WHo is "The Pharaoh" in the Muslim Holy Book

[Leonardo17]

 But why would the Bible and the Quran refer to the exodus if it was pure fiction? 

 
 If he hated the Jews (As in the Hitler Example) why wouldn’t he let them go? All they wanted was to leave.

The answer to both of these questions is the same - and yes, it's pure fiction.  Imagine how dismissive it was for us to believe that jewish slaves created the pyramids, for example - since you're into ditching silly shit like that.  The whole bit was just a story, and whatever problems that creates for whatever beliefs you hold about gods or prophets or magic books, is..I suppose, a problem you'll have to address one day.  I actually don't see why it's a sticking point for you, given your willingess to tweak the narrative to suit.

There is no "ideology of atheism", lol.  OFC you're a revisionist, as you're revising magic books and islamic history in real time right before our eyes.  You probably grew up with that term as a pejorative but, if it helps, I use it descriptively, and think that revision is necessary if these belief sets are to survive in any form for much longer.  It's becoming very difficult for people with "spiritual understandings" to assert them as they are, as evidenced by your insistence, for example, that they are consistent with "atheist ideology".

1) The pyramids were built in the Old-Kingdom of Egypt at about 2600 BC. The story between Ramses II and Moses Happened at about 1250 BC. And according to the Bible, The Jews first came to Egypt 500 years before Moses (That puts us to the second intermediate period 1650-1550 BC).
 
   And 1) The Jews were refugees of famine (according to the Bible) not slaves and 2. The Old Kingdom of Egypt is something totally different. This is the age I was talking about previously in which the Egyptians had a truly working and realistic pantheon of God and an impressive amount of spiritual as well as occult knowledge. No pyramids were built at the time of Ramses II. In that era they used rock tombs that were hidden in the Famous Valley of Kings.
 
   The Pyramids of the Old Kingdom on the other hand were built by regular Egyptian workers who were drafted (as in a military service) every year at the time when the Nile would rise and the farmers basically had nothing to do. And they were paid, they were well fed, they had beer, they had doctors and they even had some sort of social security.
 
   This Hollywood-based error comes probably from the Roman civilization whose economy was almost entirely based on Slave labor.
 
    In the Old-Kingdom and in the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (and probably in the most part of the New-Kingdom) there was something called “the Law of Maat” in Egypt. That’s the idea of the supremacy of law according to which no one (not even the Pharaoh) was above the rule of law. And in that Era (before the downfall period that became clearly visible toward the 12th century BC) women were socially enabled. Unlike the Roman or the contemporary Hittite society for instance, they were almost equal to men in terms of legal rights. In fact the Pharaoh and the Queen ruled the country together (unlike the depictions of Queen Nefertiti who is represented at the temple of Abu-Simbel as being 1/8th the size of the pharaoh Ramses II).
 
   And I am not going to speculate on the status of Jews in Egypt. I only know that they first came in as refugees.
 
2) There is no sticking point. As I said I don’t know a lot about religion. I can’t really “define” religion for you. But all I am saying is that I know enough to recognize very quickly what is not religion. And I am using this allegorical story that is present in both the Muslim and Christian holy book to attempt to make a description of something that may look like religion but actually has nothing to do with religion itself (not with the original – intended message at least)
 
3) You may be right. This is true. I thought you said something like “reformist”. I can’t be a reformist because I believe the original message of the “magic book” as you put it is available for everyone in the world and there is no need for a “reform” on that. But Yes, I am a revisionist. In fact this is happening in many religions. I read a lot about Hinduism too. Again, since the 19th century there are some Yogis (or scholars if you like) who are clearly “revising” the already existing teaching and are making them more understandable and more logical and more usable for all of us who believe in such things. So that’s my mistake. Ok.
 
4) That I don’t know. I mean I am a theist. Not only I believe in the existence of God as the original cause of creation but I also believe that what I would call “our inner nature” (unlike our Ego) is one and the same with this “Ultimate Being” (Because this is the statement that is being made in many mystic traditions all over the world). So that’s my belief system. But I also happen to know people who happen to be within the same “belief system” who are saying that “atheism is still the best possible approach”. That’s because as the thinker Eckhart Tolle Puts it: Whenever you try to define God, or you try to name him (or it) you are putting limits to something that is without limits. So we also have a problem of definition here. If I was to say “I am a theist” (which I already did ) Than who or what is this “Supreme Being”. That’s when I have to say one has to look for himself / herself. Because although it an intelligible phenomenon, mystics say it can only be known by direct experience.
 
   So you sort of made me agree that I fall more into the definition of revisionist Islam rather than theism. “Islam” means the surrendering of the Ego to the Supreme Being. Just like the Buddha’s way of surrendering the fake identity (the Ego) to our Higher Self.
 
   I don’t know if we should go deeper into these subjects. But that’s more or less it. And I am not an authority on these issues either. But if you go to any bookstore, I think we are in an age in which all the information on these issues is already made highly available to all of us. And this is unprecedented. In ancient times books used to be the luxury of powerful aristocrats of wealthy monasteries. Even in the libraries of antiquity you had to be “someone” in order to enter these places and access these scrolls or teachings. And the teachings we are talking about came during that era. This might be the reason why they seem rather fictional or enigmatic to us. All I am saying is that they are not so enigmatic. I think they do include some clear “elements” in them if you have enough time to study them carefully and thoroughly.