Road of the Patriarch
-
- The Perished Nations
In order to walk in Abraham?s footsteps, determine where his original homeland was, where he migrated to, and where he finally settled, we need to take a look at some of the ancient nations of the PRE-ISRAELITE era, that were mentioned in the Quran. Of special importance are Lot?s people, the tribe of Ad, and the tribe of Thamud. Once we establish that these ancient peoples were all in the same geographic region, and that they were similar in terms of culture and impact on that region, we can then grasp the meaning behind Abraham?s journey.
Let?s begin with the issue of Lot (P)
Rain of Rocks
We have previously seen that in his original journey from the land of his fathers - whose location we will eventually pinpoint - Abraham had taken his relative, Lot, along with him at first.
{And We rescued him and Lot to the land which We blessed for the worlds}...
And this ?blessed land? mentioned in the verse is none other than the lush, green and mountainous country of Asir (transliteration 3asir), which later became the hub of the trade routes stretching from Yemen all the way to Mesopotamia and the Levant. Eventually, Abraham and Lot parted ways. Abraham settled in a secluded vale somewhere in the Sarat mountains, dedicating his life and the life of his progeny to the service of Allah, while Lot migrated a short distance and settled in a town somewhere on the mountainous slopes, not far from his relative.
The Quran tells us that Lot?s town was eventually destroyed for its wickidness, by a rain of ?sijjeel" rocks (which means, literally cooked or fiery clay)
{So when Our command came, We turned it upside down, and We rained on it with rocks of cooked clay}...
So what is the story of these rocks, and how exactly did they ?rain? down on the village?
Since we are adopting the principle that the verses of the Quran expound and explain each other, let?s look where else in the Quran do we encounter the term ?sijjeel?. We will find it is mentioned also in the chapter which they call ?The Elephant?
{Have you not seen what your Rabb did to the people of the elephant? * Did He not cause their schemes to go astray? * And He sent upon them tayran ababeel * Striking them with rocks of cooked clay (sijjeel) * Until they became as the empty sheaths of hay}....
(Note we have left the phrase "tayran ababeel" untranslated for now)
According to Islamic mythology and folklore, the ?People of the Elephant? mentioned in those verses were the army of Abraha, who allegedly led a campaign from Ethiopia against the ?Kaaba of Mecca?, as a retaliation (revenge) for an un-named Arab man who had earlier desecrated a holy site (a church) in Yemen, by urinating and defecating in it. (This is the story that Ibn Ishaq reported, and which the vast majority of Muslim scholars have adopted as the truth). Another version of the myth states that Abraha built a magnificent Kaaba in Yemen and wanted to make it the center for pilgrims. When he failed to compete with the "original" Kaaba of the Hijaz, he decided to launch an attack against Mecca, thus incurring the wrath of Allah, who sent flocks of birds that pelted his army with rocks. They believe this happened on the year of the prophet Muhammad?s (P) birth.
It seems that the Free-Minds translation has also endorsed this "birds" story, without even giving a second thought as to how living birds can carry fiery projectiles in their beaks. (Even though the official FM stance is that they disagree with the Abraha story per se).
Although this fairytale has been disproved by archeological findings, which confirmed that Abraha?s campaign was actually against south Arabia and that he never set foot outside Yemen, we will not go into the details here. We will simply state what we have been suspecting ever since we began this journey to find the original location of Muhammad (P) That the northern (Hijazi) Arabs, somewhere along the line, hijacked the history, legends, and culture of the southern Arabs, and claimed it as their own. This truth will eventually shine as bright as the sun by the time we finish this thread.
So we will limit our disscussion to the NATURE of this event, without going into the details of who was the target of it, and attempt to understand it from a logical and scientific point of view - to separate the myth from the reality - taking into consideration the geography and topographical features of the Arabian penninsula.
The key to understanding the ?Chapter of the Elephant? lies in the phrase ?tayran ababeel? which appears in Surah 105 we showed above.
So let?s be brief and straight to the point
The term ?tayran? in the Quranic language does not necessarily indicate a certain kind of creature (birds which have feathers and can fly and land of their own free will), but can also be used in the context of describing a certain kind of movement or motion. This can either be figuritive meanining something that ?flies? (as in moves very fast), or it can be literal, meaning something that actually flies or floats in the air, not of its own free will or ability, but because it was forced/ hurled/ or thrown in the air. So it is basically an involuntary movement. What this means is that anything can be described as ?tayran? if it is flying through the air as a result of being thrown with force. It doesn?t have to be a bird.
