Why does King Solomon threaten the Hoopoe (Hud-Hud) Bird?
-
Perhaps when he called the "meeting" he ordered that everyone has to attend. So if the Hoopoe has no good reason for not attending, he must have been disobeying a very strict order issued by Solomon. It was so strict an order that everyone attended but the Hoopoe.
Peace
Al -
Ive been clueless on this issue for quite some time. Animals according to the Quran are all submitters and pray to Allah. Why would Solomon threaten the bird of all things? Why would the bird lie if God put them in service to Solomon?
The bird didn't lie. Solomon was only human.
I know I would threaten a bird with a severe penalty if I was feeling hungry.
-
Peace,
Perhaps when he called the "meeting" he ordered that everyone has to attend. So if the Hoopoe has no good reason for not attending, he must have been disobeying a very strict order issued by Solomon. It was so strict an order that everyone attended but the Hoopoe.
Peace
AlI see, thanks for that viewpoint on the issue.
The bird didn't lie. Solomon was only human.
I know that the bird didnt lie. That Solomon was only human idea is what Ive been thinking for awhile, but the Quran doesn't really alude to it as being the reason of his doubt.
Peace
-
Peace,
The reason for the threat is because Solomon had ultimate command over the animals and none could disobey his command. The Hoopoe not being there was perceived by Solomon to be an act of disobedience which he would settle with the death of the bird.
I see nothing strange in the above.
-
Peace
Peace,
The reason for the threat is because Solomon had ultimate command over the animals and none could disobey his command. The Hoopoe not being there was perceived by Solomon to be an act of disobedience which he would settle with the death of the bird.
I see nothing strange in the above.
The reason being is that I dont see why the bird would disobey Solomon at all, thats more of a human trait.
Peace all,
please also see another possible interpretation (besides the literal or allegorical one) in
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=11778.0
lk
arnolds post on first page for example
Very interesting. I however still go with the idea that he could talk to animals, be it wrong or not. It was a good and interesting read nonetheless. Never seen someone give such a different meaning to the Quran as Arnold Yasin. I read his thing on Djinn awhile ago not being a being and such, but I still would have to disagree. I believe his reasoning was that Djinn is actually a Polytheistic belief, which I dont think is necessarily a way to disprove the existance of of demons and such beings. Like how many Polytheistic religions (some here would say Sunni) still believe in God. Does that mean we throw the idea of God out the window because a Polytheistic belief used God in their belief as well? My belief is that some of these Polytheistic beliefs however old they are might have some truth to them. Might have even started off Monotheistic but just got corrupted (ie Christians). Again though, I appreciate the alternative view on this issue as it exposes me to much more than my own understanding, may God guide us all.
-
Salaam,
Never seen someone give such a different meaning to the Quran as Arnold Yasin.
This is because for the last 400 years the Muslim world only has focused on one view and approach to the Quran. Evolution theory was even developed by Muslims but they do not even remember and accept this. My ideas are not new and I was not the one who has developed it. I just stood on the shoulders of past giants. Many great scholars mention the same things in the past. Even Ibn Kathir in his commentary mention the Naml being a tribe is Syria and not real ants.
People here claim to follow the 'Quran alone' but still use the same glasses on the Quran as the majority of Muslims, they may have lost the Hadith glasses, but the Approach to the Quran glasses are still the same. Many scholars used the rational approach in the past, this has just been ignored in the last 400 years and thus you do not great scholars who gave the same ideas.
I believe his reasoning was that Djinn is actually a Polytheistic belief, which I dont think is necessarily a way to disprove the existance of of demons and such beings.
Please read my book again as your conclusion on my reasoning is completely wrong. It is about approaching words as labels with fixed meanings or seeign the definition of the word in the context of the verses.
-
Peace
peace amuslim
that's all i wanted )
and yes god guides us all, but not all in the same way...
lkI agree. I personally think that all of these little details isn't really important in regards to the big picture, but its just questions that I have. I dont really see it wrong or anything to believe that it wasnt a bird. At the end of the day I believe that so long we worship God alone and live a righteous life is all that really matters.
I just realized that I posted this in the wrong section so my apologies.
Salaam,
This is because for the last 400 years the Muslim world only has focused on one view and approach to the Quran. Evolution theory was even developed by Muslims but they do not even remember and accept this. My ideas are not new and I was not the one who has developed it. I just stood on the shoulders of past giants. Many great scholars mention the same things in the past. Even Ibn Kathir in his commentary mention the Naml being a tribe is Syria and not real ants.
People here claim to follow the 'Quran alone' but still use the same glasses on the Quran as the majority of Muslims, they may have lost the Hadith glasses, but the Approach to the Quran glasses are still the same. Many scholars used the rational approach in the past, this has just been ignored in the last 400 years and thus you do not great scholars who gave the same ideas.
Ive read a Tafsir from Ibn Kathir and I must say a lot of his stuff is ridiculous, such as how the world is on a whale and bull or something like that. If we cant trust that, how can we trust his other explanations? Not saying they are wrong, just reputation wise. Its like how some say that the 19 code is wrong because Rashad namely said he was the Messenger of the Covenant. Now I'm not going to say that 19 is wrong (although I know some of his verses were out, which was revised later) but the probability of someone that claims messenger-ship and other things would make some see the rest of his statements as ridiculous.
I also take it that many great scholars also said the opposite of what you say about parts of the Quran? From what a lot seems to me, it seems that a lot of the reasoning with these verses are due to our "current knowledge" of how the world and the human body works. If this approach was taken 600 years ago, there may have been a different explanation of these verses. 600 years from now may have, again, different explanation of these verses.
Im not saying you are wrong because I cant do that and that would be wrong on my own part. I'm just analyzing it from every point of view, and not trying to be narrow minded at all. Like I said, I appreciate the effort you put in your posts, its very informative. I didn't mean to make it come off as if I was degrading you or anything and if so, my apologies.
Please read my book again as your conclusion on my reasoning is completely wrong. It is about approaching words as labels with fixed meanings or seeign the definition of the word in the context of the verses.
Where is your book? Ive only read posts. Ive heard of this book, but I believe you sent it to peoples emails if I am correct?
Edit I just saw them in your signature, sorry about thatAlso labels is something that we go by today, and theres nothing really wrong with that idea IMO so long its right. My question is, how do we know whether its a label or the literal meaning? For example the Hud-Hud deal and it being a tribe. The literal meaning is the bird, am I correct? Why do we take the idea that its a tribe? Is it because we think its impossible (or highly improbable) that Solomon did indeed converse with the birds?
Ive been putting a lot of thought in it today while I was out, and I also read someone saying that Jesus was not born of a Virgin birth yesterday, so I will try and find a thread on that.
Thanks for the response.
Wa Salaam
