Crucifixion in Ancient Egypt?

Another Quranic Anachronism Exposed

Muslim apologists love to boast that the Qur’an is historically accurate, linguistically precise, and scientifically miraculous. But what happens when it describes ancient Egyptian Pharaohs threatening people with crucifixion—centuries before crucifixion was even a thing?

You get another glaring anachronism wrapped in apologetic excuses.

🔍 Qur’anic Claims: Joseph and Moses Were Threatened With Crucifixion?

The Qur’an makes this claim not once, but twice:

Surah 12:41 — Joseph’s time
Surah 20:71 — Moses’ time

In both cases, Pharaohs are depicted threatening people with crucifixion. But here's the problem: crucifixion didn’t exist in Egypt during either of those time periods. Historically, this punishment only surfaces much later—in the 6th century BCE.

📚 According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, crucifixion was first recorded under Darius I of Persia around 519 BCE, when he executed 3,000 political rebels in Babylon.

Joseph is believed to have lived around 1700 BCE, and Moses around 1300 BCE. So unless the Pharaohs were time travelers, this is a clear-cut historical blunder.

🤦‍♂️ Apologists to the Rescue: Impaling, Mutilating, Anything But Crucifying

Faced with this glaring contradiction, Muslim scholars scramble to redefine words. They claim that the Arabic word ṣallaba (صَلَبَ) doesn’t necessarily mean "crucify on a cross." Instead, they say it might mean:

Impaling
Suspending on a stake
Torture/mutilation
Anything painful, basically

Nice try. But here’s why that doesn’t work.

🧠 The Linguistics Destroy the Apologetics

Let’s break down the word:

The Arabic root Ṣ–L–B (ص-ل-ب) is the root for ṣalb, which means crucifixion.
It comes from the Latin "crux" (cross) + "figere" (to fasten) — literally: to fasten to a cross.
Arabic dictionaries—even the ones Muslim scholars use—connect the Qur’anic usage of ṣalb to the crucifixion of Jesus.

This isn’t a vague term. It’s specific.

Also: if the Qur’an had meant impaling, there’s another Arabic word for that—"khazaq" (خَزَقَ). But the Qur’an never uses it.

If this book is supposed to be "clear" (Surah 12:1), why leave it open to such ambiguity?

🧪 Language Games Don’t Save the Qur’an

Apologists twist the root meaning of ṣalb to escape the historical contradiction. But that’s not how language works.

Here’s the principle they’re violating:

Words have two layers of meaning in Arabic:

Etymological (original root meaning)

Phraseological (current, conventional usage)

The second is what matters in real-world usage—not the ancient root. Using the root to justify reinterpretation is as absurd as saying:

“Nice” still means ignorant, because that’s what it meant in Latin.
“Revolt” means to submit, because that’s what it originally meant.

It’s a linguistic fallacy called etymological essentialism—where people confuse root meanings for active usage.

Apologists fall into this trap every time they pretend “ṣalb” could mean anything other than crucifixion.

🪦 What’s the Real History?

Here’s what real historians say:

Ancient Egyptians did not crucify. Their punishments included beheading, mutilation, or burning—not public suspension on crosses.
Assyrians and Persians practiced impaling, but that’s not what the Qur’an says.
Romans refined crucifixion as a formal execution method by the 1st century BCE.

So when the Qur’an places crucifixion threats in Joseph’s Egypt or Moses’ Egypt, it’s inventing a punishment that didn’t exist yet.

🧩 The Bigger Problem: Clarity vs Confusion

The Qur’an constantly claims to be "mubīn" (clear):

“These are the verses of the clear Book.” — Surah 12:1

But this verse about crucifixion is anything but clear. In fact:

Muslims can’t agree on what ṣalb means.
Scholars have to reverse-engineer definitions to salvage the text.
The actual historical record directly contradicts the verse.

What kind of "clear book" requires this level of acrobatics to defend?

🧨 Bottom Line

The Qur’an anachronistically projects crucifixion into ancient Egypt.
Muslim apologists distort the Arabic language to avoid admitting the error.
If Allah meant “impale,” he could’ve used a different word. He didn’t.
Historical records, linguistic rules, and basic logic all refute the claim.

This is not divine foreknowledge. It’s historical ignorance—plain and simple.

Truth About Islam

Sunday, 15 June 2025