To understand this analogy, let?s look at the following
{And We guided/led Abraham to the location of the Sanctuary "Do not set up anyone with Me, and purify My Sanctuary for those who visit, and those who are standing, and the kneeling, the prostrating * And call out to the people with the Hajj, they will come to you rijalan and on every transport, they will come from every deep enclosure}?
Please note the word ?rijalan? which appears in the above verse. Although we usually understand the word as being the plural of ?rajul? , which means ?man? (adult human male), the context does NOT necessarily mean that. It is simply describing the WAY or MEANS by which the people came to the Sanctuary (Bayt) to witness benefits for themselves. The word ?rijalan? is actually derived from ?rjl?, which means the lower LEG. So the context is clear Some people will come to the Bayt riding on mounts, while others will come ?rijalan?, meaning walking on their legs. So it is describing a way of moving to the place, not a particular person or visitor. This means that the ?rijalan? being mentioned can actually be women!
By the exact same logic, the word ?tayran? which appears in the verses of the chapter of ?The Elephant? is describing a form of motion, NOT a particular creature (or bird). It is talking about some form of floating or flying thing that pelted them with rocks of cooked, firey clay.
What about the word ?ababeel? (ل. ?
Let?s see what Ibn Manzhour says in ?Lisan ?ul-Arab?
.... ... " ".
He is basically telling us that the word is used to describe clusters or groups of something, of which no singular (unit) item can be picked out. So technically, they were bombarded with projectiles that came upon them cluster after cluster, group after group.
Can this event be anything other than a volcanic eruption, which involved wave after wave (ababeel) of volcanic clouds - showering them with fiery rocks? Is the term ?ababeel? not accurate in its description of the volcanic projectiles as CLUSTERS (meaning that no single or unit can be picked out?). Is the word ?tayran? anything other than bursts of ash clouds whcih floated in the sky and carried rocks of lava (cooked clay) with which it pelted the People of the Elephant?
Is this not the same kind of rock that destroyed Lot?s town?
{He (Abraham) said What is your undertaking, O messengers? * They said We have been sent to a criminal people * To send down upon them stones of clay.}?
Who are the criminals mentioned in the above, if not Lot?s people? And why is it that the messengers (Mala?ika of nature control) are saying that they are going THEMSELVES to deal with those criminals?. Why are no birds mentioned here?
It appears that the Muslim brain declared its resignation centuries ago, and has gone to sleep in a cave. It simply refuses to work. Logic and reason are apparently not the stuff which Hadithi Islam is based upon.
The truth is that the sijjeel rock that took the People of the Elephant is the SAME rock that destroyed Lot?s town. The two peoples were destroyed by a volcanic eruption, which literally rained down molten (cooked) clay on them from the sky. These projectiles burst from the core of the earth at temperatures of 1500?C. If they land on a human being, they will suck up the moisture from the body in seconds, leaving it resembling the dried husk of a rotten fruit, or the wrinkled sheath of wheat blades that have been emptied or eaten. This is EXACTLY how the Quran describes it in Surah 105. This is what happens when all the water, which constitutes 80% of the human body, is evaporated. It will make the victims look like they were emptied (eaten) from the inside.
As for the rampant and absurd belief that Muslims have, which mentions actual birds pelting the stones, let?s see what is written in the books of ?tafseer and tradition?, which they claim are necessary to ?explain? the Quran
1- ?Tafseer? of Al-Qurtubi (as he heard it reported by Said bin Jubair)
- ( ر " ... ".
Translation ?They were birds the likes of which were never seen before, nor ever after?.they were green, and had yellow beaks?
2- Narrated by Jouwayber, who heard it from Al-Dahhak, who heard it from Ibn Abbas, who heard it from the Prophet, who said
- " (ص "
Translation "I heard the Messenger of Allah (P) say They were birds not from the earth, nor from the sky, but made their homes and hatched somewhere in between".
(Please note the presence of a figure called ?Al-Dahhak? in the chain of this ?holy? narration. This name appears very often in the books of Hadith, and always involves something outrageous or illogical. It?s actually a nickname meaning ?the laugher? or ?he who laughs?. That?s right. They have laughed at us for centuries and made a mockery of Allah?s book, while we have been sleeping in our cave).
And you know very well of whom I speak...
3- Also from Ibn Abbas
- " ".
Translation "They had the beaks of birds and the shoulders of dogs!"
(Applause and drums, please)
4- Narrated by 3akrama
- " . ".
Translation "They were green birds which came out of the sea, and had the heads of wolves. They were never seen before nor after then".
5- Narrated by Aisha, wife of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with her)
- " ".
Translation "They resembled bats, and were black and red in color".
May Allah be pleased with her, for she has truly lifted the confusion surrounding this matter!
I think that's enough examples for now....
My questions to those few remaining Muslims on this Earth who refuse to put their brains to sleep, and refuse to succumb to the tyranny of the Salafi interpretations
Must we be restrained with the chains of these narrations and sayings even now, in the 21st Century? Are these narrations and ?tafseers? the words of Allah? Don?t we have the right to refuse their opinions and read Allah?s book through our own eyes, with the aid of scientific knowledge? Is it possible that Muhammad (P) did NOT know that the word ?tayran? can also be the description of the movement of something and not necessarily to mean birds; while the authors of Arabic lexicons knew better than he did? Is it possible that all these contradicting descriptions of these mysterious ?birds? which we read in the above hadiths actually came from the Prophet? Or is it they are contradictory becasue they are all MANMADE traditions and writings that were penned by some imbeciles of the Ummayad and Abbasid ages, many centuries after Muhamad (P)?
{Do they not reflect on the Qur'an? If it was from any other than Allah they would have found in it many discrepencies}...
I defy any Sunnah-follower to come here and answer these questions.
The truth of the matter is that even the Torah itself clearly describes what happened to the people of Lot as follows
Then the LORD rained down fire and sulfur (brimstone) on Sodom and Gomorrah?from the LORD out of the heavens (Genesis ? 1924)
Fire and sulphur...
This is clearly a volcanic eruption, and it means that the towns were located in places where there were volcanic MOUNTAINS, or else the Torah and the Quran would not have described it as a ?rain of rocks?. Furthermore, the volcanic openings must be high, in order for it to appear as a rain.
Let?s look at the following volcanic map of Arabia
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Tectonics2.jpg
Explanation
-
The two red arrows point at the tectonic fault line which lies underneath the Red Sea bed, between Africa and Arabia.
-
The red dots scattered everywhere are epicenters of earthquakes that occurred at some point in recent history.
-
The black square marks the location of Makkah.
-
The triangles are obviously the volcanoes. Look closely at the map, and you will see that the biggest cluster of volcanoes happens to be in the green circle, which is the area of Yemen-Ethiopia. On the other hand, the volcanoes of north Arabia (the brown circle) are fewer, and not as tightly clustered together.
-
Look at the Jordan-Palestine area, directly to the north of the brown circle. Do you see any volcanoes there? The blue circle marks the location of the Dead Sea, where the conjecture-makers and forgers of history claim the town of Lot was located. Do you see any volcanoes around that place? The only volcanoes in the entire Levant region are in the Golan Highland in the south of Syria (the orange circle), and nowhere near the Dead Sea area.
I don?t want to end up spamming this thread with photos, so here is a little experiment you can try
In the Yahoo or Google search bar, type in ?volcanoes in Palestine? or ?volcanoes in Jordan?, and see for yourselves how many results you can get. I defy you to find me a single volcanic mountain in the Dead Sea area. (The area does in fact lie along the fault line, and there have been earthquakes centered there in the past, but there are no volcanoes or lava fields anywhere in the area).
In contrast, type in ?volcanoes in Arabia?, and see what you get.
Now going back to the Quran, we find some very strong clues that the town of Lot was not far from where Muhammad (P) was preaching, and that Muhammad?s (P) people passed by it day and night in their comings and goings
{And Lot was one of the messengers * When We saved him and all his family * Except an old woman who perished * Then, We destroyed the rest. * And you pass by their ruins in the morning; * And in the night. Do you not comprehend?}?
The above verse caused a huge problem to the hadith-followers and classical ?interpreters? of the Quran, because they approached it while bearing the pre-conceived belief that Palestine was the land of the prophets. But on the other hand, they believe that the verse was addressed to the Meccans. So how did they solve this discrepancy?
