Were the Cushites ethnically linked to the ancient Egyptians, and do Somalis share ancestry with them?

[Maakhri2024]

Mooṣ ( موص ) ≠ ( عوص ) ע֖וּץ

Esau = Uz = ע֖וּץ = عيصو/العيص

There is no typographical error between them; each is an independent name used in a different context.

• Uz (عوص/عيصو) = The name of the land where Job (Ayyub) resided.
• Mooṣ (موص) = The name of Job’s father in the genealogy.

It's like saying: "In the land of Hawiye" – referring to Hawiye son of Irir son of Samaale.
View attachment 362388

View attachment 362389

Al-Mas'udi and Ibn Kathir did not err; rather, they preserved an older Israelite tradition. Both align with the genealogies presented in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, even extending the list of ancestors omitted in current versions of the Hebrew Bible.

In the Hebrew Bible:
• The text does not mention any genealogy for the Prophet Job, only noting his residence in the "land of Uz."

Septuagint (3rd century BCE):
• "Job, the son of Zerah, son of Reuel, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

Vulgate:
• "Jobab, son of Zerah, son of Reuel, son of Esau."

In Al-Mas'udi's Muruj al-Dhahab :
• "He is Ayyub (Job), son of Moos, son of Zarah, son of Reuel, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

In Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya:
• "Ibn Ishaq said: He was a man from Rome, and he was Ayyub, son of Moos, son of Zarah, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

In Al-Tabari's Tafsir:
• "Job, son of Moos, son of Razeh, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

In Al-Qurtubi's Tafsir:
• Al-Qurtubi conveys the same genealogy and comments that Job is from the descendants of Esau, son of Isaac, and not from the Israelites (as the Israelites are the descendants of Jacob, not Esau).


As for the term Romans (al-Rūm):

Ibn Kathir attributed the Prophet Ayyub (Job) to the Romans, because Esau (عيصو/العيص) is the ancestor of the Semitic Romans.
View attachment 362390

However, it's important to distinguish between two types of Romans:

• Semitic Romans, descendants of Esau son of Isaac.
• Japhethite Romans, descended from Japheth son of Noah, including Italian Romans, Byzantines, etc.

Such name similarities are common and can lead to confusion, especially when both groups reside in the same territory.

A similar confusion occurred in Somalia:

Some mistakenly assume that there are two distinct clans named Warsangali — one affiliated with the Hawiye and the other with the Daarood.
This misconception arose because Warsangali is originally the son of Harti son of Koombe. Over time, a group from this lineage migrated to Mogadishu and settled among the Harti clan of Abgaal.
Due to the similarity in names, people began to incorrectly assume that both Harti groups shared the same ancestor, believing that Warsangali was a son of the Abgaal Harti — which is not the case.

Another example is the name Berber:

It refers both to the ancestors of the Somalis in the Horn of Africa, and to the Amazigh people of North Africa – though they are entirely different peoples.

Therefore, when some commentators say that Ayyub (Job) was from the Romans, they most likely mean that he descended from Esau, the forefather of the Semitic Romans.

Ancient historians (Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and Muslims ...) frequently attributed the origins of cities and nations to legendary figures or divine progenitors, a practice known as eponymous mythmaking.

This approach served to explain the etymology of place names but also gave these places a sense of noble or divine heritage.

 

[Maakhri2024]

Mooṣ ( موص ) ≠ ( عوص ) ע֖וּץ

Esau = Uz = ע֖וּץ = عيصو/العيص

There is no typographical error between them; each is an independent name used in a different context.

• Uz (عوص/عيصو) = The name of the land where Job (Ayyub) resided.
• Mooṣ (موص) = The name of Job’s father in the genealogy.

Frankly it is a typographical error .

from Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) to Mooṣ ( موص ) .

From an inhabitant of the land of Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) in Bible ,
to the son of Mooṣ ( موص ) in Sources of Muslim historians .

 

[Maakhri2024]

In the Hebrew Bible:
• The text does not mention any genealogy for the Prophet Job, only noting his residence in the "land of Uz."

Septuagint (3rd century BCE):
• "Job, the son of Zerah, son of Reuel, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

Vulgate:
• "Jobab, son of Zerah, son of Reuel, son of Esau."

In Al-Mas'udi's Muruj al-Dhahab :
• "He is Ayyub (Job), son of Moos, son of Zarah, son of Reuel, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

In Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya:
• "Ibn Ishaq said: He was a man from Rome, and he was Ayyub, son of Moos, son of Zarah, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

In Al-Tabari's Tafsir:
• "Job, son of Moos, son of Razeh, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

In Al-Qurtubi's Tafsir:
• Al-Qurtubi conveys the same genealogy and comments that Job is from the descendants of Esau, son of Isaac, and not from the Israelites (as the Israelites are the descendants of Jacob, not Esau).


As for the term Romans (al-Rūm):

Ibn Kathir attributed the Prophet Ayyub (Job) to the Romans, because Esau (عيصو/العيص) is the ancestor of the Semitic Romans.
View attachment 362390

However, it's important to distinguish between two types of Romans:

• Semitic Romans, descendants of Esau son of Isaac.
• Japhethite Romans, descended from Japheth son of Noah, including Italian Romans, Byzantines, etc.

Such name similarities are common and can lead to confusion, especially when both groups reside in the same territory.

Therefore, when some commentators say that Ayyub (Job) was from the Romans, they most likely mean that he descended from Esau, the forefather of the Semitic Romans.

As previously noted, the genealogical accounts presented in the works of Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and Al-Mas'udi are consistent in their depiction of lineage.

"He is Ayyub (Job), son of Mooṣ , son of Zarah, son of Reuel, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

"Ibn Ishaq said: He was a man from Rome, and he was Ayyub, son of Mooṣ , son of Zarah, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

However, a comparative analysis of these Islamic historiographical sources with the Septuagint and the Vulgate reveals a notable discrepancy: neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate includes a son named Mooṣ ( موص ) .

Septuagint (3rd century BCE):

"Ayyub (Job), the son of Zerah, son of Reuel, son of Esau, son of Isaac, son of Abraham."

Vulgate :

"Jobab, son of Zerah, son of Reuel, son of Esau."

In contrast, the Hebrew Bible explicitly references Ayyub (Job) as an inhabitant of the land of Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) .

Job 1:1 : In the land of Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) there lived a man whose name was Ayyub (Job) .

 

[Cali Maxamed]

Ancient historians (Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, and Muslims ...) frequently attributed the origins of cities and nations to legendary figures or divine progenitors, a practice known as eponymous mythmaking.

This approach served to explain the etymology of place names but also gave these places a sense of noble or divine heritage.

Frankly it is a typographical error .

from Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) to Mooṣ ( موص ) .

From an inhabitant of the land of Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) in Bible ,
to the son of Mooṣ ( موص ) in Sources of Muslim historians .


View attachment 362638

As previously noted, the genealogical accounts presented in the works of Al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, and Al-Mas'udi are consistent in their depiction of lineage.





However, a comparative analysis of these Islamic historiographical sources with the Septuagint and the Vulgate reveals a notable discrepancy: neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate includes a son named Mooṣ ( موص ) .

Septuagint (3rd century BCE):



Vulgate :



In contrast, the Hebrew Bible explicitly references Ayyub (Job) as an inhabitant of the land of Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) .

Job 1:1 : In the land of Cooṣ ( عوص ע֖וּץ ) there lived a man whose name was Ayyub (Job) .

View attachment 362640

I have already responded to what you mentioned. Arguing for the sake of argument is pointless. If you support the theory that Somalis have a Cushitic origin, that position involves numerous contradictions and methodological flaws. It would be more worthwhile to direct your effort toward a scientific critique and a systematic reassessment of that narrative. Such an approach would result in a much more valuable contribution than insisting that "موص" is merely a scribal error for "عوص" — a highly unlikely claim, given its consistent appearance across various manuscripts and editions of Muslim historians’ works.