No Elephants in the Quran
-
Salams to all.
Here, I will present an alternate understanding of the Arabic term (translit "feel", which appears in the opening passage of Surah 105, and is traditionally translated as "elephant".
The thing that struck me was the word that comes directly before it .
In the FM translation, it is rendered as "people of".
And yet, when we look elsewhere, we find that the same word is given the meaning "dwellers of".
So I've decided to gather many passages of the Quran which feature this word - - and check the FM translation and the context of its usage.
Peace Pazuzu,
Is not similar to the sahaba or companions of the prophet Muhammad and not dwellers?
God bless
peace
-
Based on
http//en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D9%81%D9%8A%D9%84The arabic "Fil" and hebrew "Pil" is a semitic loanword from Persian "Pil" or Akkadian/Sumerian "Piru".
In all of the above languages, the word means "Elephant".Elephant is not a native of middle east, whether it's in Arabic peninsula, Kanaan, highland of Persia or valley of Eufrat and Tigris, there's no elephant can be found within all those places. The nearest places where one can found elephant is either in India or savannah region of Central Africa.
Nonetheless, it seems the wondrous animal has really amazed the middle easterners.. as such we can find the ornament of elephant appears in the remains of Nabatean's Great Temple in Petra. (today's Jordan)
http//nabataea.net/elephants.htmlhttp//nabataea.net/Photos/Elephant-Column-Recon.jpeg
https//c2.staticflickr.com/6/5014/5454162752_27167ac8d5_z.jpgBased on the size of the ear, the Nabateans sculptured the "Indian/Asian elephant" inside their great temple.
Why did they put elephant, specifically Indian/Asian elephant inside their great temple?
Given the animal is so rare to be found around Petra or Middle East..
Why not camel? or sheep? which is more common?
Did they worshiped Elephant??There's a possibility that the "People/Friends/Associate of the Elephant" is a reference to the Natabeans..
-
Mis-interpreting what is clear is the biggest crime. Just because you cant appreciate the dynamics of the Arabic language does not mean the event never took place. Ya Muhammad!
-
Just because you can't appreciate the dynamics of the Arabic language does not mean the event never took place.
Which Arabic language are you talking about? Is it the language of Sibawayh and his Persian cohorts who invented the rules of grammar for you?
Furthermore, no one is saying the event never took place. The question is WHICH event is the Quran talking about?
If you are referring to the fairytale regarding the Ethiopians marching an army of elephants to the Hijaz to topple the Kaabah there, and then being punished by birds throwing rocks at them, then I am sorry to say that this fairytale never happened. The Ethiopians, including their general, Abraha, left dozens of inscriptions regarding their conquests at Ma'rib (Yemen), and how they attempted to repair its ruined dam. There is no mention anywhere of Makkah, its Kaabah, or magical birds throwing stones. Futhermore, the Ethiopians CONQUERED Yemen, and Abraha died in his bed, in Sana'a, after a short illness. He did not die on an imaginary battle field in the middle of nowhere.
Archeology trumps your Hadiths any day.
The fairytale of Abraha and his army was projected onto the Quranic passages by interpreters who lived many centuries after Muhammad, had no idea what the Quran was talking about, and mixed history with myths.
The event recounted in Surah 105 concerns a much older event, and has nothing to do with the Ethiopians whatsoever.
Mis-interpreting what is clear is the biggest crime.
So is resorting to the "dynamics" (meaning acrobatics) of the Hadiths to explain the Quran.
Here's an example
Regarding the "birds" mentioned in Surah 105
1- Tafseer al Qurtubi
"They were birds the likes of which were never seen before, nor ever after...They were green, and had yellow beaks"
2- Tafseer Ibn Abbas
"I heard the Messenger of Allah say They were birds not of the Earth, nor from the sky, but hatched in their homes in between...They had beaks like ordinary birds, and the shoulders of dogs"
3- Tafseer of 'Akramah
"They were green birds that came out of the sea, and had the heads of wolves"
4- Tafseer of 'Aisha
"They were like bats, colored red and black"
There are some dynamics for you. Conjecture upon conjecture, and all of it attributed to Muhammad and his teen-age wife.
Would you care to provide us with the Shia Tafseer for this story? I'm interested to know what your Imams say.
@ mmkhan
The words in question are addressing Muhammad. "Did you not see...?". Meaning, they are strengthening his resolve by making him remember the fate of those who plotted and schemed against the messengers in the past. This is the same as when the Quran points him to the ruins of Ad, Thamud and Pharaon (ancient peopels who lives many centuries before Muhammad), by asking the same question "Did you not see....?" This is because the congregations were plotting and scheming against Muhammad, just as the Ashab al-Feel plotted, but God made their plots go astray, and destroyed them. It's the same context.
