Обсуждение:Фир‘аун
Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition (1913-1936) / Firʿawn
(Plur. Farāʿina), Pharaoh. The word is explained by the commentaries on Sūra ii. 46 of the Ḳorʾān as a laḳab or ʿalam of the Amalakite kings, like Kisrā and Ḳaiṣar of the Kings of the Persians and Romans. The verb tafarʿana means “to be arrogant and tyrannous”, hence the Ḳorʾānic Firʿawn is called al-Ḏj̲abbār “the tyrant” by al-Yaʿḳūbī (ed. Houtsma), i. 31. A number of Firʿawns are mentioned in Arabic literature; their number is very differently given. In the Ḳorʾān, however, Firʿawn is always the kfng with whom Mūsā and Hārūn had to deal; the word is here clearly understood as a proper name.
The Ḳorʾānic data concerning Firʿawn are on some points fuller than the Biblical. The most important are the following. In place of his daughter his wife, Āsiya [q. v. i. 487b], is mentioned; a certain Hāmān is also mentioned who (Sūra xxviii, 38, xl. 38) is commissioned to build a tower (ṣarḥ), ¶ which shall reach to heaven, by which Firʿawn will ascend to Mūsā’s God. There are obviously several confusions here; Hāmān is an echo of the vider of this name in the Book of Esther; the tower and its description recall the Tower of Babel. It is probably the Biblical account of the building of the “treasure cities, Raamses and Pitom”, that has given rise to the confusion last mentioned.
Another member of Firʿawn’s suite who appears in the Ḳorʾān is not mentioned by name. When Firʿawn wanted to slay Mūsā, “then a believer among Firʿawn’s people, who had concealed his faith said: Will ye slay a man because he says: My Lord is Allāh, when he has come to you with manifest signs from your Lord? If he be a liar, against him is his lie; but if he speaks the truth, there will befall you something of that with which he threatens you” etc. (Sūra xl. 29 et seq.).
Firʿawn is twice called “he of the pegs” in the Ḳorʾān (Ḏh̲u U-Awtād, Sūra xxxviii. II, lxxxix, 9). This expression is variously explained by the commentators; some say that it means, that his dynasty is firmly established as by tent pegs, while others say that his armies are meant by the pegs. Others again say that he bound people to be punished hand and foot to pegs driven into the ground.
A further addition to the Biblical narrative is the statement that the magicians were threatened with dreadful punishment by Firʿawn when they became converts (Sūra vii. 111 et seq.; xxvi. 45 et seq.). Finally Firʿawn himself is said to have become converted the moment he was being drowned; but God did not accept his conversion and caused his body to be cast upon land as an example for others (Sūra x. 90 et seq.).
It is said of him that he had himself worshipped as a God (Sūra xxviii. 38). On the day of the resurrection he will go into Hell at the head of his people (Sūra xi. 100). The Ḳorʾān makes no distinction between the Pharaoh of the Bondage and of the Exodus. This is clear from the fact that when Mūsā and Hārun come to him Firʿawn recognises the former (Sūra xxvi. 17).
Muslim Tradition gives the following account of the Firʿawns. In contrast to the Ḳorʾānic account, Firʿawns are mentioned as early as the stories of Abraham and Joseph and some even tell us that Joseph’s first Firʿawn was called al-Raiyān b. al-Walīd and his successor Ḳābūs b. Musʿab. According to others Joseph was the vizier of al-Walīd (or Dārim) b. al-Raiyān. Tradition is not unanimous with regard to the Firʿawns between Joseph and Mūsā. The sources which are less directly influenced by the Bible say that the above mentioned Ḳābūs b. Muṣʿab was the first husband of Āsiya and Mūsā’s foster-father. When Mūsā received the divine mission, Ḳābūs was already dead and his successor was his brother Walīd b. Muṣʿab (Ṭabarī’s Tafsīr and Baiḍāwī on Sūra ii. 46; Ṭabarī [ed. de Goeje], i. 443 et seq.).
