chapter "the elephant"
-
i think i ve also read the same thing...at this very site...and recently....but i cant quite remember which article and who wrote it! -)
It seems they keep repeating it bro, well let?s see if they will keep repeating it after this comment
never mind! -)
I do mind because it is all about shifting attention from Mecca to another place to mislead others that sura 115 is not about Al Mashid Al Haram in Mecca
based on sijjil...
hum...dunno...somebody could say they were solomon's people...based on "tayr"
LOL bro, that was funny, thanks
so far, only phonetically...if u know what i mean! grin
I know bro what you mean, let?s see if the people of Al Fil are the People of Lut
The person who claims such non sense is basing his understanding on the word ?Sijjil? alone
He says because Allah told us that He destroyed Lut?s people with rocks of Sijjil and He also used the same method to destroy the people of the elephant, the people of the elephant has to be the people of Lut, sounds like a child matching game man, let?s look at the verse where Allah told us that He destroyed the people of Lut using rocks of Sijjil
When Our Decree issued, We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer,-
(82)
-> There is no doubt that the same method is used ? ?, ? and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay, spread, layer on layer,?, however the destruction was not only covering the people rather the cities they lived in as well, see the Arabic words ? ?, ?Jaalna Aliha Safilha?, i.e. ? We turned (the cities) upside down?, total destruction to the cities as they stand today
We read the same thing about Lut people and their city in another location
And We turned (the cities) upside down, and rained down on them brimstones hard as baked clay.
(74)
-> see, the same method was used to destroy the people but also the city was destroyed, same Arabic words used ? ?, ?Jaalna Aliha Safilha?, i.e. ? We turned (the cities) upside down?, total destruction to the cities as they stand today
Now in sura Al Fil we donlt read that any destruction happened to the city rather the people only
1 Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the possessors of the elephant?
2 Did He not make their treacherous plan go astray?
3 And send down (to prey) upon them birds in flocks,
4 Casting against them stones of baked clay,
5 So He rendered them like straw eaten up?
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)-> see ? ?, ?Fa Jalahum Kaasffin Maakool?, i.e. ? So He rendered them like straw eaten up?? , we never read that the vicinity where Ashab Al Fil were destroyed that the area was also destroyed, this indeed makes sense because according to the history Abraha Al Ashram wanted to destroy the Kabba in Mecca, he was destroyed along with his troops who were riding elephants and they area of the Haram stayed intact not destroyed
-> The above story must have merit if we look at verse 2 ? ?, see the word ?Kaidahum?, i.e. ? Did He not make their treacherous plan go astray?, i.e. Ashab Al Fil had a plan, the history tells us that their plan was to destroy Al Kabba
On the other hand the homos of Lut didnlt have any ?Kaid?, ? treacherous plan ?, unless the promoter of this non sense is convinced that the hoimos of Llut had a treacherous plan to convert the world into homos
Salam bro
-
Salaam Ahmed
Welcome back!?
does not translate into
We turned (the cities) upside down?
. There is a specific Arabic expression for that. Literally it is "We made its up/upper its low/lowest" . The interpretation you suggest makes "its up" as buildings. Why restrict it to this meaning?It could mean that we made its high-rank people (who probably were the offenders) in a low position (tortured, dead, humiliated). Turning a city upside down is enough to kill the people, why then send these clay-baked stones? And why the destruction after the people were killed?
Also, in another verse God says that the ruins of the city are there for those who pass by day and night to see. So the city was not "turned up-side-down".
Another point is that God always tells us why He tortured any nation. Why were "the people of the elephant" tortured? Did God tell us?