If the "Feel" refers to the elephant motif on the crown of a column, then where is the evidence that the Nabateans were destroyed in the same manner described in the Quran? You can go to Jordan and check for yourself, and confirm that their cities, still standing, were deserted due to dryness and changing economic conditions. There was no destruction involved that litterally turned their dwellings upside down.
Salam virtueorvice.
What is the original source of this narration?
Its source are the mythological stories of hearsay recounted in the courts of Kisrah and Shehrayar.
I know you have more to tell us, and please do!
At this point, I can only speculate. But I know for a fact that the traditional explanation of elephants showered with stones hurled by birds with dog's heads and bat wings is not true.
Peace.
-
@ mmkhan
The words in question are addressing Muhammad. "Did you not see...?". Meaning, they are strengthening his resolve by making him remember the fate of those who plotted and schemed against the messengers in the past. This is the same as when the Quran points him to the ruins of Ad, Thamud and Pharaon (ancient peopels who lives many centuries before Muhammad), by asking the same question "Did you not see....?" This is because the congregations were plotting and scheming against Muhammad, just as the Ashab al-Feel plotted, but God made their plots go astray, and destroyed them. It's the same context.
Peace brother,
As per my understanding the Arabic word taraa refers to physical seeing with the eye as in 7143.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Sura 105 concerning ashab Al-fil has the same formulation " a lam tara" excatly as the speech in sura al Fajr, 89, where several peoples and rulers of the past are remembered as being destroyed or humbled just as the people of Al fil, in both cases it is stated "a lam tara".
I have not seen myself (lam ara) that that verb is used exclusively for physical seeing.
Salaam
-
Which Arabic language are you talking about? Is it the language of Sibawayh and his Persian cohorts who invented the rules of grammar for you?
What is your enmity with Persians? There were many Arabic linguists who were Persian and Sibawayh is called the best Arab linguist. What were the Arabs doing? ask yourself.
The Quranic verse did not mention "Abraha". The significance of the Sura is to indicate that Allah All Mighty was able to annihilate an entire army of mounted Elephant riders with only birds. This is to indicate the greatness of Allah and also the significance of the birth of Rasul Al-Adham (SAWA).
Fil as was pointed out originated from Peel in Persian, so this will not go well with you because of its Persian origin. Put aside your racism.
-
F-y-l is a perfectly legitimate Arabic root and the meaning from it quite suitable to the meaning of the aya and sura. Also no gang of elephants es mentionned int he sura. If it is elephant it is talking about, then it is singular, a single elephant would be it. Ashab al-fil , not ashab al afial or al fuyul or any plural. Therefore it can hardly be talking about an army of elphants, and by the meaning of it, rather about a people who was filled with itself, pompous and arrogant.
Whether that people had some image of an elephant as an expression of their idea of their own greatness is something by the side. The arabic root itself defines the people, the name "elephant" comes from that root and it is logical to infere that it is because of its size demeanor that it gets a name from that root.
Salaam
-
Peace, huruf.
Very well said.
What I keep trying to say (and keep getting misunderstood) is that the meaning of words in the Quranic language does not necessarilly conform to the colloquial, common meanings we know and use, nor do the rules of grammar / punctuation / articulation invented long after the Quran, have any authority over its text.
For example, The word "SIKKEEN" used in the story of Joseph (surah 12) does not mean KNIFE. I will make a thread about this subject soon, to show that the wife of Azeez Misr did not give her female guests KNIVES so they could cut their hands when they saw the handsomness of Joseph. This is totally absurd, out of context, and based on a misunderstanding of the term "SIKKEEN", because they want to impose their current understanding of the term on the Quranic text itself. The same logic can be applied to the words "Tayr" (birds?) and Jinn (Demons?).
Just because FIL refers to elephant in your daily language, doesn't mean the Quran meant it this way.
What is your enmity with Persians? There were many Arabic linguists who were Persian and Sibawayh is called the best Arab linguist. What were the Arabs doing? ask yourself.
I don't have enmity against Persian people. My enmity is against the TAGHUUT of Persia, and the so-called "ULEMA" who lived in his courts, just as I have enmnity towards the murdering, deceiving, hypocrite dogs, like Muawiya and Hajjaj (the Arab Taghuut).
My reference to Sibawayh was meant to make you understand that the grammar rules he invented cannot be used as the authority over a Quranic text. The language of the Quran cannot be bound by the parameters of linguistic aids that were used by people of distant, future generations, to help them vocalize it.
As for the so-called "Arabs", 90% don't understand the Quran anyway.
Put aside your racism.
You call me a racist, eventhough I do not even believe that the term 'Arabi refers to a race. How ironic!
The so-called "Arabs" of today hijacked that term ''Arabi" from the Quran, just because they happen to speak a language that sounds "similar" to its text, and arrogantly proclaimed themselves as the ones being addressed...
Baseless accusations.
-
As for the so-called "Arabs", 90% don't understand the Quran anyway.