Ibn Iṣḥāḳ in Ṭabarī (ed. de Goeje), i. 444 et seq., closely follows Exodus, i. 8; when Joseph and his Pharaoh, al-Raiyān b. al-Walīd, had died, the throne was occupied by Amalekite Firʿawns to the time when al-Walīd b. Muṣʿab ascended it; Mūsā was sent to him; he was the most arrogant and cruel of all and reigned for the longest period. — Is there perhaps a reminiscence here of the reign of Rameses IL which covered three quarters of the xiiith century? — According to Yaʿḳūbī (i. 211) and Masʿūdī (ii. 397) there were two kings between ¶ Joseph’s Pharaoh and Mūsā’s foster-father. Zamak̲h̲s̲h̲arī (Kas̲h̲s̲h̲āf on Sūra vii. 103) says that 400 years passed between Joseph’s arrival in Egypt and Mūsā’s return from Midian; this agrees very well with Exodus xii. 40.
The other Egyptian kings who are mentioned in connection with the history of the kings of Israel, are also called Firʿawn in Tradition, often with an attribute like al-Aʿrad̲j̲ etc.
The Ḳorʾānic accounts of Firʿawn assume the following form in Tradition. Firʿawn had enslaved the Israelites and instituted forced labour. When his astrologers or priests one day told him or, as others say, when he had dreamed that an Israelite would be born who was destined to rob him of his power, he commanded that every new-born Israelite boy should henceforth be slain. When a want of servants thus began to be felt, he altered the edict so that they were preserved in alternate years. This explains how Hārūn, who was older than Mūsā, was saved.
Concerning the member of his suite who, according to the Ḳorʾān, was a convert, we are told that he was called Ḵh̲irḳīl, S̲h̲imʿān or Ḥabīb. According to some he was a nephew of Firʿawn, according to others his treasurer, or an Israelite carpenter who had made the box for Mūsā’s mother in which the child was exposed. He is said to have been slain by Firʿawn with the magicians, along with his wife, the princesses’ maid, who shared the beliefs of her husband; but it is also said that he was present at the passage of the Red Sea.
Tradition also gives further details of the building of the tower. The object of building it was to strengthen Firʿawn’s position because he feared that his subjects would follow Mūsā. He also wished to reach the God of Mūsā. The tower was the highest that had ever been built. When the sun was rising its shadow darkened the west and when it was setting, the east. When it was finished Firʿawn climbed up and shot an arrow upwards to strike Mūsā’s God. Then God tested him; he caused the arrow to fall down bloodred. Firʿawn then thought he had achieved his purpose. But Gabriel came and broke the tower into three pieces with his wings; one of them fell in India, one into the Ocean and a third in the Mag̲h̲rib, so high was the tower. According to Zamak̲h̲s̲h̲arī on Sūra xxviii. 38, a piece fell on Firʿawn’s army and slew many of his soldiers.
At the passage of the Red Sea Hāmānc commanded Firʿawn’s vanguard. When no one dared enter the sea, Gabriel rode in front on a mare; attracted by the mare the stallions of the Egyptians could not be restrained and the whole host rode in and was drowned. When Firʿawn uttered the words professing conversion given in the Ḳorʾān, Gabriel descended and closed his mouth with a piece of mud so that he might not be able to obtain the mercy of God by repeating the words. God then caused Firʿawn’s body to he cast up so that the Israelites might believe that he was really dead. — Fantastic details of Firʿawn’s person and reign are further given by Wüstenfeld in Orient und Occident, i. 338 et seq. In Maḳrīzī also many data are given which are not in agreement with the Ḳorʾān and Muslim Tradition as such. Cf. also the article mūsā.
- Bibliography
The Ḳorʾān commentaries ¶ on the various passages where Firʿawn is mentioned
Ṭabarī (ed. de Goeje), i. 378 et seq.
442 et seq.
Yaʿḳūbī, Historiae (ed. Houtsma), i. 30 et seq.
211 et seq.
Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲ (ed. Barbier de Meynard), i. 92 et seq.
ii. 368 et seq., 397 et seq., 410—414
iii. 273
T̲h̲aʿlabī, Ḳiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ (Cairo, 1290), p. 146 et seq.
Abu ’l-Fedāʾ (ed. Fleischer), p. 98 et seq.
Maḳrīzī, Ḵh̲iṭaṭ, i. 142, 30 et seq.
ii. 465, 466
Grünbaum, Nette Beiträge 2. sent. Sagenkttnde, p. 152 et seq.
G. Weil, Bibl. Legenden der Mttselmänner, p. 126 et seq.
Wüstenfeld, Die atteste aeg. Gesch. nach den Zauber-u. Wundererzähl. d. Araber, Orient u. Occident, i. (1862), p. 336 et seq.
