The Quranic narrative of Pharaoh in Egypt offers a chilling glimpse into the psyche of an autocrat. Through his actions and pronouncements, we can discern the hallmarks of an autocratic personality: a thirst for absolute power, a disdain for the people he rules, and a deep-seated resistance to any challenge to his authority. This study examines the Quranic portrayal of Pharaoh, highlighting the psychological traits that define his despotic rule. By analysing specific Quranic verses, we gain insight into the psychology of this historical figure, whose actions and mind-set embody the traits of a dictator consumed by self-interest and a blatant disregard for human dignity and justice. This paper explores the character of Pharaoh in the Quran as a case study for understanding the psychological profile of an autocrat. By analysing specific verses, we aim to identify personality traits and leadership styles associated with absolute power.
The story of Pharaoh in the Quran serves as a profound psychological case study of autocratic behaviour. Autocrats throughout history exhibit common psychological traits, including extreme cruelty, arrogance, manipulation, and a relentless pursuit of power. This paper aims to explore these traits as depicted in the Quranic narrative of Pharaoh, providing a psychological portrait of an autocrat.
The concept of the “authoritarian personality” has been extensively studied in psychology. Pioneering work by Adorno et al. (1950) identified key characteristics often found in autocratic leaders: a rigid view of the social hierarchy, a strong need for power and dominance, intolerance of dissent, and a tendency to scapegoat outsiders. Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) further suggests that these leaders may be motivated by a desire to maintain the status quo and their own position at the top of the social pyramid.
The Quranic narrative of Pharaoh in Egypt exemplifies the brutality often employed by autocrats to maintain control. In Surah Al-Baqarah (Q.2:49) and Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:141), Pharaoh inflicted severe torment on the Israelites, killing their sons and sparing their women. This act of genocide and gender-based oppression aligns with Staub’s (1994) work on the psychology of violence. Her research suggests that exposure to violence and dehumanization can desensitize leaders, making acts of cruelty easier to justify. From a neurological perspective, this could be explained by a reduction in empathy due to decreased activity in the brain regions associated with compassion. (Decety & Lamm, 2006).
Pharaoh’s systematic oppression of the Israelites, including genocide and enslavement, exemplifies the brutality often employed by autocrats to maintain control. Research by psychologists like Bandura (1973) on social learning theory suggests that fear of punishment can be a powerful tool for controlling a population. This aligns with the concept of despotic leadership (as mentioned by Adorno et al., 1950), where autocrats use terror as a tool to ensure compliance and eliminate perceived threats.
Pharaoh’s extreme measures can be understood as a manifestation of his authoritarian personality. His pathological need for control fuelled his reliance on fear and violence, ultimately leading to a despotic reign.
Rejection of Divine Signs
Pharaoh’s response to Moses and the signs sent by God is one of arrogant rejection. In Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:103), Pharaoh and his chiefs wrongfully reject the divine signs, demonstrating profound arrogance and a refusal to acknowledge a higher authority. This is further emphasized in Surah Yunus (Q.10:88), where Moses highlights how Pharaoh and his chiefs misuse their splendour and wealth to lead people astray.
This arrogance can be attributed to a psychological phenomenon known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, where individuals with limited knowledge or competence overestimate their own ability. Pharaoh’s self-perception as an unquestionable authority leads to cognitive dissonance when confronted with the divine signs, causing him to double down on his oppressive behaviour (Kruger & Dunning, 1999).
Pharaoh’s dismissal of Moses and the divine signs is a classic example of authoritarian arrogance. This denial of external authority and a belief in one’s own infallibility are documented by political scientists like Renshon (2003) as traits associated with autocratic leadership.
Manipulation and Deception
Pharaoh’s manipulation is evident in how he frames Moses’ actions as a threat to his rule. In Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:110) and Surah Ta-Ha (Q.20:63), Pharaoh portrays Moses’ mission as a conspiracy to drive the Egyptians out of their land and destroy their way of life. This tactic of creating an external enemy to unify his people under his oppressive regime is a classic move by dictators to legitimize their harsh measures and retain power.