-
Salaam Ahmed
Welcome back!Salam Samia
Thank you
does not translate into . There is a specific Arabic expression for that. Literally it is "We made its up/upper its low/lowest" . The interpretation you suggest makes "its up" as buildings. Why restrict it to this meaning?
because the Dami Ha referes to the feminine City of Lut, also we the Arabs know and use this experession a lot, "I will make Aliha Safilha" means a threat to cause massive destruction and wow that is what we see till today regarding the city of Lut near the dead sea
It could mean that we made its high-rank people (who probably were the offenders) in a low position (tortured, dead, humiliated).
no it can't because of the damir Ha, sorry
Turning a city upside down is enough to kill the people,
no it is not enough, however turning the city upside down may mean earthquake and the stones may mean a volcano
why then send these clay-baked stones? And why the destruction after the people were killed?/.
you may ask this question to Allah
for me this is how Allah wanted and i know that Allah does what he wants without being questioning
Also, in another verse God says that the ruins of the city are there for those who pass by day and night to see. So the city was not "turned up-side-down".
LOL
Yep made Aaliha Safilha means a strong earthquaqe i.e. all the high buidlings became very low, flattened, destroyed, come on sister I really donlt want to argue something that is obvious
Another point is that God always tells us why He tortured any nation.
I donlt think that your statmemt above is true but I will need to confirm first
Why were "the people of the elephant" tortured? Did God tell us?
Indeed He told us, in 1152, "Ashab Al Fil had Kaid"
Salam
-
AhmedBahgat
So you're back!! Couldn't resist those heated arguments could you
-
ahmedbahgat wrote
It seems they keep repeating it bro, well lets see if they will keep repeating it after this commentgrin
I do mind because it is all about shifting attention from Mecca to another place to mislead others that sura 115 is not about Al Mashid Al Haram in Mecca
nooo...i meant never mind who the sayer was! -)
LOL bro, that was funny, thanks
-)
I know bro what you mean, lets see if the people of Al Fil are the People of Lut
The person who claims such non sense is basing his understanding on the word Sijjil alone
....
On the other hand the homos of Lut didnlt have any Kaid, treacherous plan , unless the promoter of this non sense is convinced that the hoimos of Llut had a treacherous plan to convert the world into homos
u have made some pretty strong points...and like i said...if somebody wanted to make a case out of each word...then cases could very well be made for people of abraham, perhaps pharaoh and his folks, and solomon!
however i dont see the need to respond to everything i come across..(atleast unless it is directed towards me)...cuz everybody has his/her right to opinion! -)
...but just cuz u have brought this up...i ll state it again to only show a similar word and claim they relate to the same events is not acceptable, atleast not to me! those who find it acceptable cool! -)
however, if same words mean same events, then perhaps different words mean different events!
so maybe the quran talks about some other lut here
5133 Linursila AAalayhim hijaratan min teenin
yeah...let's wait till somebody pops up and says "wait a sec...where do u find lot there?!!"
however, for me the words "ashabalfeel" are pivotal..as much as any other! -)
salam! -)
-
Salam Ahmed
because the Dami Ha referes to the feminine City of Lut
This is irrelevant. The "pronoun-damir" has nothing to do with the gender of the possessed. You say ibnatuha (her daughter) or ibnuha (her son) and the pronoun "ha" does not change.
So, you say they were killed by an earthquake while God says he poured baked clay stones unto them, and you do not want to argue?
also we the Arabs know and use this experession a lot, "I will make Aliha Safilha"
I know this expression, and it is borrowed from the quraan, like many other expressions. Still, it does not mean (up-side-down) in a literal way, as you interpret the verse. It is used in a figurative way, not literaly. If you want someone to turn the chairs , for example, up-side-down, would you tell them to make 3aaliiha saafilha?
Indeed He told us, in 1152, "Ashab Al Fil had Kaid"
Who says "kaid" is a sin? God Himself has kaid "innahum yukeeduuna kaida* wa ukeedu kaida"8615-16. Also see verses 1837; 6845; . It means to plan, to plot. Very neutral, depends on what one is planning.
-
Salam Ahmed
This is irrelevant. The "pronoun-damir" has nothing to do with the gender of the possessed. You say ibnatuha (her daughter) or ibnuha (her son) and the pronoun "ha" does not change.
I know this expression, and it is borrowed from the quraan, like many other expressions. Still, it does not mean (up-side-down) in a literal way, as you interpret the verse. It is used in a figurative way, not literaly. If you want someone to turn the chairs , for example, up-side-down, would you tell them to make 3aaliiha saafilha?
