This book had my attention from beginning to end. It presented a very interesting hypothesis about Moses and Joseph, both of OT fame. It strays off the conventional path of not just Egyptology but of Judaism/Chrisitianity. I've discussed it with quite a few people and got some heat about it, but I loved the book. It was a fresh and different outlook on both Moses and Akhenaten and whether you believe it or not, it is definetely food for thought. Also, it was well written to boot.Read it for yourself and come to your own conclusion.

This was the second book of Osman's that I read and I wish I had read it first. This book essentially begins his argument that Christianity is the product of Ancient Egyptian religion and...as the title suggests, Moses and Akhenaten are one in the same. Osman does provide the reader with a convincing argument and I find his books to be a good source for "alternative" history buffs. However, I feel that he tends to lose the reader with all of the name changing going on in this particular book. (Akenaten is Moses, so and so is Soloman, etc, etc) This was, in my opinion, the least readable of his books...but by no means a bad or unreadable book. If you're going to read Osman's books, I would suggest starting with this one and then moving on to "The Hebrew Pharoahs of Egypt" followed by "Christianity - An Ancient Egyptian Religion."

If I overstand correctly, this is a 2002 revised reprint of the 1990 book "Moses, Pharaoh of Egypt: The Mystery of Akhenaten Resolved". 190 regular text pages. With an additional 7-part appendix of 54 pages, which sections I recommend reading when referenced respectively.



Ahmed Osman reveals various errors of other Egyptologists, e.g. why they have guessed the time frame of the Moses Exodus wrongly, that they didn't consider various kinds of co-regencies of Pharaos and why Akhenaten had to be coded as Moses after his fall from power.



He is very convincing in this and more, mixing circumstantial evidence with what I consider hard evidence. In contrast to some other readers I don't mind the circumstantial evidence in this specific book. For the simple reason that even that makes much more sense than what is popularly assumed about Akhenaten/Moses, i.e. even should the author be not quite correct on some issues, this book is a step forward in the correct direction. Of both, revelations and method of scientific progress. As a RastafarI I don't like too much of magic as the basis of belief in religion and appreciated the author's explanation of Moses' magic rod, supposedly turning into a serpent, as having lost in the translation and alteration, meaning something entirely different, non-magical. Ahmed Osman takes it for granted that the reader already has been revealed to that Akhenaten/Moses was Black and that in ancient language, "Ethiopia" may stand for any Black kingdom, not necessarily the country by that name.



Most certainly, I would like to get all the Afrocentrist authors of the past decades at a round table. They sound really convincing in their specific fields of expertise, yet they tend to contradict each other. They tend to check their findings with the establishment (which usually isn't that difficult to prove wrong), not necessarily with each other. Which doesn't make any one of the Afrocentrists wrong in principal as a necessity. It just shows that further research is necessary for the fine tuning. For example Ahmed Osman puts the Moses Exodus in the convincingly correct time frame of Akhenaten, again convincingly chosing a later date. However, just as convincingly Robin Walker, author of When We Ruled: The Ancient and Medieval History of Black Civilisations revealed a wrong time frame for all of ancient Egypt, saying, the further you go back in Egyptian history, the more time has been concealed by Western egyptologists. According to him Akhenaten ruled from 1501-1474 BCE, i.e. long before Ahmen Osman's suggestion of Akhenaten's birth in 1394 BCE. Which would approximately push back that Exodus at the original estimate. Expressions like "mixed Egyptian-Israelite blood" (as in ancient Black context) may be criticized anyway for touching racist notions, but specifically Nana Banchie Darkwah, author of The Africans Who Wrote the Bible (which I highly recommend reading in tandem with this book) would disagree that there would be much of a separation to be "mixable" anyway. (Not to mention that the latter calls the Pharao "Akenten" as the supposed real spelling/pronunciation.)



