Does the Qur'an Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus?

InvestigateTruth · Nov 10, 2012

gnostic said:
It's not so much that ants could communicate with other...I don't have a problem with that. All animals can communicate with each other.

It is interesting that the Jewish Scriptures, in the Proverbs of Solomon uses the "Ant", as a Parable of weak people:

“The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer;”Proverbs 30:25

Here is the interpretation of this verse, according to Christian Sources:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:

"The ants are a people not strong,....... the Arabians use it as a proverb, to call a weak man one weaker than an ant: and there is one sort of ants called "dsar", so small that one hundred of them will not weigh more than a barley corn (g): they are called a people, because they associate together in great numbers; though small in bulk, and weak as to power and strength; and which is a figure elsewhere used in the sacred Scriptures; see Joel 1:6; and by profane writers, as Homer and Virgil, who speak of bees as a people and nation (h); and of nations of flies, and of flying birds, geese, cranes, and swans (i);...."
Proverbs 30:25 Ants are creatures of little strength, yet they store up their food in the summer;

loverOfTruth · Nov 10, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
Ok. If you say, you do not know the answer, but God, knows, that is fine. But remember, anybody can believe in illogical things, and when they don't have an answer, they can say: "Only God has the full knowledge and wisdom"
But, as i said, in my view, True Islam, does not teach injil or torah is corrupted. That is the whole point of all these questions I aksed.

But this is not what I believe.
I do NOT believe people were left spiritually dead for 1000 years.
Perhaps, this is what you believe.

I showed you every scriptural evidence. They are very clear. Perhaps you interpret those verses differently?

I never said, God does it. As I said, he created us with free will.

That is the reason, I said, He did not leave them with a corrupted Book. Because He is just and powerful. He can take care of His Book, so it does not get corrupted.

"Moreover,

He said, We gave Moses the Book to complete Our favor on those who would do good to others; it contained details of all things, and was a guide and a mercy, so that they should believe in the ultimate meeting with their Lord." 6:154

This verse is saying God completed His favour to "them" by giving the Book to Moses. if the Book got corrupted, how could God's favour be completed to them?

That's like if someone's dady sends a gift to him, but when it reaches him, it got corrupted. Then he says, oh, I gave you my favour, now i don't have any more money to buy another gift. Is this how god is in your belief?
My God is powerful. When He gives His favour, it does not get corrupted.

Good luck.

I have already answered to all those information and you have not been able to answer my questions with genuine scriptural evidence to any of your claims - so I have no intention of wasting my time repeating myself.

Rational_Mind · Nov 11, 2012

gnostic said:
It's not so much that ants could communicate with other...I don't have a problem with that. All animals can communicate with each other.

And sure people can train some animals to do something as commanded, like dogs and horses, or parrot to mimic human words, none of these actually indicate that we can understand what any of these animals say or think. Parrot maybe able to copy the word of what a person may say, but it doesn't mean the bird know what any of those words mean.

However, in the verses, for anyone knowing what the ants are saying that I find so ridiculous if you were to take the verses literally. That's what make this part of the Quran to be FABLE.

Miracles are simple cheap way of not understanding certain phenomena, and attributing to god, spirit, jinn or magic. Or miracles can be seen as nothing more than exaggerations or embellishments, to either make a story more interesting or more than what it seem. Either way, miracles are nothing more than superstition or wishful thinking.

PS Science only know that ants can communicate with each other, but they know what they are communicating about. So your claim is rather pointless.

You are correct in raising this point about Ants. But you are confused on the nature of Miracles. I have a different understanding of Miracles which is not the way most people take them. The biggest Miracles are of the Prophets standing up from a sane state with an good life and saying they are a Prophet of God, then their lives are ruined and they are tortured but they do not change their belief. And against all odds they succeed.

Another valid issue that every fair mind should realize in the story of Solomon and Ants, Jinn, etc. is the fact that HudHud the bird is not a migratory bird yet it is set on a far away journey. Not only that but even if we accept that the bird can speak to Solomon and even understand the complexity of human communication we are left wondering how will Queen of Sheba possibly understand his language? The fact is that HudHud is the name of a messenger who was sent to deliver messages. Similarly the Ants are a tribe as the Arabic grammar used in reference of them is only used for rational creatures. We know ants aren't rational creatures so why was it used? It was used because tribes were commonly named after animals. Similarly like sports teams are named today. If we speak about the Dolphins or Bulls making making money, people usually understand it is a sports team not actual Dolphins or Bulls making millions of dollars. There are many examples of tribes that were named after animals. I have made a post on it before, unfortunately some other Muslims felt I killed the miracle although it made it much greater, yet nobody took the time to prove me wrong as the Quran had made it crystal clear that one cannot take the alternative literal interpretation without contradicting the Quran itself.

Sorry this is not a quality post, really exhausted today.

InvestigateTruth · Nov 11, 2012

F0uad said:
Well the Quran itself gives us such verses and the commentaries that directly comes from authentic hadiths say the same thing. Give us evidence that shows otherwhise?

Rational_Mind said:
Your opinion so far is not backed up by anything and is mere speculation if worthy of being called anything.

In addition to my other posts, here are some more evidence that Quran confirms the Scriptures of the people of the Book, living at the time of Muhammad:

"Those unto whom We have given the Scripture, who read it with the right reading, those believe in it. And whoso disbelieveth in it, those are they who are the losers" 2:121 Pickthall

It is clear from the verse, that, there were people among the people of the Book, who interpreted their scripture correctly. Thus, Quran in other verses, is talking about misinterpretations of Scriptures, while confirming the Text of the Books.

Here is a commentary of Q. 2:121:

Zamakhshari interprets the verse as follows: "'They to whom we have given the scriptures' are the faithful among the people of the Book who recite the scriptures in their true recitation, neither altering nor changing what they contain of the description of the Apostle of God [sic]. Those who have faith in their scriptures are contrasted with 'whosoever rejects faith in it [the scriptures],' that is, alterers. 'These shall be the losers' because they exchange guidance for error." (Zamakhshari, I, p. 308) (Mahmoud M. Ayoub, The Qur'an and its Interpreters [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany], Volume 1, pp. 149-150)

Also Ibn Abbas commentary:

Allah then mentioned the believers from among the people of the Book: ‘Abdullah Ibn Salam and his companions, Bahirah the Monk and the Negus and his followers, saying: (Those unto whom We have given the Scripture) given knowledge of the Scripture, i.e. the Torah, (who read it with the right reading) describe it AS IT IS AND DO NOT ALTER IT: expositing what is lawful and unlawful, its commands and prohibitions to whomever asks them, and they further act according to what is clear and unambiguous and believe in that which is ambiguous therein, (those believe in it) in Muhammad and the Qur’an. (And who disbelieveth in it) in Muhammad and the Qur’an, (those are they who are losers) who are duped in that they loose both this world and the world to come.

Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs

Rational_Mind · Nov 11, 2012

InvestigateTruth I am still waiting on your reply.

I also want you to try and understand that we are not denying that the Bible and Torah were misinterpreted. If we were then you would have something to stand on. Your argument is that the Bible we find today is pure as was revealed to the Prophets. In order to prove this you have to show us evidence in History that proves contrary to the studies of thousands of historians. Or show from the Holy Quran that Bible was protected by Allah (swt).

Your opinion so far is not backed up by anything and is mere speculation if worthy of being called anything. It is hurtful to see you continue without addressing my posts that have raised serious concerns on your argumentation. The new thrust of your argument that is continuously changing focus is that Allah (swt) must protect all his scriptures. I addressed this idea of yours by showing serious contradictions. So please go back and address it or do not continue to speculate on sandy grounds.

InvestigateTruth · Nov 11, 2012

Rational_Mind said:
In order to prove this you have to show us evidence in History that proves contrary to the studies of thousands of historians.

I just have to disagree with this argument.

The Quran has several verses that talks about Injil and Torah as the Scriptures.
Thus, as you are a Moslem if you say the scriptures today are not the legitimate ones, it is your Job to prove how they got corrupted.
I have already shown you evidences that can be seen how the Disciples of Christ were inspired.

This is like, if someone claimes the Text of Quran has become corrupted. That would be his job to show how it got corrupted, based on Provable History.

Or show from the Holy Quran that Bible was protected by Allah (swt).

I have shown this many times from Quran and Islamic History.
Here is perhaps a summary i can provide for you:

The word that quran uses in the verses, which Moslems often refer to as indication of changes to Books, is "Tahrif".

According to Moslem Scholar Amin Ahsan, there are 4 types of tahrif:

Amin Ahsan Islahi writes about four types of tahrif:[6]

To deliberately interpret something in a manner that is totally opposite to the intention of the author. To distort the pronunciation of a word to such an extent that the word changes completely.
To add to or delete a sentence or discourse in a manner that completely distorts the original meaning. For example, according to Islam, the Jews altered the incident of the migration of the Prophet Abraham in a manner that no one could prove that Abraham had any relationship with the Kaaba.
To translate a word that has two meanings in the meaning that is totally against the context. For example the Hebrew word that is equivalent to the Arabic ‘ابن’ was translated as ‘son’ whereas it also meant ‘servant’ and ‘slave’.
To raise questions about something that is absolutely clear in order to create uncertainty about it, or to change it completely.

Tahrif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, from the above, 3 out of 4 types of tahrif, means misinterpretation, and twisting the meaning, and not changing the actual Text.

In fact, there are evidence that, Prophet Muhammad and early Moslems, did not believe that the actual Text of the Injils or Torah was corrupted. They believed that the meaning of them were twisted and misinterpreted.

Upto 315 years after Muhammad, the recorded Historical evidence show that, the intention of Quran was to say that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted the Text of their Book. For example:

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas (Cousin of Muhammad) said [the Jews] alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the words from His book, they alter and distort their apparent meaning” – with this Hadith it is clear that those who walked with the Prophet (PBUH) believed the text of the Torah was original, while holding the view that the Jews perverted their interpretation.

In the year 796 Abu l-Rabi Muhammad ibn al-Layth (a courtier to Kalif Harun al-Rashid ) penned a letter to Constatine VI stating that the word “tahrif” should be read as the Jews had distorted their sense. “Whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad (PBUH) mentioned, but the people of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation”. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and he then goes on to use the text of the Torah as proof of the authenticity of the Torah (a belief both he and the kalif share).

300 year after Muhammad still, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Baqillani was of the opinion that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original and that the Jews had inadvertently made mistakes in their translations.

It is only in later years, that some of Moslems started to say the actual text of the injil or Torah were corrupted.
Source:
http://www.judaism-islam.com/islam-teaches-torah-is-corrupted-tahrif-but-what-does-that-mean/

Thus as regards to the verses that Moslems refer as corruption of the text, in my view, those verses of Quran are mistranslated.

For example the verse 5:41, here is the translation by Muhammad Asad correctly:

"O APOSTLE! Be not grieved by those who vie with one another in denying the truth: such as those who say with their mouths, "We believe," the while their hearts do not believe; and such of the Jewish faith as eagerly listen to any falsehood, eagerly listen to other people without having come to thee [for enlightenment]. They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context, saying [to themselves], "If such-and-such [teaching] is vouchsafed unto you, accept it; but if it is not vouchsafed unto you, be on your guard!" [Be not grieved by them-] for if God wills anyone to be tempted to evil, thou canst in no wise prevail with God in his behalf. It is they whose hearts God is not willing to cleanse. Theirs shall be ignominy in this world, and awesome suffering in the life to come-" 5:41

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/41/default.htm

As a Moslem, you surely have heard, that, the verses of Quran were revealed gradually to suit the situations and many of the verses were revealed to address the problems of the time of the Prophet.
Thus, whenever we do a Tafseer, we need to know the History, and reason why those verses are revealed. We need to know the story behind the revelation of each verse.
The Verses that Quran revealed regarding "Tahrif" It has to do with writing certain Books and Interpretations regarding Injil or Torah, at the time of Muhammad. You would know that if you do your research as to what was the reason those verses were revealed historically.