Who says "kaid" is a sin? God Himself has kaid "innahum yukeeduuna kaida* wa ukeedu kaida"8615-16. Also see verses 1837; 6845; . It means to plan, to plot. Very neutral, depends on what one is planning.
Salam Samia
please I don't want to argue this, however the last thing i will say regarding this subject is this
in Sura 115 Allah was only taling us about the people by constantly using the Damir Hum 4 times with no mention to thier city, in Lut's case it was always a Ha and the destruction of the city was mentioned
also calling Lut people Asahab Al Fil makes no sense, but calling the Athiopian Ashab SAl Fil makes all the sense
now you can continue promoting your non sense and I will continue promting my non sense but between us we agree to disagree
cheers
-
AhmedBahgat
So you're back!! Couldn't resist those heated arguments could you
Hello mate
not really the reason, it was a must do reply to honor another brother nice gesture
on the other hand i can get in far more heated debates on other places than here with total freedom and without fearing that using the word "stupid" will make me questionable by biased moderators, i always liked this place but I never like what they promote, but I can assure you that you won't see me active as before due to many other committments that i have
salam
-
grin
nooo...i meant never mind who the sayer was! -)
-)
u have made some pretty strong points...and like i said...if somebody wanted to make a case out of each word...then cases could very well be made for people of abraham, perhaps pharaoh and his folks, and solomon!
however i dont see the need to respond to everything i come across..(atleast unless it is directed towards me)...cuz everybody has his/her right to opinion! -)
...but just cuz u have brought this up...i ll state it again to only show a similar word and claim they relate to the same events is not acceptable, atleast not to me! those who find it acceptable cool! -)
however, if same words mean same events, then perhaps different words mean different events!
so maybe the quran talks about some other lut here
5133 Linursila AAalayhim hijaratan min teenin
yeah...let's wait till somebody pops up and says "wait a sec...where do u find lot there?!!"
however, for me the words "ashabalfeel" are pivotal..as much as any other! -)
salam! -)
Hello bro
I say then the hadith and history records are required for these sort of verses, because accoridng to the Qiran this is something that the muslims are disputing together and in this case we have to refer it to Allah and His messneger
I also don't understand what you mean by pivotal as a decription to the words "Ashab Al Fil", btw Ashab Al File two words, i get the imporession that you think it is one by putting it as one word in english? i may be wrong though
Cheers
-
ahmedbahgat wrote
Hello brohi bro! -)
I say then the hadith and history records are required for these sort of verses,
well.."arab history" is quite emphatic that the incident did take place...so if somebody insists on "historians" view....then yes....no doubt it would make a very strong case for the traditional explanation! -)
because accoridng to the Qiran this is something that the muslims are disputing together and in this case we have to refer it to Allah and His messneger
yes...but v have the same problem...v cant have the level of confidence in anybody's history as v can have in quran! -)
I also don't understand what you mean by pivotal as a decription to the words "Ashab Al Fil", btw Ashab Al File two words, i get the imporession that you think it is one by putting it as one word in english? i may be wrong though
i meant the words "ashaba alfeel" are very important to the understanding of the matter! i would definitely try to see what are the possible allusions the term "people of the elephant" can have, and who are likely to be called "people of the elephant"! -)
...which is why i said ethiopia is of interest here! -)
ethiopia was under the romans, who had converted to christianity, and had a huge influence in yemen! according to "history" they had even attempted to move northwards from yemen to attack mecca, which apparently was a failed attempt!
also, ethiopia, which lies in africa, is known for its huge number of elephants! there is every likelihood that they trained and used elephants for a variety of purposes, including in wars!
...that ethiopia would be renowned for this huge beast is hardly doubtable!
thus, i feel, there is a possibility that the ethiopians have been alluded to as "the people of the elephant"!
further, there is every possibility that they had some "kayda" to attack the kaaba in mecca, which in the pre-muhammad era was dominated by pagans, but god willed otherwise and waylaid them and their plans, and alluded to the incident in this chapter! -)