This book doesn't seem to be free from bias, responsible for a potential clouding of scientific judgement: It seems to have an issue with anything homosexual and the like. Which becomes clear when the author says that other Egyptologists would have attempted to discredit Akhenaten as having been gay. As a historian he should have known that the judgement of "homosexuality" as being automatically something to get discredited by is post-ancient Egypt. The picture of a statue he provides, which has been the source for the homosexual claim is indeed a very weak argument. It looks as if having been largely dissolved in acid rain, not making it possible to identify anything. However, that is also true for the suggestion of Ahmed Osman, what this piece of art is supposed to represent instead... I am not an expert in this, I think that homosexual claim for Akhenaten goes beyond that statue. What really seems to cloud the author though are his remarks about another statue he provides a picture of. A naked one, with no depicted genitalia. He's saying, those who say, he didn't have any, are wrong. Well, of course! Someone said that? However, he in turn claims, this statue would be unfinished: the artist didn't have time to make the clothes yet around his waist. Any layperson can see how absurd this claim is. Especially, since a clothed statue of Akhenaten is depicted directly next to the naked one. The naked statue has fully developed legs and a dent in the genitalia region. Both are covered by the clothes at the other statue. It would neither be possible to make clothes of stone above either, nor would it make sense for the artist first to fully make the legs, than to undo that. The real purpose of the statue has to do with that, what Ahmed Osman closed his eyes to when captioning the very first picture in the book, of a double statuette of Nefertiti and Akhenaten: "No physical defect mars Akhenaten's appearance." I would agree with that literally only. He probably was referring to the face. Yet, his body IS unusual: It depicts a 4 months pregnancy belly, and WITH clothes, something misses, which Nefertiti is shown with: a bulge under her clothes in the genitalia region. Although some statues of Akhenaten (and Nefertiti) are even more pronounced than this one in this respect, the general idea is very much recognizable: Gender-bending. Before monotheism, virtually all over the world, "homosexuals" and gender benders of any kind were seen as mediators "between the genders" and with that metaphorically between humans and the godly world. That's why shamans, healers, priests etc. often were "gender bending" in one form or the other. Akhenaten represents the "missing link" between pre-monotheistic approach and monotheism. In fact, the ancient Egyptian sign of life, the ankh/nkwa also depicts "both genitals" in one. A sign to have become/remained important for Akhenaten. I am not claiming (or disclaiming) that Akhenaten (or Nefertiti) were homosexuals; that would be a specific late 19th century German concept anyway, in this literal wording of the mid-20th century. I am reasoning the intentional symbolism expressed in ancient Egyptian religious art, especially at the time of Akhenaten. As, of course, a pregnant belly of a male is as symbolic as a missing penis.

I wouldn't really have subtracted an entire star for that. I did that for another reason: This obvious misjudgement, even omission of knowledge reveals Ahmed Osman as biased. Biased to the point of harboring the potential of absurd claims. Exactly that, what he criticizes about other Egyptologists. It hasn't anything to do with what anyone might think about gender benders, it has everything to do with letting that influence their scientific approach. If THAT has caused wrong judgement, what else might have?

I thought it prudent to do a generic review of the two books so at least they can be compared as they are dealing with the same topics. The two books are `Act of God' by Graham Philips and `Out of Egypt' by Ahmed Osman. They should be read concurrently.

[*NB: Out of Egypt seems to be out of print hence not listed on Amazon. As my review dealt with Moses and Akhenaten, I have placed my review here even though I have not read Osman's book, 'Moses and Akhenaten. Will get hold of it soon!]

The two authors of their respective books do talk about the same topic of the origins of the Bible stories of Moses and Pharoah (Osman also talks about Christianity) but they have different interpretations of the events and identities of the persons involved. At the outset both books seem to furnish the reader with evidence for their theories and convincingly so. But when the two books are compared, they are diametrically opposed.

1. Identity of Moses:

- Philip's view: It was a prince called `Tuthmosis' whose account in Egyptian literature is spurious and not much is said about him. He was the elder brother of Akhenaten and rightful heir to the throne before he mysteriously disappears. Both Moses and Akhenaten shared the similar views about the one deity. Some of the Atenists joined the Israelites during the Exodus

- Osman's view: Moses was Akhenaten. Because they shared the same religious beliefs they must have been the same person

2. Identities of other peoples

- Philip's view: The other peoples such as David, Joshua, Tutenkhamun etc. are as accepted by the conventional thought

- Osman's view: Tutenkhamun was Jesus. He was killed on Mt. Sinai by Pinhas. Osman argues that the New testament also claims that the Roman soldier who killed Jesus on the cross was Pinhas. Hence the real physical Jesus (Titenkahmun) was confused with the spiritual Jesus of the New Testament. Tuthmosis III was David. Aye was Joseph of Arimathea. Amonhotep III was Solomon

3. Cause of River Nile Turning Red

- Philip's view: Mt. Thera erupted and blocked sunlight. Iron Oxide spewed out and gave the Nile the reddish colour. Because of the catastrophe, plagues ensued and fish died on the Nile.

- Osman's view: The Nile turning red is seasonal. During the season of Inundation, the Nile waters turn reddish. If the events took place in the Eastern Delta this suggests late Summer. The plagues were natural occurrences during the course of the Egyptian year.

4. Origin and meaning of the name, `Moses'

- Philip's view: It is from the Egyptian word, `Mosis' or Mos, meaning `son'. Many people thought that the Hebrew name of Moshe was given to Moses because it means `to draw', and he was drawn out of the water. Philips makes a good point that Egyptians did not use Hebrew. So `Mos' was used which means `son'. The woman who adopted Moses brought him up as a son and a part of the Royal household. `Mos' is used as an adjunct to `Tuth'. Hence the name `Tuthmosis'. So the shady character, Tuthmosis (Akhenaten's older brother) was Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt.

- Osman's view: Similar to Philips. He also refers to the Hebrew `Moshe' (to draw). But Osman understands `Mos' to mean son in context of a rightful heir, i.e. royalty. As Akhenaten was the rightful heir of Amonhotep III, therefore Akhenaten is Moses.

