not what you do with a body
} > after it is dead.
}
} Keep your definitions to yourself.
What kind of answer is that?
} We can also say that the Bible writer made a mistake when they said in
} Acts, concerning Jesus(P):
}
} We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in
} Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, [Act 10:39]
No. The whole point in Acts and in 1 Peter is that they take
the crucifixion event and relate it back to the Deuteronomy
passage to explain what this curse issue is about, and how
Jesus took that curse upon himself in our place.
} Jesus(P) was not hung on the tree. He was crucified on the cross. oh no!
} now the meaning of the crucifixion changes. A new term has to be defined
} for the what it means to call crucifixion.
You are getting a little agitated. Acts 10 specifically says they
KILLED HIM BY hanging him on a tree. That is exactly what crucifixion
is about. The baker in Josephs time was first killed and then hung
on a tree. He was not crucified.
} By the way, I did not say what Katz is saying. I quoted from your own
} Bible dictionary. So, if you have any complaints please address to them,
} not to me. Please read your own Bible dictionaries carefully.
}
} Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19;
Well, I suggest you take 10 randomly chosen Bible dictionaries
and see what they say. I would guess that your specifically
chosen dictionary will stand pretty much alone with this
formulation. Their prooftext for the statement is Genesis 40
and when we go to the source, then we see that is not crucifixion.
Even dictionaries can make errors.
Or will you from now on accept every dictionary entry I present
you? Shall we define Islamic terms, history, theology etc by
what we find in the Encyclopaedia Britannica about Islam?
I don't think you would agree. Dictionaries are good first
information sources, but they contain also errors and in
the end it is the primary sources that count.
} Now if these conflict with what you have quoted, it is definitely not my
} problem. You guy better have a common idea about what crucifixion was
} before defining the crucifixion itself.
I gave you the generally accepted definition. Show me
that that is wrong. The Genesis story certainly is not
an example of crucifixion.
My revised web page on this issue is at
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Contra/h005.html
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
AbdulraHman Lomax
>On 13 Jul 1998, Jochen Katz wrote:
>> That is from Joseph's story, and usually dated around 1880 BC
>> if we take the earlier dating of the Exodus. In any case it
>> is several hundred years earlier still than the Exodus.
>> Interestingly 7:124 and 12:41 speak of crosses, not of
>> trees. This is stronger in its anachronism than even 26:49
>> which only speaks on crucifying on a palm tree trunk.
>> Would this even qualify for a contradiction? Can the
>> Arabic word for cross also mean a tree? I don't know,
>> that is for Arab language experts to decide.
I'm not an expert, but this one is easy. The two verses cited do not
contain a noun for "cross." Rather, they use verbal forms; Yusuf 'Ali
commonly translates very loosely. At 7:124, for example, the phrase is
"thumma la uSallibannakum ajma`iyn," literally, "then certainly [I
will] 'crucify' you all." Elsewhere in s.r.i., recently, the meaning
of Slb has been examined in fairly close detail. It is somewhat
controversial. If one looks at the roots, "crucify" itself comes from
a root which means "cross" *and* "torture." One of these meanings
might have come from the other, I would suspect. There is a somewhat
similar situation with Slb, except that "cross" is *not* part of the
root meaning, which is to become hard, firm, rigid, stiff, tough,
strong, robust, sturdy, or hardy.
It is clear from the context of the verses that Slb is used to
indicate a severe punishment, but it is not *essential* in that that a
cross be used. 12:41 uses the passive form, which could be translated
as "he will be crucified." There is no verb to translate as "hang".
At 26:49 the language is quite the same as at 7:124: "wa la
uSallibannakum ajma'iyn." Yusuf 'Ali's "and I will cause you all to
die on the cross" is loose: the verb is simply the second form
intensive uSallib, to make rigid, to cause to be crucified; there is
no noun for cross in the Arabic.
Katz meant to mention 20:71 instead of 26:49. At the former the place
where the crucifixion takes place is mentioned, "the trunks of palm
trees." The image is one of a person affixed to a broad tree trunk,
not to a cross, and this is fully consistent with Slb, as would a
staking to the ground.
As to an alleged anachronism at 20:71, I must point out that all
reported speech of the ancients in the Qur'an is anachronistic if one
takes it literally, for Pharaoh did not speak Arabic....
Rather, I understand these verses as conveying an image, an image that
Allah intends us to consider and grasp, not necessarily so that we
will know history, but so that we will understand something about
ourselves. As to whether or not Pharaoh ever made these speeches (in
the original language, of course), Allah is the Best Knower. But the
Qur'an remains the Truth, for what it conveys to the believer of sound
faith is Truth: God is one, there is no second to him.
In this case the verses are describing the condition of the man
intoxicated with his illusory power, and the threat that he makes
against anyone who would pop his bubble.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 423
Sonoma, CA 95476
USA
Khalid...
Brother sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp (Dr. M S M Saifullah) wrote:
)) Here is the crux of the issues. THAT is NOT crucifixion.
))Crucifixion
)) is the procedure of killing a person. Not what you do with a body
)) after it is dead.
>Keep your definitions to yourself.
The question of being hang on a tree and whether it is the same as
being crucified is an old christian theological question, but only the
ones who were described as heretics by Augustine will try to say they
are not the same.
Augustine wrote
"It is true, some ignorantly distinguish between hanging on a tree and
being crucified.... Such were we when we fell into this heresy and
adhered to it"
I wish I have said that <smile>
Have a nice vacation brother saifullah, you are dealing with a person
who don't even know is own religion!
Salam
Khalid...
http://radio.kacst.edu.sa/ithaa.ram (Quran' radio in Saudia)
http://www.drury.edu/faculty/ess/values/friedman.html
(who wrote the Torah?)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/toc.html
Jochen Katz
khal...@hotmail.com (Khalid...) writes:
Katz:
} )) Here is the crux of the issues. THAT is NOT crucifixion. Crucifixion
} )) is the procedure of killing a person. Not what you do with a body
} )) after it is dead.
Saifullah:
} >Keep your definitions to yourself.
Khalid:
} The question of being hang on a tree and whether it is the same as
} being crucified is an old christian theological question, but only the
} ones who were described as heretics by Augustine will try to say they
} are not the same.
I think you misunderstood something.
} Augustine wrote
}
} "It is true, some ignorantly distinguish between hanging on a tree and
} being crucified.... Such were we when we fell into this heresy and
} adhered to it"
And Khalid wouldn't even mind giving an exact reference, would he?
After all he is a conscientious scholar intending to adhere to
academic standards. Augustine works comprise several thousand
pages. Until you give the reference this is rather worthless.
Unless you want us to prevent looking at the context... for some
reason.
} Have a nice vacation brother saifullah, you are dealing with a person
} who don't even know is own religion!
By the way, Augustine's books are not canonical, and not
considered inspired. He is historically an important theologian,
but that doesn't mean he defines Christianity.
I would like to know what Augustine says before that quote,
after that quote and even more, what he says in the part that
you removed and replaced by "...". Knowing all that could
substantially alter the impression.
} http://www.drury.edu/faculty/ess/values/friedman.html
} (who wrote the Torah?)
It seems that Khalid abandoned the Qur'anic statement that
the Torah is word of God which was given through Moses.
Most Muslims would consider that heresy.
Maybe Khalid can answer this for me:
Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38 (Kitab al Hudud, ie. Prescribed Punishments),
Number 4434:
Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:
A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in
their school.
They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed
fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon
them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah
(peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring
the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the
cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it
saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed
thee.
He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you.
Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then
mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar
to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431)."
What book was it in your opinion that Muhammad treated as
the Torah? Do you think it was different from the Torah
that the Jews have? And if it was different, where do you
think Muhammad got it from?
Something to ponder for you.
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
} This is further to what I wrote before and a sort of summary.
It is a repetition of the already discussed errors, I would say.
} 1. According to the dictionaries which he quoted concerning the issue of
} crucifixion say a different story and some of his Bible dictionaries say
} something else on crucifixion. The Bible dictionaries that I quoted to
} support my claim that crucifixion was practiced among Egyptians as
} mentioned in the Qur'an are the following:
}
} Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the
} Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians,
} Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans.
} Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter
} of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was
} unanimously considered the most horrible form of death. (Smith's
} Bible Dictionary)
I already explained that crucifixion is "putting on a cross (or even tree
if you like) IN ORDER TO kill a person. Putting dead bodies on a tree is
not crucifixion.
Dictionary entries are only as good as the primary source they refer to.
The reference for crucifixion among the Egyptians is Genesis 40:19 and
we have already found that this is not about Crucifixion, because this
body was already dead (after the head was chopped off) before hung on the
tree.
Therefore this is no evidence for crucifixion.
} Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known
} to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the
} Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So
} dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and
} troubles of the life were often compared to a cross. (The New
} International Dictionary Of The Bible)
This one does not give any reference, NOR does it say to what TIME this
refers. Encyclopaedia Britannica states that the earliest crucifixions
documented are in about 6th century BC. And that is a long way -- more
than 1000 years -- after the time of Joseph, and still more than 600
years before Moses.
As such, there is to this time no historical record for crucifixion
at the time of Moses or Joseph, among the Egyptians or anywhere else
for that matter
The historical problem remains.
} These Bible dictionaries do not say what kind of crucifixion was practiced
} in those time
the second one doesn't even state a time. Then how can you bring it
as evidence? I don't understand your thinking.
} and as far as I am aware of neither does the Qur'an except
} that it states crucifixion on palm trees (There is a historical evidence
} that such a practiced of crucifying on tree existed in the ancient times).
} Allah knows best. But they are categorically mentioning Egypt concerning
} crucifixion.
What kind of evidence are you talking about? If it exists, why have you
not yet produced it?
} And please refrain from Holy-Ghost-came-and-told-me stuff. It
} is no proof.
Could you stop your silly rethoric? You have used that line many
times. Show me just ONE time when I used such an argument as proof.
You must be really desparate with this kind of punches. But it is
boxing air.
Jochen Katz
P.S. Just as an exercise in consistency, let me quote this as well:
Saifullah wrote in his posting
} 2. To show the evidence from the history that the 'Pharaoh' during the
} time of Joseph(P) used to practice the crucifixion as claimed by the
} Bible. Is it not a high time that we go for non-scriptural sources to see
} whether such an act was carried out by the 'Pharaoh' during the time of
} Joseph(P)?
and in his other posting on the same day,
} Secondly, mentioning the names of the pagans like Tacitus or Africanus is
} a very favourite hobby of Katz's crony Joseph Smith at Hyde Park Speakers'
} corner to support the alleged crucifixion of Jesus(P). Missionaries take
} lot of solace in the testimony of pagans as if Jesus(P) asked them to
} starting believing in their testimony. Strange bedfellows and marriage of
} conveniences!
Are we now supposed to look for non-scriptural / non-Christian sources
or are we not? Saifullah would love to condemn us for both of them and
only Muslim writers are obviously reliable sources on Christian history.
I wonder if Saifullah would equally agree that only Christian writers,
not the Muslims and not the pagans, are qualified to be witnesses to
Muslim history?