They solved it by putting words into Allah?s mouth and twisting the verse, as usual, to make it fit with their pre-conceived ideas. If you go now and open any book of ?tafseer?, you will note that they insert, in brackets, words that are NOT FOUND in the original text of the Quran. They render the verse as such
{And you pass by their ruins (on your trade journeys from Mecca to Palestine) in the morning; * And in the night. Do you not comprehend?}
The underlined phrase is a blatant corruption of the meaning, and this for the following reasons
1- Nowhere is there any indication that the verses are addressing only the traders or merchants from among Muhammad?s people.
2- The original text says that they pass by it day and night. This expression clearly means that the ruins of Lot?s town cannot be more than 15 or 20 KM from where Muhammad (P) was located.
3- It contradicts with another verse, elsewhere, which states
{So when Our command came, We turned it upside down, and We rained on it fiery clay projectiles * Marked from your Rabb, and it is not far from the wicked.}?
This means that the disbelievers who persecuted Muhammad (P) and eventually forced him and his followers out of their homes could clearly see the remains of Lot?s town, which was not far from them.
Does this sound to you like it?s buried under the Dead Sea?
Even the scientific-minded Christian skeptics have long dismissed the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as a myth. Some, however, are more reluctant to dismiss it, but seriously doubt the location. Check out this link
http//rambambashi.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/sodom-and-gomorrah-they-will-never-find-it/
Next thing you know, a team of submarines and divers are going to look under the Dead Sea for it! (Oh yeah, there IS a volcano in Palestine, actually...but it's UNDER the Dead Sea).
To these people I say Happy hunting!
So, until now, the two candidates for the location of Lot?s town are the brown circle (north Arabia) and the green circle (south Arabia). But by the end of this thread we will see that only one can be the true location.
The Carvers of the Mountains
One of Hitler?s famous officers once advised the F?hrer and said to him the following ?Lie, and lie, and lie, and keep on lying?eventually, the people will believe you?.
In order for a lie to spread and become part of a people?s belief system, it must indeed have two ingredients
First it must be repeated over and over again.
Second it must be supported by the state (political power).Think of how the rampant Christianity of today was created It was a story invented by Paul, for political reasons, and preached repeatedly in Jerusalem, decades after Jesus? death. The story did in fact meet a lot of resistance from Jesus? followers at first, until the Roman Empire itself, with all its financial and political power, decided to back it up. It was then that Constantine himself "embraced" Paul?s creed, and embellished the story with Pagan beliefs that were rampant in the region at the time?and so the LIE that is Christianity spread like a wildfire.
The Arabs of Hijaz have been LYING to the world for many centuries and claiming that the so-called Mada?in Saleh, in the north of Arabia are the ruins of the people of Thamud whom are mentioned in the Quran, and to whom Prophet Saleh was sent.
They recite the following verses out of context (among others)
{And remember that He made you successors after 'Aad, and He established you in the land so that you make palaces on its plains, and you carve homes in the mountains. So remember the grace of Allah, and do not roam the land as corrupters}?
and...
{And Thamud, who carved the rocks in the valley}?
Then, they market to the world the claim that these carved rock chambers shown in the photos below were the dwellings of Thamud
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Saleh1.jpg
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Saleh3.jpg
To support their claims, they throw in your faces hadiths attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (P), in which he prohibited people from settling near these structures, because they were the setting of a great chastisement of Thamud, in the bygone days.
Until archeology proved them wrong?
Let?s read a little about this scandal
Here is a link to a website in Arabic, where Saudi archeologists, with the help of European teams on the ground, have completely denied any evidence that these structures have anything to do with the Thamud of the Quran whatsoever. If you can read Arabic, go ahead and verify for yourself. If you can?t, I will translate some of the main points that have been brought to our attention by a team of scientists who apparently were not afraid to come out with the truth, whatever the cost (the article is taken from Al-Sharq al Awsat Newspaper, and copy-pasted onto a religious forum)
http//www.aljsad.net/t85656.html
(I urge you to read it if you can, before it is removed)
Title The Ruins of Al-Hijr are Nabatean
Archeologists ?The structures of Al-Hijr have no relation whatsoever with the Prophet Saleh?