Yes, There are verses in Quran that talk about "Modification" and alteration by the Religious Leaders. however, those refer to misinterpretations of ONLY particular cases.

One of them is concerning the penalty of adultery, when the prophet was to explain the penalty of Adultry to some Jewish leaders.
Which the Quran reveals "They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context" See Quran 4:44-46

It is clear, in that instance, by perverting the Text is meant "Misinterpretation" and "twisting" as the Torah still contains the verse that says punishment for adultery is death by stone.
Another example is: "A part of them heard the Word of God, and then, after they had understood it, distorted it, and knew that they did so." Quran 2:75
This verse, also indicates that the meaning of the Word of God hath been perverted, not that the actual words in the Text of Bible are changed.

Another example,: "Woe unto those who, with their own hands, transcribe the Book corruptly, and then say: ‘This is from God,’ that they may sell it for some mean price." Quran 2:79

This verse was revealed regarding the Jewish leaders who were living at the time of Muhammad. For they had written false interpretations to refute the claims of Muhammad.

As regrads to 5:13 and 5:14, I believe this is the correct translations, by Asad:

"Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden-[so that now] they distort the meaning of the [re-vealed] words, taking them out of their context; and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind; and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good."
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/13/default.htm

Thus again, Quran is saying they distorted the meaning of the Text. It does not say, the actual text was distorted. Forgetting the teachings, also does not indicate, it was ommited from the Text of Injil, it can only mean from their mind. They did not care to follow them anymore.

So in my view there is no verse in Quran, that says: "Injil or Torah are corrupted."

As a matter of fact there are many verses in Quran that confirms Injil and Torah, which were among them at time of Muhammad are from God.

- Peace

InvestigateTruth · Nov 11, 2012

Rational_Mind said:
It is hurtful to see you continue without addressing my posts that have raised serious concerns on your argumentation. The new thrust of your argument that is continuously changing focus is that Allah (swt) must protect all his scriptures. I addressed this idea of yours by showing serious contradictions. So please go back and address it or do not continue to speculate on sandy grounds.

Which post are you talking about? post #?

Do you have any answer to these:

Further Modern Christian criticism:

Modern Christian rejection of tahrif is based on five broad arguments:[citation needed]

There is little physical manuscript evidence of alteration to the Biblical texts. Also devotion of the Jewish people to the Torah and the meticulous copying of text by the Massoretes runs against Muslim charges. The oldest Dead Sea Scrolls versions c. 280 BCE – 68 CE match current usage with only minor variations.[10]
There is no satisfactory answer to why Jews and Christians would change their text. Jews and Christians were hostile to each other. Little agreement could have been achieved. For example in the 1st century St Paul was regularly attacked by the Jews (Acts 23v12) and anti-Jewish attacks were a regular occurrence by 372CE.[11]
Differing new sects would have disagreed with mainline groups over changes. Thus no uniform set of alterations could be made as the Muslim claims.
Former Jews and Christians who became Muslims never mentioned any possibility of deliberate corruption—something critics could definitely expect if it were true.[12]

Some modern Christian apologists have used these refutations of tahrif as a weakness of Islam.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrif

To me the above refutes the claim that Bible is corrupted very strongly.

In addition, to the above once again, it is good to ask ourselves:

1. Can a person who believed his Book is from God, alters it?
2. The texts of Bible were spread among different people. it was not only one copy, or just a small town that they can go and change all those Books.