The use of manipulation and deception is indicative of Machiavellianism, a personality trait characterized by manipulation, exploitation, and a cynical disregard for morality. Pharaoh’s actions reflect a high level of Machiavellianism, as he seeks to manipulate public perception and maintain his grip on power through deceit (Christie & Geis, 1970). Machiavellianism involves a strategic and often ruthless approach to achieving and maintaining power, where ethical considerations are subordinated to personal gain and control.
Pharaoh’s portrayal of Moses as a threat to the established order demonstrates a common tactic of autocrats: creating an external enemy to solidify internal support. This manipulation of public perception is a strategy explored by social psychologists like Janu et al. (2012). By depicting Moses and his followers as a danger to the Egyptian way of life, Pharaoh aims to instil fear and unify the population against a common adversary. This not only distracts from his own failings but also justifies his oppressive measures.
In summary, Pharaoh’s manipulation and deception highlight the Machiavellian tactics employed by autocratic leaders. His strategic framing of Moses as an existential threat serves to manipulate public perception and consolidate his power. This approach, grounded in the psychological and social strategies of creating external enemies, underscores the dangerous and unethical methods used by autocrats to maintain their rule. Understanding these tactics provides a deeper insight into the mechanisms of manipulation and control in authoritarian regimes.
Deep Seated Arrogance
Pharaoh’s response to Moses and the divine signs exposes a deep-seated arrogance. In Surah Al-A’raf (7:103), he and his chiefs display a profound sense of entitlement by rejecting the signs outright. This highlights their refusal to acknowledge any authority beyond themselves. Surah Yunus (10:88) strengthens this notion when Moses points out how Pharaoh and his elite misuse their wealth and power to mislead the people.
Psychologically, this behaviour aligns with the Dunning-Kruger effect (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). This effect describes a phenomenon where individuals with limited knowledge or competence overestimate their own abilities. Pharaoh, viewing himself as the unquestionable authority (Q.20:63), experiences cognitive dissonance when confronted with the divine signs. This mental discomfort, caused by conflicting beliefs, leads him to double down on his oppressive tactics.
Furthermore, political scientists like Renshon (2003) have documented denial of external authority and a belief in one’s own infallibility as key characteristics of autocratic leadership. Pharaoh’s actions perfectly exemplify these traits.
While the Dunning-Kruger effect provides a valuable lens, it’s worth considering the possibility of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) in Pharaoh. Individuals with NPD often exhibit an inflated sense of self-importance, a need for excessive admiration, and a lack of empathy – traits strikingly similar to Pharaoh’s behaviour.
Research by Twenge et al. (2008) suggests a correlation between narcissism and leadership positions. This could explain Pharaoh’s arrogance and his desperate attempts to maintain control, even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.
Pharaoh’s response to the divine signs is a complex interplay of psychological factors. While the Dunning-Kruger effect offers a starting point, exploring the possibility of NPD provides further insight. Ultimately, Pharaoh’s arrogance serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the dangers of unchecked power and the importance of remaining open to alternative perspectives.
Brutal Suppression of Dissent
Pharaoh’s brutal response to any form of dissent is vividly depicted in several verses of the Quran. In Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:123-124) and Surah Ta-Ha (Q.20:71), Pharaoh threatens severe punishments, including mutilation and crucifixion, for those who believe in Moses without his permission. This merciless approach to quashing opposition underscores his reliance on fear and violence to maintain control.
The suppression of dissent through brutal means can be understood through the concept of state terrorism, where governments use violence to instil fear and eliminate political opposition. This aligns with Pharaoh’s behaviour, as he employs terror to prevent any challenge to his authority (Ganor, 2002). State terrorism involves the use of systematic violence by a government against its own people to achieve political aims, often by creating an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Pharaoh’s threats of extreme punishment for those who defy him are a classic example of this tactic.
Moreover, Pharaoh’s use of violence and threats to silence dissenters highlights the reliance of autocrats on fear as a tool of control. This aligns with the work of psychologists such as Bandura (1973) on the concept of social learning theory, where fear of punishment can suppress dissent. Social learning theory posits that people learn from observing the behaviours, attitudes, and outcomes of others’ behaviours. In this context, witnessing the harsh punishments meted out to dissenters serves as a powerful deterrent to others who might consider opposing Pharaoh’s rule.
Pharaoh’s brutal suppression of dissent not only demonstrates his use of fear and violence as tools of governance but also reflects broader concepts of state terrorism and psychological theories on the impact of fear on behaviour. These elements combine to create an environment where opposition is ruthlessly crushed, maintaining Pharaoh’s grip on power through intimidation and brutality.
Injustice and Broken Promises
Pharaoh’s injustice is further highlighted in Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:132-135), where despite witnessing clear signs and promising to release the Israelites if the plagues were removed, he repeatedly breaks his word once the calamities are lifted. This duplicity and lack of integrity reflect the selfishness and moral bankruptcy typical of autocratic rulers.
Pharaoh’s repeated betrayal of his promises exemplifies the duplicity often observed in autocratic leaders. This characteristic is explored by political scientists like Diamond (2016), who argue that unchecked power can lead to a disregard for ethical principles. In his analysis, Diamond suggests that the concentration of power in the hands of a single ruler often results in corruption and a lack of accountability, which can manifest in deceitful behaviour and broken promises.
Furthermore, this behaviour can be linked to psychopathy, a personality disorder characterized by persistent antisocial behaviour, impaired empathy, and bold, disinhibited traits. Pharaoh’s repeated broken promises and moral duplicity are indicative of psychopathic traits, particularly his lack of remorse and ethical consideration (Hare, 1999). Psychopathy is often associated with a superficial charm and manipulativeness, as well as a profound deficit in moral reasoning and empathy. Pharaoh’s actions, as described in the Quran, align with these traits, showcasing a pattern of manipulation and a blatant disregard for the suffering of others.
Pharaoh’s injustice and broken promises not only highlight his moral failings but also reflect broader psychological and political dynamics. His behaviour underscores the dangers of unchecked autocratic power and exhibits traits commonly associated with psychopathy. These insights help to contextualize Pharaoh’s actions within a framework of political science and psychological theory, providing a deeper understanding of his tyrannical rule.
Exploitation of Power
In Surah Al-Qasas (Q.28:4), Pharaoh is described as someone who exalted himself in the land and divided its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them. This divide-and-rule strategy is a hallmark of autocracy, aimed at weakening collective resistance and ensuring absolute domination. Pharaoh attempts to manipulate religion to serve his own ends, accusing Moses of using magic to undermine the established gods (Q.20:71).
Pharaoh’s manipulation of social divisions to maintain control aligns with the “divide-and-rule” strategy often employed by autocrats. This tactic is well-documented in historical and political science studies, where leaders create or exacerbate internal divisions to weaken collective resistance and prevent unified opposition. By sowing discord among various factions, autocrats can more easily maintain their grip on power, as divided groups are less likely to mount effective challenges to their authority.
The divide-and-rule tactic is a common strategy among autocrats to maintain control by creating internal divisions. This behaviour is consistent with social dominance orientation (SDO), a personality trait characterized by a preference for hierarchy and domination over lower-status groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Individuals with high SDO tend to support policies and social structures that maintain hierarchical divisions and inequality. Pharaoh’s actions, as described in the Quran, reflect this orientation, as he systematically oppresses a segment of the population to reinforce his dominance and prevent any threats to his rule.
Pharaoh’s exploitation of power through social manipulation and religious exploitation highlights his strategic use of the divide-and-rule tactic. This behaviour not only serves to entrench his authority but also aligns with psychological theories related to social dominance orientation. By understanding these dynamics, we can better comprehend the mechanisms through which autocratic leaders maintain control and suppress opposition.
Blaming and Scapegoating
Pharaoh’s tendency to blame external factors for his problems is seen in Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:131), where he attributes any misfortune to Moses and his followers. This scapegoating is a psychological strategy used by dictators to deflect criticism and consolidate their base by channelling public frustration toward a convenient enemy.
Pharaoh’s tendency to blame external factors exemplifies the scapegoating behaviour observed in many autocrats. This psychological defence mechanism, explored by social psychologists like Baumeister (1998), deflects criticism and strengthens the leader’s position. By attributing problems to an external enemy, leaders can unify their followers against a common threat, thereby diverting attention from their own failings and maintaining their grip on power.
Scapegoating is a defence mechanism where an individual attributes their own failures or misfortunes to others, thereby avoiding personal accountability. This behaviour is often observed in authoritarian leaders who seek to deflect blame and maintain their image of infallibility (Allport, 1961). By casting Moses and his followers as the source of misfortune, Pharaoh not only absolves himself of responsibility but also galvanizes his supporters by presenting them with a target for their grievances.
Pharaoh’s use of blaming and scapegoating reflects a broader psychological strategy employed by autocratic leaders to maintain control. This tactic serves to deflect criticism, consolidate the leader’s base, and channel public frustration toward an external enemy. Understanding this behaviour through the lens of psychological theory provides insight into the mechanisms of authoritarian rule and the ways in which leaders manipulate public perception to maintain their authority.
Psychological Warfare and Intimidation
In Surah Ash-Shu’ara (Q.26:49), Pharaoh uses psychological warfare to intimidate the believers, threatening severe physical punishment to deter them from their faith. His tactic of inflicting psychological terror complements his physical oppression, creating an environment of constant fear and submission.
Pharaoh’s use of fear and intimidation to control the population aligns with the psychological warfare tactics employed by many autocrats. This approach is documented by Juergensmeyer (2003) in studies of power and violence. Juergensmeyer’s research highlights how leaders use terror not only as a means of direct control but also as a psychological tool to maintain dominance over a population by instilling a pervasive sense of fear.
Pharaoh’s use of psychological warfare can be understood through the concept of coercive control, a form of abuse where an individual seeks to dominate another through threats, intimidation, and manipulation. This creates a pervasive sense of fear and helplessness among the oppressed population (Stark, 2007). Coercive control involves the strategic use of fear to break down resistance and ensure compliance. In Pharaoh’s case, his threats of severe punishment serve to reinforce his authority and suppress any potential dissent by making the consequences of opposition seem overwhelmingly dire. By understanding Pharaoh’s actions through the lens of psychological and sociological theories, we can better appreciate the mechanisms through which fear is used to maintain control and suppress opposition.
Self-Preservation and Paranoia
Pharaoh’s primary concern is maintaining his own control. Verses like Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:110) depict him fearing that Moses and his followers will drive him out of his land. This paranoia fuels his brutality, as seen in Surah Al-A’raf (Q.7:127) where he proposes killing the sons of the Israelites to nip the threat in the bud.
Pharaoh’s preoccupation with maintaining control highlights the self-preservation motive often driving autocrats. This aligns with evolutionary psychology theories (Buss & Durkee, 2020) that suggest a desire for power and security is a fundamental human drive. From an evolutionary perspective, maintaining control over resources and social status has been crucial for survival and reproductive success. Autocratic leaders like Pharaoh, therefore, may exhibit extreme behaviours to protect their power, as it is directly linked to their survival and legacy.
Pharaoh’s paranoia can be linked to narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), characterized by grandiosity, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. His fear of losing power and subsequent brutal actions reflect the fragile self-esteem and paranoia often associated with this disorder (APA, 2013). Individuals with NPD are often preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success and power, and they may react with rage or aggression when they perceive threats to their status. Pharaoh’s extreme measures to maintain his authority, including the proposed killing of the sons of the Israelites, can be seen as manifestations of such narcissistic traits.
Pharaoh’s actions driven by self-preservation and paranoia underscore the psychological mechanisms at play in autocratic rule. His behaviour aligns with evolutionary drives for power and security and exhibits characteristics of narcissistic personality disorder. Understanding these dynamics provides a deeper insight into the motivations and fears that underpin the actions of autocratic leaders.
Fear of the Other
Pharaoh’s insecurity manifests in his fear of outsiders like Moses. He perceives new ideas and movements as a threat to his established order (Q.10:88). This xenophobia fuels his persecution of those who dare to challenge him.
Pharaoh’s fear of outsiders like Moses exemplifies the xenophobic tendencies often observed in autocrats. This fear of anything new or challenging to the established order is documented by historians like Gellately (2007) in studies of totalitarian regimes. Gellately’s research highlights how dictators often exploit fear of the unknown to justify repressive measures and consolidate their power. By portraying outsiders and new ideas as existential threats, autocrats can rally their supporters and legitimize their harsh policies.
Fear of the other, or xenophobia, is a psychological phenomenon where individuals have an irrational fear of those perceived as different. This can lead to discriminatory and oppressive behaviour, as seen in Pharaoh’s actions towards Moses and the Israelites (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Xenophobia is often rooted in a perceived threat to social cohesion and identity, prompting aggressive measures to preserve the status quo. Pharaoh’s extreme actions to suppress the Israelites can be understood as a manifestation of this fear, aimed at protecting his regime from perceived subversion.
Pharaoh’s fear of the other reflects a common psychological and political strategy employed by autocrats to maintain control. His xenophobic response to Moses and the Israelites highlights how fear of outsiders and new ideas can drive oppressive behaviour. Understanding these dynamics provides insight into the mechanisms of authoritarian rule and the ways in which leaders exploit fear to sustain their power.
Conclusion
The story of Pharaoh serves as a timeless warning against the dangers of autocratic rule. It exposes the destructive consequences of unchecked power, reminding us of the importance of just leadership and accountability to the people. The Quranic depiction of Pharaoh provides profound insight into the psychology of a dictator. His reign was marked by extreme cruelty, arrogance, manipulation, and a relentless pursuit of power. Pharaoh’s actions illustrate how autocrats exploit fear, division, and deception to maintain their rule, often at the expense of justice and humanity.
Pharaoh’s brutal suppression of dissent, use of psychological warfare, and manipulation of social divisions highlight the multifaceted strategies employed by autocrats to secure their power. These behaviours align with theories in political science and psychology, such as state terrorism, coercive control, social dominance orientation, and xenophobia. His repeated broken promises and scapegoating of external enemies demonstrate the duplicity and paranoia characteristic of autocratic leaders.
Pharaoh’s story underscores the necessity of justice and compassion in leadership. The use of fear, division, and manipulation to maintain power ultimately leads to societal harm and injustice. This narrative serves as a timeless reminder of the dangers of unchecked power and the enduring need for accountable and ethical leadership.
The Quranic account of Pharaoh provides valuable lessons on the perils of autocracy. It emphasizes the critical importance of just leadership, the protection of human rights, and the promotion of compassion and fairness in governance. By reflecting on Pharaoh’s reign, we are reminded of the profound impact that leadership can have on society and the enduring value of justice and humanity in positions of power.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is a scholar on Islam and contemporary affairs who receives his mail @ [email protected]
References
Adorno, T. W, Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N, The authoritarian personality. Harper, 1950
Allport, G. Pattern and Growth in Personality, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961
Allport, G. W, The nature of prejudice, New York: Addison-Wesley, 1954
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.), APA, 2013.
American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5. Washington, D.C: American Psychiatric Association, 2013
Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. Freudian defence mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1081–1124, 1998
Buss, D. M., Human status criteria: Sex differences and similarities across 14 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, May 2020
Christie, R., & Geis, F. Studies in Machiavellianism, New York: Academic Press, 1970
Diamond J, Power: A User’s Guide, Santa Fe, N.M.: Belly Song Press, 2016
Ganor, B. Defining terrorism: Is one man’s terrorist another man’s freedom fighter? Police Practice and Research, 3(4), 2002
Ganor, Boaz: “Defining Terrorism: Is One Man’s Terrorist Another Man’s Freedom Fighter?” Police Practice and Research 3, no. 4, pp. 287–304, 2002
Hare RD. Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us, New York, NY: Guilford Press, 1999
Janu, A., Malinakova, K., Kosarkova, A., Furstova, J., & Tavel, P Psychometric evaluation of the Negative Religious Coping (NRC) Scale of the Brief RCOPE in the Czech environment. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 22(6), 614-625, 2012
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134, 1999
Mark Juergensmeyer. Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, 3rd ed.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003
Renshon, S. Tanley, The World According to George W. Bush: Good Judgment or Cowboy Politics? In Good Judgment in Foreign Policy: Theory and Application, edited by Stanley Renshon and Deborah Larson. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003
Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany, Oxford, 2001
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999
Stark, E. Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2007
Staub, E, Cultural-societal roots of violence: The examples of genocidal violence, and of contemporary youth violence in the United States. American Psychologist, 51, 17–132, 1996
Stephan W. G., Stephan C. W, “An integrated threat theory of prejudice” in Reducing prejudice and discrimination. ed. Oskamp S, Mahwah, NY: Erlbaum, 23–45, 2000