- Cite this page
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition / Firʿawn
(pl. Farāʿina ), Pharaoh. The Arabic form of the name may derive from the Syriac or the Ethiopie. Commentators on the Ḳurʾān (II, 46-49) explain the word as the permanent title ( laḳab ) of the Amalekite kings [see ʿamālīk ], on the analogy of Kisrā, title of the sovereigns of Persia, and Ḳayṣar of the emperors of Byzantium. As the designation of the typical haughty and insolent tyrant, the name Firʿawn gave rise to a verb tafarʿana “to behave like a hardened tyrant”.—If one disregards certain verses of Umayya which are probably not authentic, it was in fact the Ḳurʾān which, at the time of the first Meccan period, introduced the figure of Pharaoh (only that of Exodus) into Arabic literature. Broadly speaking, the narrative in the Ḳurʾān, so far as one can synthesize it artificially by the help of texts extending almost from the beginning of the revelation to the third year of the Medina period, covers the first fourteen chapters of the book of Exodus: the oppression of the children of Israel, the birth of Moses [see mūsā ], the mission of Moses and Aaron [see hārūn ], the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, Moses’ miracles, the plagues, the Exodus, the crossing of the Red Sea and the drowning of Pharaoh; like all narrative elements of this sort in the Ḳurʾān, the history of Pharaoh is seen in relation to Muḥammad’s own mission—the determined rejection of the divine message by the unbelievers who in the end are severely punished, while the believers among them are saved. In the fragmentary accounts given in the Ḳurʾān, certain non-biblical elements may be detected, the chief ones being the following. Firʿawn is given the name (LXXXIX, 9/10 and XXXVIII, 11/12) d̲h̲u ’l-awtād “master of ¶ the stakes (posts)” perhaps on account of his buildings (cf. XXVIII, 38), but this interpretation (J. Horovitz) is scarcely less uncertain than those which have been put forward by Muslim commentators. The place of Pharaoh’s daughter is taken by his wife, to whom commentators give the name of Āsiya [q.v.]. As Pharaoh’s counsellor there appears a certain Hāmān who is responsible in particular for building a tower which will enable Pharaoh to reach the God of Moses (XXVIII, 38 and XL, 38/36): the narrative in Exodus is thus modified in two respects, by misplaced recollections of both the book of Esther and the story of the tower of Babel (Genesis, xi) to which no other reference occurs in the Ḳurʾān. The unnamed believer in Pharaoh’s entourage who pleaded for Mūsā (XL, 29/28 ff.) cannot be connected with any known Jewish or Christian legend, unless it be related to a vague recollection of the Aggada which makes Jethro one of Pharaoh’s advisers.—The conversion of the magicians who were in consequence threatened with cruel punishments by their master is an innovation of the Ḳurʾān (cf. however Exodus, viii, 15 and x, 7), whilst Firʿawn’s aspiration to divinity (XXVIII, 38) is Aggadic, as is also his conversion in extremis, which God rejects (X, 90-2).
Muslim tradition (both exegesis and historiography) does not confine itself to commenting on and amplifying the Ḳurʾānic version, particularly with the aid of Aggada elements. Its field of interest extends beyond that of the inspired book, and it deals with the kings of Egypt both before and after the Firʿawn of Mūsā, connecting them with the “Amalekites” and also, later, drawing on the stock of local legends. Thus the Firʿawn of Ibrāhīm [q.v.] and Yūsuf [q.v.] is discussed; he is given the name al-Rayyān b. al-Walīd (or al-Walīd or even Dārim b. al-Rayyān) and his successor Ḳābūs b. Muṣʿab (al-Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲ , i, 92, but written al-Walīd b. Musʿab). Isolated traditions, regarded with utter disdain by the author of al-Badʾ wa ’l-taʾrīk̲h̲ , attribute an Iranian origin to Firʿawn and Hāmān (al-Ṭabarī, Tafsīr , xx, 28: Firʿawn was a native of Iṣṭak̲h̲r: Badʾ , iii, 81 ff./84: Firʿawn a native of Balk̲h̲ and Hāmān of Sarak̲h̲s).