Peace,
I disagree with the above statement.
As per my own personal experience 99% of so called Arabs don't understand alQuraan.You may not believe, when I visited masjid al nabwi in Madina there is something written in Arabic inside the mosque on an arc. I told the person who was with me that this is not the aayat of alQuraan. He didn't agree with me and called so called mullas and mutawwas almost 18 people, who said, we don't know, it might be the aayat of alQuraan or hadith.
From those 18 people some were giving dars to the groups of people in the masjid itself after Juma prayer. I was really surprised to see the response from them. They don't even know whether that is the aayat from alQuraan or hadith. brickwall
Finally a big mulla was called by all of these dars givers who gave juma khutba that day, he came and confirmed that it is not the aayat of alQuraan but it is the hadith. brickwall
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Sura 105 concerning ashab Al-fil has the same formulation " a lam tara" excatly as the speech in sura al Fajr, 89, where several peoples and rulers of the past are remembered as being destroyed or humbled just as the people of Al fil, in both cases it is stated "a lam tara".
I have not seen myself (lam ara) that that verb is used exclusively for physical seeing.
Salaam
Salaam,
Thanks. I will look into that. But still I believe that ara and tara is derived from the same root and refers to physical seeing with an eye.
I will go through with the details you mentioned and will come back inshaAllah.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Salaam,
Peace,
I disagree with the above statement.
As per my own personal experience 99% of so called Arabs don't understand alQuraan.You may not believe, when I visited masjid al nabwi in Madina there is something written in Arabic inside the mosque on an arc. I told the person who was with me that this is not the aayat of alQuraan. He didn't agree with me and called so called mullas and mutawwas almost 18 people, who said, we don't know, it might be the aayat of alQuraan or hadith.
From those 18 people some were giving dars to the groups of people in the masjid itself after Juma prayer. I was really surprised to see the response from them. They don't even know whether that is the aayat from alQuraan or hadith. brickwall
Finally a big mulla was called by all of these dars givers who gave juma khutba that day, he came and confirmed that it is not the aayat of alQuraan but it is the hadith. brickwall
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanWow, that's so interesting.
-
Salaam,
Thanks. I will look into that. But still I believe that ara and tara is derived from the same root and refers to physical seeing with an eye.
I will go through with the details you mentioned and will come back inshaAllah.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanOf course it is from the same root. It is the same verb, first person and second person.
But the "a lam tara" apears in both suras in exactly the same description of past great kingdoms or peoples that were obliterated. It is the verb ra'a, which means to see but which in those two cases, obviously does not mean something that is saeen materially with the eyes, since it is referring to the phenonmenon of the obliteration of past civilisations or societies. Obviously the person addressed did not see it with his eyes, but sees it with the mind.
Salaam
-
Muawiya and Hajjaj (the Arab Taghuut)
One point i agree with you 100%. The enemies of my Master Ali (alaihisalam)
-
Muawiya and Hajjaj (the Arab Taghuut)
One point i agree with you 100%. The enemies of my Master Ali (alaihisalam)
Wow! So you do acknowledge Ali to be your Master! with a Capital "M"!
Perhaps that's quite natural - I just didn't get to hear someone say this so explicitly before.May I ask, what is your take on the below verse?
364 Say, ?O! Fraternity of the book - (let us) come to a common term between us and between you ? that we do not be slave to (anyone) except Allah and that we do not associate any partners with Him, and that some of us do not take the rest as masters (arbaban) from beside Allah.? Then if they turn away ? then say, ?Bear witness that we are submissive (muslimun).?
(My personal translation, cross checking recommended.)
- Would you say here "arbaban" means something different than "masters", or perhaps this verse only applies for the Jews and Christians? I am just curious.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Ameer al Mumineen Ali bin Abi Talib (AS) being my Master is not the same with the Mastership of Allah the Lord of the Lords. The Quranic terminology here is Rubibiyah from the word ?Rab?. I never called my Imam as Rab but rather Sayedi or Mawla.
Refer to Surah 555Certainly your MASTER is Allah and His Messenger and those who believe who establish prayer and give charity while they bow. And who ever takes Allah and His Messenger and those who believe as a guardian, so surely the party of Allah will be victorious. (Quran 555-56)
Guardian and Master being used. Allah is my Master and to him I worship but a slave of a person (ie Muslim) is not allowed to pray to his master.
-
Salamun Alaikum.
555 uses the word "wali" - which I would usually translate as Guardian / Patron. But I guess ... how we translate different words can vary from person to person.
We can have many guardians / patrons (Wali) - but we should have only one Master (Rabb). To me that means our conscience and intellect - which is our direct gift from and obligation to Allah is inviolable - because Allah is our only Master. With that being said - we can have guardians and patrons who can guide us, help us and inspire us to stay on right course. As long as this understanding is correct - I guess choice of word hardly matters.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -