QM Forum
The Quran => General Discussions => Topic started by: sharon on January 16, 2017, 10:40:46 AM
-
Assalam alikum brother I have been going through your articles and I keep noticing when you talk about thamud you always but the nabateans next to them and I was just wondering why because thamud and the nabateans are two different groups or are you saying that 1. You think the nabateans are thamud if yes then the problem is thamud is meant to come way before abraham or 2. You think the quran is inspired so got it wrong and 3. Do you think the quran is saying those buildings in mada'in al saleh are built by thamud and if yes then that is wrong so how do we explain that jazzakkallah
-
Because of course the quran is the word of god not inspired jazzakkallah
-
Because like I said and sorry to keep bothering you you make it sound like thamud built those buildings in mada'in al saleh and petra but they were both built by the nabtions and the nabateans were not thamud they came way after thamud like 500 bc and thamud came way before abraham like 5000 bc or more but the quran does make it sound like they built them so how to we explain this jazzakkallah sorry to bother you
-
Or do u you think these story's are symbolic but that would be wrong and cause a lot of problems I'm not being funny just very confused by this and also confused by your articles on this jazzakkallah
-
Assalam alikum sorry to bothwr i just need a clarifaction on these verses then ill leave it these parts of the verses 89:9 (who carved out the rocks in the valley) and 89:7 (iram owners of the lofty pillars) are these part of the verses speaking in the present tense or past tense just these verses if you were to only read theses verse 89:6-9 (have you not seen how your Lord debt with the tribe of ad of iram owners of the lofty pillars whitch were not created in the land like any other nation and thamud who carved out the rocks in the valley) are these part of the verses in past tense or present and when it says rocks does it mean mountions or just normal bolders
-
Assalam alikum I was just wondering where is wadi al’qura in saudia Arabia is wadi al’qura al Ula or somewhere else
-
Wadi al-Qura is a location north of Medina in Saudi Arabia.[1] Several military expeditions took place there during the time of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad. These include the Expedition of Zaid ibn Haritha (Wadi al-Qura), where Muhammad sent Zayd ibn Haritha to survey the area and to monitor the movements of the enemies of Muhammad,[2] as well as the Second Expedition of Wadi al-Qura which Muhammad ordered to raid the inhabitants of Wadi al-Qura for revenge, because a number of Muslims were killed when they tried to raid the inhabitants previously, but failed.[3] During the end of Muhammad's era the Third Expedition of Wadi al Qura was ordered, with the purpose of attacking the Jews of Wadi al-Qura to conquer their land[4]
Recent discoveries of Geonic responsa have shown that there was a Jewish presence in Wadi al-Qura as late as the 11th century CE, and that they maintained correspondence with Rabbi Sherira Gaon and Rabbi Hai Gaon.[5]
-
Thanks jazzakkallah but where is it on the map because I can't find it on the map
-
Also I have a another question example if person A builds a house but he dies and his house is empty for 40 years and is old meaning paint decayed then person B comes along lives in it but does it up by putting new paint and plaster on it to make it look new but the house bricks are still the same as person A put there could you still call the house as persons A house who first built it and lived in it bur person B just did it up
-
Assalam alikum joseph islam I was just wondering do you believe that thamud were the nabateans and if yes how can they when thamud were meant to come before moses and do you think thamud built those tombs in mada'in al saleh and if yes how because again thamud came before moses and those tombs date 100 bc and thamud built houses not tombs and they look like brand new not that old so how do we explain this jazzakkallah sorry to bother you because these can't have anything to do with thamud because thamud had to come at least 2000 thousand bc before moses and abraham and if we say they the nabateans built over them well that still wouldn't make them thamud and like I said the verse 89:9 and 40:21 but mainly 89:9 make it sound like these tombs are thamud but they are not so how do we explain this because it makes it sound like a historical mistake in the quran but I know the quran can't be wrong so how do we explain this jazzakkallah sorry for bothering and sorry for reapting myself alot
-
And verse 27:52 but mainly 89:9 or is 89:9 just a title not what they see saw etc the Arabs but like I said it is mainly 89:9 but the rest of the paragraph needs answers to please jazzakkallah
-
Assalam alikum thanks so does this (ʿAbdullah ibn ʿUmar and Ibn Kathir who report that people called the region of Thamud Al-Hijr, while they called the province of Mada'in Saleh as Ardh Thamud (Land of Thamud) and Bayt Thamud(house of Thamud).[16][17] The conclusion that can be taken from the evidences above is that the term ‘Thamud’ was not applied to the groups that lived in Mada'in Saleh, such asLihyanites and Nabataeans,[18][19] but rather to the region itself.) Does this Mean that al hijr is a name given to thamud not mada'in al saleh and the name thamud was given to mada'in al saleh not that al hijr was given to mada'in al saleh
-
Assalam alikum does this verse 89:6 mean you Arabs saw the buildings or heard of the story we have all ready told you about ad and thamud and pharoh is it saying the story you have heard or the buildings you have seen
-
Dear Sharon,
Wa alaikum assalam
This is indeed a fascinating topic and having visited sites at Petra, Little Petra and Mada’in Saleh, one thing remains absolutely clear in my mind; these sites are nothing but awe-inspiring (in construction and magnitude), even before any attempt is made to piece / understand its history.