The New Testament theme of the massacre of the innocents is introduced into the account of the birth of Moses, and the Midrashic legend of the proving of Moses by the crown and burning coals came into the account of the education of the future liberator of Israel who was brought up at Pharaoh’s court.
Similarly, it was with the Jewish Aggada ( Abōt̲h̲ of Rabbi Nathan , recension A, ch. XXVII and Pirkey Rabbi Eliʿezer , ch. XLII) and through it possibly to an ancient Egyptian related form that is connected the legend of the mare ridden by Gabriel which led Firʿawn’s army into the abyss, the vanguard of the army being commanded by Hāmān. After the drowning of Firʿawn, whom Gabriel prevented from making his profession of faith until the very end by cramming his mouth with sea slime, Mūsā sent to Egypt a military expedition commanded by Joshua and Caleb. The Badʾ wa ’l-taʾrīk̲h̲ (iv, 37/36) is aware that the Jews celebrate the feast of unleavened bread in memory of their delivery from the hands of Firʿawn (cf. also al-Bīrūnī, Āt̲h̲ār , ed. Sachau, 281, Chronology , 275), but certain traditions also exist which give the same motive for the celebration of the fast of ʿAs̲h̲ūrā by the Jews (texts quoted from G. Vajda, Hebrew Union College Annual , xii-xiii (1937-8), 374, but ¶ whose authenticity is rejected by al-Bīrūnī, ibid., 330 ff./327 ff.).
A later Firʿawn bears the name Aʿrad̲j̲ “the lame”; this, no doubt, is Necho (Nekō, II Chron. xxxv and xxxvi), whose name is thus interpreted by the Jewish Aggada (Targum, also Peshiṭṭa, Leviticus-Rabba xx/1, ed. M. Margulies, 442); al-Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲ , ii, 410, however, calls him Bilūnah. —The theological problem of the “hardening of heart” of Firʿawn did not fail to occupy the attention of the Muʿtazila (see Badʾ , i, 106/97 ff.). The Mystics and in particular al-Ḥallād̲j̲ meditated in their fashion on the revolt and the conversion in extremis of Firʿawn (see L. Massignon, La Passion d’al-Hallāj , 357, 416, n. 1, 615, 935-9 and H. Ritter, Das Meet der Seele , 74 and 272), but with them also he remains one of the prototypes of pride, concupiscence and refusal to renounce self (see, e.g., al-Muḥāsibī, Riʿāya , 236 ff. and H. Ritter, ibid., 51, 98 ff., 114, 577; a more favourable view, 320).
- Bibliography
Ḳurʾān, index to R. Blachère’s translation, s.vv. Pharaon, Plaies d’Egypte, Haman
Ṭabarī, Tafsīr on these passages
idem, Annales, i, 378-9, 442-89
Yaʿḳūbī, Historiae, ed. Houtsma, i, 30 ff. (G. Smit, Bijbel en Legende, 39-44)
Masʿūdī, Murūd̲j̲, i 92-3
ii, 368-9, 397-8, 410-4
iii, 273
al-Badʾ wa ’l-taʾrīk̲h̲, ed. C. Huart, passages quoted in the article and i, 106/97-8
ii, 209/180
iii, 27-29, 93-6/95-8
iv, 72/68
Kisāʾī, ed. Eisenberg, 195-218
T̲h̲aʿlabī. ʿArāʾis al-mad̲j̲ālis, Cairo 1370/1951, 102-20
Ibn Kat̲h̲īr, Bidāya, i, 202, 237-74.—Harawī, Guide des lieux de pèlerinage, ed. J. Sourdel-Thomine, index, s.v. Firʿawn
J. Horowitz, Koranische Untersuchungen, 130 ff.
A. Jeffery, The foreign vocabulary of the Qurʾan, 225
D. Sidersky, Les origines des légendes musulmanes, 73-87
H. Speyer, Die biblischer Er-zählungen im Qoran, 1931, 224-92
Ch. G. Torrey, The Jewish foundation of Islam, New York 1933, 109 ff., 117 ff.
M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Mahomet, Paris 1957, 393-7
Grünbaum, Neue Beiträge z. sem. Sagenkunde, 152 ff.
B. Heller, Egyptian elements in the Aggada (in Hungarian), in Magyar Zsido Szemle, liv (1937), 280
G. Wiet, L’Egypte de Murtadi, Paris 1953, especially the Introduction, 16-47.
- Cite this page