Summary

You can see how the two different authors are diametrically opposed to each other, yet they seem to furnish their theories with evidence. I came across Graham Philip's book by the suggestion of an Atheist who seemed to be convinced by his investigative research. But as the reader can judge, theories are not proof! The conspiracy theories further become ludicrous when other authors try to link the Pyramids with alien contact (Robert Temple,`The Sirius Mystery' or Peter Lemesurier, 'Gods of the Dawn').

I believe that the best book on the Hebrews and the Egyptians is by the late Maurice Bucaille (well known for his classic, `The Bible, the Quran and Science'), a French doctor and Egyptologist, who gives a very objective account of the Israelites and sheds some interesting light on the Bible and the Quran. The name of this book is, `The Hebrews in Egypt'. This book makes more sense than the portfolio of exotic theories that surround the pyramids, the Jews and the ancient Egyptians. Unfortunately this book is not available at Amazon. Visit a Muslim bookstore.

By Hasan Ali Imam
Ex-Parliamentary Candidate, Conservative Party
UK

I thought it prudent to do a generic review of the two books so at least they can be compared as they are dealing with the same topics. The two books are `Act of God' by Graham Philips and `Out of Egypt' by Ahmed Osman. They should be read concurrently.

[*NB: Out of Egypt seems to be out of print hence not listed on Amazon. As my review dealt with Moses and Akhenaten, I have placed my review here even though I have not read Osman's book, 'Moses and Akhenaten. Will get hold of it soon!]

The two authors of their respective books do talk about the same topic of the origins of the Bible stories of Moses and Pharoah (Osman also talks about Christianity) but they have different interpretations of the events and identities of the persons involved. At the outset both books seem to furnish the reader with evidence for their theories and convincingly so. But when the two books are compared, they are diametrically opposed.

1. Identity of Moses:

- Philip's view: It was a prince called `Tuthmosis' whose account in Egyptian literature is spurious and not much is said about him. He was the elder brother of Akhenaten and rightful heir to the throne before he mysteriously disappears. Both Moses and Akhenaten shared the similar views about the one deity. Some of the Atenists joined the Israelites during the Exodus

- Osman's view: Moses was Akhenaten. Because they shared the same religious beliefs they must have been the same person

2. Identities of other peoples

- Philip's view: The other peoples such as David, Joshua, Tutenkhamun etc. are as accepted by the conventional thought

- Osman's view: Tutenkhamun was Jesus. He was killed on Mt. Sinai by Pinhas. Osman argues that the New testament also claims that the Roman soldier who killed Jesus on the cross was Pinhas. Hence the real physical Jesus (Titenkahmun) was confused with the spiritual Jesus of the New Testament. Tuthmosis III was David. Aye was Joseph of Arimathea. Amonhotep III was Solomon

3. Cause of River Nile Turning Red

- Philip's view: Mt. Thera erupted and blocked sunlight. Iron Oxide spewed out and gave the Nile the reddish colour. Because of the catastrophe, plagues ensued and fish died on the Nile.

- Osman's view: The Nile turning red is seasonal. During the season of Inundation, the Nile waters turn reddish. If the events took place in the Eastern Delta this suggests late Summer. The plagues were natural occurrences during the course of the Egyptian year.

4. Origin and meaning of the name, `Moses'

- Philip's view: It is from the Egyptian word, `Mosis' or Mos, meaning `son'. Many people thought that the Hebrew name of Moshe was given to Moses because it means `to draw', and he was drawn out of the water. Philips makes a good point that Egyptians did not use Hebrew. So `Mos' was used which means `son'. The woman who adopted Moses brought him up as a son and a part of the Royal household. `Mos' is used as an adjunct to `Tuth'. Hence the name `Tuthmosis'. So the shady character, Tuthmosis (Akhenaten's older brother) was Moses who led the Israelites out of Egypt.

- Osman's view: Similar to Philips. He also refers to the Hebrew `Moshe' (to draw). But Osman understands `Mos' to mean son in context of a rightful heir, i.e. royalty. As Akhenaten was the rightful heir of Amonhotep III, therefore Akhenaten is Moses.

Summary

You can see how the two different authors are diametrically opposed to each other, yet they seem to furnish their theories with evidence. I came across Graham Philip's book by the suggestion of an Atheist who seemed to be convinced by his investigative research. But as the reader can judge, theories are not proof! The conspiracy theories further become ludicrous when other authors try to link the Pyramids with alien contact (Robert Temple,`The Sirius Mystery' or Peter Lemesurier, 'Gods of the Dawn').

I believe that the best book on the Hebrews and the Egyptians is by the late Maurice Bucaille (well known for his classic, `The Bible, the Quran and Science'), a French doctor and Egyptologist, who gives a very objective account of the Israelites and sheds some interesting light on the Bible and the Quran. The name of this book is, `The Hebrews in Egypt'. This book makes more sense than the portfolio of exotic theories that surround the pyramids, the Jews and the ancient Egyptians. Unfortunately this book is not available at Amazon. Visit a Muslim bookstore.

By Hasan Ali Imam
Ex-Parliamentary Candidate, Conservative Party
UK