Report made by Halima Mizhfar
A team of archeologists and specialists has confirmed to the newspaper that they have found absolutely no proof whatsoever of those people to whom the Prophet Saleh (P) was sent, and that the sites commonly known as Mada?en Saleh, in the north of Arabia, are in way related to the tribe of Thamud.
The following are the main eye-opening points that the team of scientists has mentioned
1- The structures are actually Nabatean tomb chambers (crypts), NOT dwellings or homes.
2- Zero Thamudic inscriptions were found at the site. (Remember that Thamudic is a South Arabian alphabet that originated in Yemen, the oldest inscriptions of which date back to around the 10th Century BC). The inscriptions found at the Hijr site in North Saudi Arabia are Nabatean (Aramaic), NOT Thamudic.
3- Most importantly, that they were carved no earlier than 100 BC!!!
How can these structures, which go back to the first century BC, have anything to do with a people as ancient as Thamud? The Quran tells us that Thamud were among the confederates (Ahzab) of very ancient nations. They were descendants of Ad who, in turn, were descendants of Noah.
What this means is that the era of Thamud must have been in or around the same era as Abraham (no earlier than 1500 BC).
Do you see the discrepancy now? This scandalous discovery has put the Hadithers in a very precarious situation. Prominent Saudi Archeologist Faraj?ullah Ahmad Yousef points to a fatwa that was issued by the Fiqh Council of Saudi Arabia in the year 1392 (That is by the Hijra calendar), which prohibited visitors to the site from tarrying too long or eating and drinking near it, based on their interpretation of a Hadith which claims that it was the site of Prophet Saleh?s people!
Assistant manager to the Ministry of Archeology, Mutlaq Suleiman al-Mutlaq, has also confirmed the findings, and stated that the examination of the structures (of which there are some 132) and the chemical analysis of the bones buried therein, has proven that they were made around 100 BC (give or take a few years), and that it coinsides with the era of the Nabatean kingdom.
Do you know what this means, brothers and sisters?
It means that the same people who carved these?
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Petra.jpg
Petra, Jordan
Also made these...
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Saleh2.jpg
Mada'in Saleh, Northern Hijaz, Saudi-Arabia
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the ?Sharq al-Awsat Newspaper? team visited the site on May 14, 2006, and wrote a report about the region and about the religious controvercy surrounding it. The report also quoted many western archeologists who had visited the region, notably British Professor John Healy of Manchester University, who confirmed that the so-called ?Mada?in Saleh? are in fact Nabatean, and completely falsified Muslim beliefs that they have anything to do with the Prophet Saleh, or the people of Thamud.
Furthermore, the Quran is clear in saying that Thamud carved their HOMES from rock. It does not say anything about crypts.
Here is a photo from the interior of their alleged ?Mada?en Saleh?
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Saleh4.jpg
Do these look like homes to you? Do we believe SCIENCE, or do we believe HEARSAY?
You want to know who Thamud were? Look at the following map please, and tell me why there is a city called Thamud in Eastern Yemen (The green star marks the location of the city of Najran).
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/yemenmap2.gif
Here is a photo of this city, which was established in remembrance of the ancient tribe that lived in that region, in the northernmost reaches of the Hadramaut valley, just south of the Rub-al-Khali desert.
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/qnyzxszfjbe4.jpg
City of Thamud, Yemen
Now, according to Wikipedia (the LAST place you want to look in to obtain scientific and non-biased information), the Thamud were originally in Yemen, but then migrated north to the Hijaz, and built Madae?n Saleh!!! (applause and drums please!). This shows you how reliable a source they are. Not only is this a lie, as we have shown, but it also defies the Quran itself, which states that Thamud were OBLITERATED completely. They did not migrate to anywhere, and they sure as Hell didn?t build crypts in the Northern Hijaz area.
{And from Thamud He left none}?
Plain and simple.
The Quran is correct, as confirmed by archeology.
Wikipedia and Bukhary are both wrong.Conclusion Thamud were an ancient Yemeni people, who lived around 1500 BC. They were among the perished nations of south Arabia, that were destroyed just like their predecessors Noah and Ad, and just as Farou?n and his goons were destroyed later on. All of these nations were in the same region.
Please read the following, and contemplate
{Has the narrative of the soldiers come to you? * Far?oun and Thamud?}?
Why would the Malaik?a of revelation point this out to Muhammad (P)? What relation did Farou?n have with Thamud, and why were they both mentioned TOGETHER as examples?
Still not convinced?
Here is the famous verse from Surah 89, this time quoted in context
{Did you not see what your Rabb did to Aad? * Iram of the pillars? * The likes of which were not made in the land? * And Thamud, who carved the rocks in the valley * And Far?oun of the Pegs * They all transgressed in the land * And caused much corruption therein * So your Lord poured upon them a measure of retribution.}?
Again the examples are given to Muhammad (P) of the fate of the previous nations. ?Did you not see, Oh Muhammad, what Allah did to them? To Ad, Thamud, and Far'oun? Those who were corruptors in the land??.
Which land was that?
Egypt or Yemen?
Incidentally, since we mentioned the Thamudic script, here is some info on ZABUR (the south Arabian Alphabet)
http//www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/South_Arabian_alphabet
Look it up anywhere you want ?ZABUR script?. Does the word sound familiar? (Think What did Allah give prophet David?. What script did the ancient Yemenis write their poetic ballads - the PSALMS - in?)
This is another proof of where ancient Israel was located.
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Thamudic.jpg
Thamudic Inscription - Sana?a Museum
And with each further post, we move closer and closer to uncovering the story of Abraham's journey and, ultimately, the answer to the age-old puzzle of who Muhammad (P) was, and where he lived.
One more post remains?
To be continued?
-
Peace Pazuzu,
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Thamudic.jpg
Thamudic Inscription - Sana?a Museum
To be continued?
Great research but I have a question If the Quran was revealed in south Arabia then you would expect it to be written in the Thamudic script. So why was it written in the northern Nabataean script?
Peace,
Hadi
-
Peace,
The key to understanding the ?Chapter of the Elephant? lies in the phrase ?tayran ababeel? which
1051 did not you see how dealt your Lord with companions the elephant
1052 did not He make their plan in astray
1053 and He sent on them birds flocks
1054 striking them with stones from baked clay
1055 so He made them like straw chewed upIf the Quran was revealed in south Arabia then you would expect it to be written in the Thamudic script. So why was it written in the northern Nabataean script?
Yes and he should tell us about "the inscription of Abraha" -- who was he and Yemeni history at the time?
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/e_pre-islamic/fig04_sabaean.htm
http//www.mnh.si.edu/epigraphy/figs-stones/large/color_lg_jpeg/fig04_c_lg.jpg
(i)
Transliteration
b kh ya l / r h m n n / w m s ya h ha /
m l k n / a b r ha / z ya b m n / m l k / s b a / w z r ya d n / w h dh r m d t
Transcription
B'khail / ar-rahman / wmaseeha /
malikan / Abraha / Zaybm / malik /
sab'a / w zarydan / w hadarmaut
Translation
With help The Almighty and messiah, king Abraha Zeebman (king's title), the king of Saba'a, Zuridan and Hadrmaut.(ii)
w ya m n t / w r a a'in r b ha m r / ta w d m /
w t ha m t / s ta r w / z n / s ta r n / k gh z ya w
w yement / wa r'a rab hamw / Twadam / w thamat / satro / zn / satran / K'ghazow
and Yemen and the tribes (on)
the mountains and the coast wrote these lines on his battle -
Noon wrote "Yes and he should tell us about "the inscription of Abraha" -- who was he and Yemeni history at the time?
I'll tell you who he was
Abraha was most probably an Ethiopian (Aksumite) VICEROY of Yemen. He later proclaimed himself to be King of Sheba, Hadhramauwt, and Mai'n. The elephants that he reportedly used (if that's even true) to terrorize the tribes of that region could not possibly have made their way to Mecca. Elephants are short-range animals that require enormous quantities of food, as well as shade and water. They could not possibly have made the trip from Sheba and Hadhramut to the Hijaz area. The period in which he ruled was marked by Judeo-Christian wars in South Arabia, and also the struggle between Rome and Persia as they both vied for control of the Red Sea coast (This is in addition to the religious bickering among the two great powers). This is documented. I am not making it up.
Please see the following link http//www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Abraha
As for your rendering of the verses of Surah 105, I am sorry, but I don't agree with you. I don't believe in the myth of birds throwing stones at armies of men riding elephants.
Furthermore, I have checked the meaning of the Arabic phrase in several Arabic sources, and they all point to leaves or outer sheaths of a plant whose fruit has been eaten (emptied) from the inside, and are easily blown by the wind.
Hadi wrote Great research but I have a question If the Quran was revealed in south Arabia then you would expect it to be written in the Thamudic script. So why was it written in the northern Nabataean script?
It's because you are confusing the "arabi" dialect with the "arabi" alphabet. Even the most stubborn of classical linguists, will tell you that Arabic is a south Semitic "language". And even the staunchest, proudest and most stubborn Saudi resident of the Hijaz cannot deny that Yemen (meaning South Arabia in general - not necessarilly the geo-political entity of today's Yemen) is the origin of all the Arabs. The alphabet used as the vessel for that language is a different matter entirely.
I could write for example, the following "zhahabtu ila'l bayti". An Englishman could certainly read the sentence, but he wouldn?t understand what it says. It's actually "arabic" using Latin letters (It says I went home). Arabic, as a dialect, was not created by the Nabateans. It is far older than anything the Nabateans contrived in their entire history. Arabic was ALL OVER the peninsula, from north to south, and existed side by side with the other dialects, which the Quran called "a3jami" (meaning lacking - missing something - struggling to convey - imperfect).
If you compare the "arabic" dialect with Aramaic, Syriac, the so-called "Hebrew", Phoenician, etc... you will come to the realization that "arabic" has a greater number of phonemes than ANY other Semitic dialect. It also has a larger alphabet, and a more complex articulation. It is more "complete" and articulate (eloquent) that the others. The other dialects, by contrast, mixed letters together, and ultimately ended up with fewer phonemes. This is what caused some linguists of the late 19th to mid- 20th century to proclaim that "arabic" must be the prototype Semitic language, simply because, in the world of phonetics and grammar, a "whole" cannot possibly evolve from a "part". It's the other way around. This is a very serious issue, which requires an entire thread of its own. All these other languages are in fact different dialects which diverged from "arabi" (which means eloquent).
So your question as to why the Quran was not written in Thamudic is because at the time of Muhammad (P), the Arabic alphabet that we know today (the letters - - ج had already begun spreading all over Arabia, and was the rapidly growing new vehicle of expression for the "arabic" dialect. If the Quran was revealed in 1500 BC, you can bet your money that it would have used Thamudic or even Sheban alphabet to express itself.
My belief - and you don't have to share it with me - is that the orignal "arabi" (the proto-Semitic dialect) first appeared in the Asir region, which is actually part of southern Saudi Arabia today (not the far far south that is geo- political Yemen). This was also the region where Muhammad (P) began preaching, and where I believe the Quran was revealed. When humanity spread all over Arabia, from that central point, several dialects eventually broke from the main, and appeared all over the peninsula. Later on, with the Semitic migrations northwards, towards the Levant and Mesopotamia, they took their dialects with them, and developed new alphabets as vehicles to express them. The concepts of "language" and "alphabet" are not the same.
Peace and best regards.
-
The small "birds" will combust immediately upon approaching the burning stones (even before grabbing on it beak or claws). Furthermore, they need to carry big stones to make it effective over the big elephants, means the "birds" must big enough. What kind of bird is that? Does it like a flying dragon in Narnia..
-
Thank you Pazuzu bravo bravo bravo sun
Pazuzu wrote
This is a very serious issue, which requires an entire thread of its own. All these other languages are in fact different dialects which diverged from "arabi" (which means eloquent
I wish you could dedicate a thread of its own about the Arab language, because I agree with you that it might be the very first and most primordial language of humanity.
As we once discussed in the past, "Jews" claiming that "God looked in to the Torah and created the world with Hebrew Alphabet (Alef Bet)", might simply be another hoax? -\ confused brickwall
I was always wondering why would Allah choose Arabic to communicate the Qur'an in it, as it was meant to be for all humanity for all times and even to for the worlds (including the Jinns), and you once hinted the answer to me pointing to Arabic to be the seed of all human languages. group
May Allah reward you for all your noble efforts!
Peace
-
I do not know about all the languages, I am not knowledgeable in linguistics and filological studies or knowledge of so many languages of very diverse sructure as there are over the earth, but concerning the semitic languages, as far as I can reason, I think Arabic would quelify indeed as the matrix from which the others sprung. Unless somebody digs up a better qualified one.