There is no doubt that at least a couple of points are clear from the Quran.
- The people of Thamud created some sort of buildings / structures carved into the rocks with high skill / precision. (7:74; 15:82; 26:149)
- The dwellings of the people of Thamud (and their fate) was visible to the primary audience of the Quran (29:38; 27:52). They knew of the locations. Whether these sites / locations became obscured later for any particular reason is another matter.
- The people of Thamud entered a time of history before Prophet Moses. (40:31)
Regardless of what may be read in some writings, travel brochures or uttered by certain tour guides, one matter should remain unquestionable to any acute academic engaged with work in this area and that is that comprehensive Nabatean history still remains somewhat of a mystery.
Given the limited excavations at all relevant sites, what we know of the Nabateans is arguably very sketchy and relies very much on a dearth of information / inscriptions and from a select few sources. The Nabateans strangely do not appear to have left any tomes of literature / information indicative of a once powerful, prosperous nation engaged in great trade. Therefore, forming opinions / assumptions from sparse inscriptions and writings of limited sources from antiquity does not arguably, tantamount to irrefutable evidence. Some may even argue that our view of the Nabateans and their history is formed on much conjecture and we should exercise at least some caution in forming views about them.
It appears from the relative dearth of information we have that they may have settled and occupied, for a relatively short period of time, in the areas known today as Petra (aka. Rose city), little Petra (Jordon). This belief is also extended to seemingly outpost areas such as Hegira / Al Hijr (Mada'in Saleh, Saudi Arabia). In all, they may well have even traded with some success and prosperity. Whether the tribes occupying Mada’in Saleh were the same as those at Petra is yet still, another matter.
However, whether the Nabateans were the original builders of such awe inspiring, highly-skilled constructed buildings / structures of different types across the entire sites (excavated and unexcavated) is quite another matter, certainly from my humble perspective.
The notion that simple nomadic, primitive tent dwellers who traditionally would have arguably roamed the desert somehow over a period of a few hundred years acquired so much sophistry and skill to build the sites at Petra and Hegira (Al-Hijr - Mada’in Saleh) with a sprawling metropolis, waterways / water systems, enormous buildings / structures within a few centuries and see the peak of their power and then leave hardly any literature or comprehensive vestiges of knowledge and vanish into obscurity or become nomadic Arabs again could be to some, a very difficult concept to accept / digest.
However, it does appear from the limited excavations that have been performed and from what is visible, that there are other structures apart from what are considered tombs. It is also accepted that earlier people / tribes have also occupied the sites. Therefore, it could be possible that there are earlier structures yet to be excavated still indicative of those communities.
It is also noteworthy that we cannot be entirely sure what particular buildings / structures at what particular site (visible or obscured today) the Quran referred to when it addressed the primary audience of the Quran. Certainly, it was a site / location known to them.
One thing for sure is that the Quran does make it absolutely clear that some of the original sites constructed by nations that were destroyed, were occupied later by certain people, albeit for a relatively short period of time.
028.058
"And how many a community have We destroyed that exulted in its means of livelihood! And these are their dwellings which have not been inhabited after them except a little (qalilan). And indeed We, We, were / are the inheritors."
Whether this is a reference to tent dwelling communities that later occupied these sites such as the Nabateans and other similar tribes, is a matter of opinion / for interpretation.
Finally, a short analogy may be apt here. Just because ones resides in a particular house / building, doesn't mean they have built / constructed it. There could have been many generations that could have inhabited it before the present occupiers. Indeed, the style of a building will indicate period. But arguably, this interpretive approach becomes limited if there is no direct architectural comparison or a limited one. Furthermore, just because a particular resident may leave personalised markings within the house confirming custodianship at a particular period of time, this does not confirm their construction of the building.
It remains noteworthy that the construction of the tombs is argued primarily on the basis of when the inscriptions were made.
As the UNESCO document states:
- "The most important remains of this period consist of four main necropoles. They include 111 monumental tombs, of which 94 have decorated facades of varying dimensions. Amongst them, around thirty include inscriptions in the Nabataean language, which enables the dating of their construction." [3]
It can be argued that just because a certain people left inscriptions at a particular site does not mean that they constructed / built it.
In the end, only God knows best.
I hope this helps, God willing
Joseph
RELATED ARTICLES:
[1] MADA'IN SALEH - THE QURANIC ZIYARAH (VISIT) OF PETRA'S SISTER SITE
http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/ziyarah%20FM3.htm
[2] PETRA, JORDON
http://quransmessage.com/travelogues/petra-jordan%20FM3.htm
[3] Archaeological site of Al-Hijr (Saudi Arabia) No 1293, 2. THE PROPERTY, page 10 [online] http://whc.unesco.org/document/152272 [accessed] 7th February 2018
-
Salam Joseph ,
Thank you for the article ,maybe the nabateans are not the original constructer of the City Petra read this http://www.bibleistrue.com/qna/pqna33.htm
The Bible is talking about a City called "Sela" and it could be Petra and the People who build this City where the Edomites which is in the timeline of Moses.
Edomit and Thamud is something closer semantically than Nabatean .
-
Shalom / peace brother Joseph......thanks so much for your insights which i think really deal with this subject well......so much what is shared with us on this topic and Nabateans doesn't make sense.......for example.....all these tombs....where are all their dwellings then???did the Nabateans make all these elaborate tombs and yet sleep in their tents at night in the open spaces?why such effort on their tombs yet their own homes don't seem to exist in the same way with the same level of effort....really???? Could it be that that Nabateans turned certain dwellings left by earlier people into tombs later??????....so many questions.....
-
So to sum up do you believe that these tombs were built by thamud or not and is it possible that there dwellings are somewhere else like yemon and that they were destroyed between the prophets time and now and can someone tell me the meaning of 89:9 because I'm still really stuck by this verse because this verse makes it sound like the buildings were standing tall because if the nabateans did build over there dwellings or expanded the outside then thamud did not build it but what is clear is that thamud had to exsist before moses and more an likely abraham and they had to be close to noah and like I said if noah nation was the first to commit shirk then they have to of been destroyed by 9000 bc because of the gobekli temple so if noah nation was destroyed then like I said thamud had to of come close to that but in the end of the day I'm stuck on 89:9 the meaning also if thamud did build these then thamud would have to have build the buildings in petra the tombs because there the same
-
Also if these are tombs the quran says thamud built ho to live in not tombs
-
And if these buildings were not built by thamud are you saying that the quran made a historical mistake by bring inspired also where I got yemon from is this is what the book is called Road of the Patriarch 2 arabia also is it not possible that 29:38 means the land not dwellings and also if they were shown then 27:52 says there were in utter ruins ruined and the buildings in petra and madain saleh don't fit these details also thamud were destroyed by a earthquake these don't fit the details because if the buildings are showing then then meant to show us how they were destroyed in verse 29:38
-
Also al hijr just means a rocky area not a country and people said this name was given to thamud and then they called madian al saleh thamud si that ended up being called al hijr also it says in a valley with a river bed madian don't fit these details also people think noah and thamud were in yemon close to ad also there is a town called thamud and the quran said allah left no people of thamud apart from the believers
-
And people also think it was done in wadi al’Qura what is far away from mada'in saleh because mada'in saleh was called wadi al’Qura way way later on after the quran so wadi al’Qura is al alu or somewhere else
-
Sorry for posting it separately I'm just trying to give the most information also these tombs look younger then the buildings in Egypt
-
Shalom / peace Sharon.......I'm starting to feel that you are asking unnecessary...repeated questions for the sake of it......didn't you read brother Joseph's elaborate response? In my view you are just wasting time with numerous posts.....I'm surprised moderators haven't warned you already......
It would also help if your questions were properly phrased and not come across like a complete rant .......
-
I'm not wasting time I'm just given extra information about it I have read what joesph said it just that I don't understand all what he said that was all
-
The reason the way my writing is because I'm using a mobile I don't have a laptop so I just try to keep it short
-
I'm surprised you didn't understand it as from where I'm reading this......his position was made quite clear. Maybe you aren't reading it properly?....if anything your questions often don't make sense are so long winded.... like a rant.....why don't you simplify your questions in bullet or number forms rather than give long speeches over a number of posts?????
-
Salam ,
Vers 89:9 could also have another meaning because against most translations i read "and thamud which brought rocks into the valley"
if im not mistaken jabou bi-does mean to bring to
-
Ok thanks my problem with 89:9 is it uses the AL before the sakahra so the AL makes it sound like specific rocks or mountains like example (I say the Romans built the buildings in the land even thow you can't see the buildings. the sentence sounds like to the reader the people at that time could see those buildings but the person who said it couldn't see them either he was just saying in genral the buildings were built here but it is the AL what makes it sound more specific like the person could see it ) like what you wrote ("and thamud which brought rocks into the valley") you didn't use the AL before the sakahra because the AL makes it sound like specific rocks or mountains
This is for deliverance
Assalam alikum duster I will put them in numbers and bulliet points now on I read what joesph said again so to sum up is he saying he doesn't know if they are or not they might be or might not be to him the buildings might of been somewhere else is that what brother joesph saying
-
So your point is what Sharon??????? :o
-
My point is the verse sounds like in the present tense not the past but the jabbu is a verb what means past so it is confusing to understand the verse one minute it sound present the past
-
Sorry forget what I put before ill put my questions like this sorry
1. Is this bit of the verse past tense or present (aaltheana jabbu al sakrah bilwadi)
2. Does sakahra here mean mountions or just normal bolders
3. Why is there a AL before the sakahra because if the verse is past tense the AL here makes it sound in the preasent tense
4. Is it possible for the verse (jabbu bi) to mean like brother deliverance said bring up the rocks from the valley and if yes why do no translations use it
-
Sharon - just re read the posts on the last page 2 that you have written......do you the number of questions you are asking?????? It seems ridiculous to me.......you look totally confused......why don't you slow your pace down....do some research first and then ask your questions.....also i think you need to break your questions down from your posts on the start page 2.....it really seems like a rant......also is English not your first language????
-
Also Sharon .....why do you keep saying tombs??? As brother Joseph said there are dwellings on this site not just tombs......also they say only 2 - 15% have been excavated. So there may be more dwellings yet to be discovered or visible at the prophets time....why are you fixated with saying that there are only tombs there? Also couldn't the builders be Thamud people and then later converted or used by Nabateans as tombs?
-
assalamu alaikum
sharon I think you should do a comprehensive search among all the ayat that have "AL" article and used in the past tense, thus you may get a grasp on this subject. Just a suggestion :)
-
Dear Sharon,
As-salamu alaykum
I will attempt to answer your questions as I have already done in my earlier post. However, please can I kindly ask you to remain patient and structure your questions clearly and succinctly. I am finding a lot of emotion in your questions which appear to be intertwined with opinions. This makes it very difficult for me to answer.
With any topic such as this, I believe the approach needs to be careful and methodical. Please kindly see my responses to what I understand are / were your questions.
[1] If the understanding of the 'Nabatean' people is of a community that existed in the few centuries around the 1st century AD, then this is not a reference to the people of Thamud that according to the Quran, lived before the time of Prophet Moses. It may well be that the Nabatean people originated from isolated generations / tribes from the people of Thamud (who were mainly destroyed with exceptions who were saved 27:53, 41:17-18; 11:66), but they will not be the specific people that the Quran refers to that incurred God's wrath.
[2] The Thamud carved many types of buildings structures (bayt) including dwellings (maskan). Please note that the sites at Petra and Mada'in Saleh do not simply have tombs. There are other types of structures as well including influences from earlier / other communities.
The Quran makes use of different terms to refer to what the people of Thamud created. 'Bayt' can refer to all sorts of buildings including tents, uninhabited houses, places of worships, ruins, privies and even possibly to tombs / graves (71:28).
[3] It is quite possible that the specific structures / dwellings that the Quran refers to belonging to the Thamud and were visible at the time of the Quran's revelation have now become obscured due to the passage of time. This can only be better confirmed if the entire site at Petra and Mada'in Saleh is excavated. Until then, we can only comment on the limited structures we can see. It appears that the theories that are widely accepted are built on current excavations and their particular focus on tombs.
[4] The reference in verse 89:9 in my humble view is a reference to the the people of Thamud. From the phrasing of the verse, it appears these sites / locations of the rock were known at the time of the Prophet / Quran's revelation. This is supported by verses 27:52 and 29:38.
[5] Verse 15:80 and the reference to 'Al Hijr' (The Rock) is once again, most likely another description to the numerous references in the Quran to the people of Thamud. It is within the style of the Quran to mention a certain well established reference in a unique way. For example, Prophet Yunus is referred to in an isolated manner in verse 21:87 as ‘Dhul'n-Nun’ (The one of the fish).
[6] The Quran makes it clear that the buildings / structures of destroyed communities have been occupied by subsequent generations for a short period of time (28:58). Even the Arabs were known to occupy buildings of destroyed communities (14:45) or at least have access to them (20:128). This appears to be a legacy of the Arabs. It is quite possible that the Nabateans also dwelt / made use of buildings that were once created by older communities.
[7] Finally, as a believer, and as someone who has come to conclude that the Quran is the word of God, I do not accept that the Quran contains any historic inaccuracies. If I may respectfully say so, I find this question of yours incredulous when I trust that you know my view on the Quran and my beliefs.
I hope this helps, God willing.
Regards,
Joseph
-
Thank you jazzakkallah
-
Thanks brother Joseph....also i found a video that also questions the conventional understanding......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEGYvLo4N-Y
Also Sharon - please let me know what you think of the video......
-
Assalam alikum thanks for the video duster I've watched it and found it very good this is my views on the video and I have 3 questions relating to this at the end
so here are my views.
1. It was good thought
2. It is possible that maybe thamud did the caves the little ones
3. But thamud could not off done the big petra building because it looks younger then the pyramids in Egypt
4. Even thow thamud could of done the caves thamud could not have done the ones in Turkey and the other places
5. But there is more we don't know so it has to be more searched in
6. Again thamud could not off done the buildings in mada'in saleh because again it looks younger than the pyramids in Egypt
7. It has signs of a earthquake but I don't know if there were several in different times but the earthqauke in 300 ad could not off been the one to destroy the thamud
8. I still think there somewhere else like yemon maybe near where ad was destroyed because there is a town called thamud
9.and like I said thamud has to be close to the timeline of noah because they are called the first nations in the quran
So here is my 3 qustions
1. Was the petra buildings covered by rocks and dirt then found or was it always showing
2. In the quran it says in 27:52 they are ruins utter ruins ruined so does 89:9 when it says carved out is it talking about the outside or the inside because if it is the inside then maybe in the prophets time the dwellings were just cave like because the outside might of withered away but if it is the outside then how does it fit with 27:52 when it says there dwellings are ruined because how can the out side show carvings but be ruined fallen at the sametime
3. Could you call petra al hijr or anyplace with a rocky area al hijr
But like I said it was a very good thought provoking video thanks
-
So like the women said the petra buildings must of been done by someone else than the nabateans and I agree but I still don't think it was thamud because like I said it looks younger than the pyramids
-
So does 89:9 mean there dwellings have to be like new or can 89:9 mean the there dwellings can just be cave like with the front gone etc can 89:9 mean that or does 89:9 mean the dwellings have to be like new with the front still there
-
Salam Sharon,
To your question 3
Actually Petra is the greek Name for Rock and as a i linked before Petra is maybe the biblical town Selah and is the hebrew(?) word for Rock also ,so the al-hijr in 89:9 it can be Petra.
And your observing of the buliding to be younger of age ,i have a Suggestion.In the desert thinks dont get attcked by the Elements as in other plaaces where it is raining .But you are right in the comparison with the pyramids they look like new but you have forgotten that Petra is hidden in a Canyon ,where it is save from wind ,rain and that i suppose to be the reason why it Looks new .
i tend to the Edomites who have build Petra because in ancient egyptians source they where called Adamus ,and it sounds a bit like Thamud
-
I never heard off them before I just looked them up they could but the trouble is they were destroyed fully gone by 125bc it is like when some people thought they found the old town off AD in oman but like people said it could not off been ad from the quran because there were destroyed 300 ad but thanks
But is it possible that in the prophets time that all what was left off thamud dwellings were there inside not outside so all there was left was carved out big caves because the front had withered away completely and could 89:9 mean that by carved the mountions talking about the inside like example of this link can 89:9 mean this because if yes then we know cave like structures can live on for thousands of years so is this possible that this is what 89:9 means and that the outside was destroyed gone jazzakkallah
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thamud+cave&prmd=imvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyv6Kws4bSAhULI8AKHfsvDsEQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=615#imgrc=JWWBzg6CXWv2QM:
-
salam ,
When Petra is originally build by the thamuds they must have been in contact or lived in a highsociety .They must have been get this skills to build the structures out of the rocks from the North or from the West (egypt) and i hardly believe that People from inner arabia had that Knowledge .
-
Thanks jazzakkallah but like I said is it possible for the verse 89:9 to mean what I said above carving the inside like caves just to mean that in the prophets time jazzakkallah
-
My understanding of vers 89;9 is that they transported blocks of Stone into the valley and build something with it .I came to this understanding beacause in 7:71 (0r so) it is written that they build house and Palaces in al-Jabal which means mountain .
-
Ok thanks jazzakkallah but I thought jabbu just meant carving not bringing or brought something but thanks thow
-
Also according to you as well 89:9 is past tense not present thanks jazzakkallah
-
Also according to you as well 89:9 is past tense not present thanks jazzakkallah
Why do you keep repeating this ?????????????? WHY does it matter ?????
-
Sorry I anciently pasted that I meant to paste that translations never seem to put down what you mean the jabbu means bring brought the rocks from the valley how does jabbu mean what you mean jazzakkallah but like I said can the verse mean what I thought it meant with the pitchure link above as well
-
Sorry I anciently pasted that I meant to paste that translations never seem to put down what you mean the jabbu means bring brought the rocks from the valley how does jabbu mean what you mean jazzakkallah but like I said can the verse mean what I thought it meant with the pitchure link above as well
What ARE you taking about Sharon???? Sorry I don't understand you. You are not making any sense to me. Are you using google translate ?...
-
Duster: I totally understand your frustration, but its possible that English is not Sharon's first language, in which case it is not within Islam to criticize her for her grammar.
Sharon: I'm sorry but your posts over the last few weeks have been highly confusing. I suggest scrapping the ten or so threads you've created, and just posting a numbered list of questions for forum members to answer more easily.
-
1. Can 89:9 mean this or not https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thamud+cave&prmd=imvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyv6Kws4bSAhULI8AKHfsvDsEQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=615#imgrc=JWWBzg6CXWv2QM
2. Can 89:9 just mean the inside of the houses not the outside showing in the prophets time
* Because in the prophets time the inside could off been what's left if of the house
* the outside of the house could of been destroyed gone by the prophets time
3. How can 89:9 mean what you mean because no translations have your meaning of verse 89:9
* there is no talk of bringing stones from the valley only carving mountions
I'm from Spain so first language Spanish sorry
-
1. Can 89:9 mean this or not https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thamud+cave&prmd=imvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyv6Kws4bSAhULI8AKHfsvDsEQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=615#imgrc=JWWBzg6CXWv2QM
2. Can 89:9 just mean the inside of the houses not the outside showing in the prophets time
* Because in the prophets time the inside could off been what's left if of the house
* the outside of the house could of been destroyed gone by the prophets time
3. How can 89:9 mean what you mean because no translations have your meaning of verse 89:9
* there is no talk of bringing stones from the valley only carving mountions
Dear Sharon,
As-salamu alaykum
[1] Yes it 'possibly' can.
[2] Yes it 'possibly' can.
[3] The verb 'jaba' means to cleave, to hollow. Here is a fuller discussion of the meaning of the word:
- 1 جَابَهُ جاب جابه جابة , (S, * TA,) aor. يَجُوبُ, (S, TA,) inf. n. جَوْبٌ (S, A, K, TA) and تَجْوَابٌ, (Har p. 336,) He made a hole in it; or rent, or tore, it; (S, A, K, TA;) as also ↓ اجتابهُ : (K, * TA:) he made a hole through, or in, or into, it; perforated, pierced, or bored, it: (TA:) he cut it: (S, A, K, TA:) he cut it in like manner as one cuts a جَيْب [or an opening at the neck and bosom of a shirt &c.]: (L, TA:) he made, or cut, a hole in the middle of it; cut a piece out of the middle of it; hollowed it out; or excavated it. (TA.) You say, جاب الصَّخْرَةَ He made a hole in the rock; (A, TA;) perforated, pierced, or bored, it. (TA.) Hence, in the Kur [89:8], وَثَمُودَ الَّذِينَ جَابُوا الصَّخْرَ بِالوَادِ (Fr, S, TA) And Thamood, who made holes in the rocks, (Fr, TA,) or cut the rocks, (Bd, Jel,) [or hollowed them out,] and made them dwellings, in the valley, (Fr, Bd, Jel, TA,) [1]
I sincerely trust now that all responses shared on this thread have finally answered your questions, God willing.
Regards,
Joseph :)
REFERENCE:
[1] LANE. E.W, Edward Lanes Lexicon, Williams and Norgate 1863; Librairie du Liban Beirut-Lebanon 1968, Volume 2, Page 479
-
Salam Joseph ,
With sincere respect jaba can also mean to bring .i've looked it up in Francis Steingass dictionary and i found on page 45 the word Bring is translated with jaba/yujibu
here is an online Version of the Book https://archive.org/stream/englisharabicdi01steigoog#page/n58/mode/2up
and because it is used with the Präposition bi i think the proper Translation of jabu al-sahra bi-l wad is they brought blocks(?)of Stones in the valley .If they cut out the rocks in the valley ,i would use the Präposition Fi.
jabu al-sahra fi-l-wad .
wa salam
-
Dear Deliverance,
Wa alaikum assalam
I have presented my humble evidence and sources to the readership and of course, they can discern which is a more cogent argument. With respect, I am not going to comprehensively argue my use of classical sources which have been cited by the lexicon I have used (Edward Lanes) which cites numerous ancient / classical sources such as the Taj el-Aroos (TA), The Sihah (S), The Asas (Ez-Zamakhsheree) (A), The Kamoos (K), El Farra (Fr) and Lisan Al Arab (L) to make the case with regards the meaning of this word.
I respectfully do not see (despite the preface) what classical source your lexicographer (Francis Joseph Steingas 1882) has used for this particular rendition which I find strange / peculiar. The root 'JWB' is also well known to mean answer / respond.
The context is clear in the Quran. Thamud used to carve, hew, cut and shape (nahata) buildings in the mountains (7:74; 15:82; 26:149). This word (nahata) is also used to describe the carving / shaping of the idols during prophet Abraham's time (37:95). So we knew they carved buildings / structures. The word 'jaba' in the context of verse 89:9 is well appreciated by classical lexicographers in meaning.
In my humble opinion, the preposition 'bi' attached to the noun 'waad' makes no difference to the meaning of the verb 'jaba' in this context. I am not sure what point you are trying to make by citing this grammatical device. 'bil-waad' can simply mean beside / in / next to the valley (wadi). This has nothing to do with the meaning of carving rocks (jabu'l sakhra). Either way, with respect, I trust that you will accept my prerogative not to indulge myself into protracted / lengthy discussions around grammar as I used to in the past.
The reason is that I have written extensively at times discussing grammatical devices but have also often found them futile and given my time restraints now, something I simply cannot entertain. I believe the sense of the Arabic is clear to anyone that speaks / understand Arabic that Thamud 'carved out / hewed' rocks in or at the valley. This should not only be clear from verse 89:9, but also from the wider context of the Quran where the people of Thamud are discussed.
Please kindly accept my response as my last to you on this matter and I trust readers will make their own respected opinions on which opinion they find most cogent.
For those readers interested, please also kindly see a selection of well respected lexicons at [1] below where the verb 'jaba’ is discussed in much detail. The meaning hopefully will be clear.
With utmost respect and regards to all.
Joseph
REFERENCE:
[1] ARABIC LANGUAGE RESOURCES
http://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=184,ll=519,ls=5,la=716,sg=271,ha=118,br=205,pr=38,vi=107,mgf=186,mr=137,mn=220,aan=117,kz=358,uqq=59,ulq=513,uqa=85,uqw=297,umr=223,ums=173,umj=137,bdw=197,amr=132,asb=152,auh=352,dhq=109,mht=139,msb=51,tla=39,amj=129,ens=1,mis=269
-
This thread is now closed.
Sharon - please do not labour your questions which are bordering unacceptable and unnecessary. Your last post has been removed and your posts will now be moderated.
Members, including brother Joseph have taken out much time to answer your questions.
.