Salaam
-
Abraha was most probably an Ethiopian (Aksumite) VICEROY of Yemen. He later proclaimed himself to be King of Sheba, Hadhramauwt, and Mai'n.
Please see the following link http//www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/AbrahaWho succeeded him and what time-frame?
As for your rendering of the verses of Surah 105, I am sorry, but I don't agree with you. I don't believe in the myth of birds throwing stones at armies of men riding elephants.
Who said anything about myths?
1051 did not you see how dealt your Lord with companions the elephant
1053 and He sent on them birds flocks
bird
birds -- you want to discuss exactly the meaning with trailing alif?
http//www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm
= Tay-Ya-Ra = flew, hasten to it, outstripped, become foremost, fled, love, become attached, famous, conceive, scatter/disperse, fortune.
I do not know about all the languages, I am not knowledgeable in linguistics and filological studies or knowledge of so many languages of very diverse sructure as there are over the earth, but concerning the semitic languages, as far as I can reason, I think Arabic would quelify indeed as the matrix from which the others sprung. Unless somebody digs up a better qualified one.
Salaam
Peace huruf,
http//oi42.tinypic.com/1z64owp.jpg
This topic has a dozen sub topics and is all over the place like the rest of Pazuzu's threads. Unless people learn to focus, resolve one issue at-a-time, it's pointless to plaster the boards with numerous speculations and hearsay which all it does is create confusion and clutter. Then we have all the cheerleaders who contribute nothing to the discussion except spam/noise their every other post.
-
Peace huruf,
http//oi42.tinypic.com/1z64owp.jpg
This topic has a dozen sub topics and is all over the place like the rest of Pazuzu's threads. Unless people learn to focus, resolve one issue at-a-time, it's pointless to plaster the boards with numerous speculations and hearsay which all it does is create confusion and clutter. Then we have all the cheerleaders who contribute nothing to the discussion except spam/noise their every other post.
Agree with you Noon.. even 'human linguistic' alone is a complex subject to discuss.
And most definitely Pazuzu hypothesis is wrong.
There's no such thing as 'fitri language' and 'arabic is not the origin of all languages'.But again, I don't see much use on debating this issue.. as I see Pazuzu's main intention and objective is more towards "Yemen/Southern Arabia Hegemonism"..
Which doesn't have anything to do with being a "Good" or "Bad"..
Anybody has the right to believe in whatever they want... as truth stands out clear from error..Salam / Peace
-
Seems that nobody has said anything abour protosemitic for the momento, I have been seeing around a little and what seems to be certain concerning the proto semitic lady is that it is a hypothesis -not to harp on the thing, but it being a fact- just as much a hypothesis as the one put forward by Pazuzu and others.
I mean, to put a diagram with the hypothetical chronological appearance of languages given names and sorted out hypothetically is a working insturment is not a proof of anything. Just as good to suppose that as to suppose that in fact if there is a protosemitic, that protosemitic might have been in fact the a earliest version of Arabic.
Salaam
-
I mean, to put a diagram with the hypothetical chronological appearance of languages given names and sorted out hypothetically is a working insturment is not a proof of anything. Just as good to suppose that as to suppose that in fact if there is a protosemitic, that protosemitic might have been in fact the a earliest version of Arabic.
Your statement of "Proto semitic is an earliest version of Arabic" is TRUE.
As TRUE as "Proto semitic is an earliest version of Hebrew, Aramaic, Phoenician, Amharic, Assyrian and Babylonian language".
And "Pre Proto Semitic" is an earliest version of "Proto Semitic".Like I said; Human migration pattern and biological + cultural evolution is a complex issue..
Yet the evolution pattern should go from Simpler -> More Complex..
All semitic languages can be categorized as "Complex" languages, there are genders, declension, cases etc..
As thus it's not an 'early language'.There are far more simpler languages in the world today which are genderless and with far more simpler cases and no declension. (Such as polynesians) Those simpler languages is a stronger candidate than 'any semitic language' for 'earlier languages' the language that all of our early ancestor spoke...
But again I think "tracing the root of all languages" is not the main objective of Pazuzu or anybody else in this matter.
The objective is more towards to show "Yemen / Southern Arabia hegemony above all cultures/languages"..Salam / Peace