Rational_Mind · Nov 11, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
I just have to disagree with this argument.

The Quran has several verses that talks about Injil and Torah as the Scriptures.
Thus, as you are a Moslem if you say the scriptures today are not the legitimate ones, it is your Job to prove how they got corrupted.
I have already shown you evidences that can be seen how the Disciples of Christ were inspired.

This is like, if someone claimes the Text of Quran has become corrupted. That would be his job to show how it got corrupted, based on Provable History.

You are incapable of understanding what an argument is. I have expected too much from you. I apologize. You can continue to entertain your own ignorance as I know how Tahrif applies which you have admitted as one of the meanings yourself. Please keep referring back to my last post if you are still confused, then if you are still confused refer to this post the first sentence. Then if you are confused refer back to my last post.

Enjoy your circular argumentation and life of fallacies. I can no longer entertain those who have let go of reasoning in exchange for ignorance.

gnostic · Nov 11, 2012

rational mind said:
Another valid issue that every fair mind should realize in the story of Solomon and Ants, Jinn, etc. is the fact that HudHud the bird is not a migratory bird yet it is set on a far away journey. Not only that but even if we accept that the bird can speak to Solomon and even understand the complexity of human communication we are left wondering how will Queen of Sheba possibly understand his language? The fact is that HudHud is the name of a messenger who was sent to deliver messages. Similarly the Ants are a tribe as the Arabic grammar used in reference of them is only used for rational creatures. We know ants aren't rational creatures so why was it used? It was used because tribes were commonly named after animals. Similarly like sports teams are named today. If we speak about the Dolphins or Bulls making making money, people usually understand it is a sports team not actual Dolphins or Bulls making millions of dollars. There are many examples of tribes that were named after animals. I have made a post on it before, unfortunately some other Muslims felt I killed the miracle although it made it much greater, yet nobody took the time to prove me wrong as the Quran had made it crystal clear that one cannot take the alternative literal interpretation without contradicting the Quran itself.

I familiar with interpretations that birds (or the hoopoe or HudHud) or ants may not mean "birds" or "ants"; that they could mean human tribes had named themselves like birds and ants. And that hoopee or hudhud could be a name of person, instead of a species of bird; that's possible too.

That's always the possibilities, and it would be rational explanation to these verses. Of course, then that would mean that the verses are not "miraculous" at all, and about Solomon understand speeches of birds (human tribe) or ants (again, human tribe).

But why referred to them as "ants" or "birds" and not their proper tribal names. And in most English translations of 27, birds and ants were used, without the capitalizing it to "Birds" or "Ants".

When we called teams after animals, they are often as Bulls or Dolphins, using your examples, and not bulls or dolphins.

Another thing is that if the ants were tribe of humans, then this verse (27:18) wouldn't make sense:

Qur'an 27:18 said:
At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

Now when I walk outside, I would squash who know how many ants or other insects without knowing about it, so that understandable.

But if ants are not insects, according to your interpretation of the verse, RM, then how could Solomon and his host (soldiers?) possibly crush a whole tribe of people (under foot) "without knowing it"?

It is not possible to crush people, and not knowing what you have don't.

PS Paragraph as large as your middle paragraph, should be broken up into smaller paragraphs. People tends to have short attention span, and often quickly lose interest when reading large paragraph.

Rational_Mind · Nov 11, 2012

gnostic said:
I familiar with interpretations that birds (or the hoopoe or HudHud) or ants may not mean "birds" or "ants"; that they could mean human tribes had named themselves like birds and ants. And that hoopee or hudhud could be a name of person, instead of a species of bird; that's possible too.

That's always the possibilities, and it would be rational explanation to these verses. Of course, then that would mean that the verses are not "miraculous" at all, and about Solomon understand speeches of birds (human tribe) or ants (again, human tribe).

You could look into the Biblical name of Hudad for similarity. It is most likely that HudHud was the name of the officer entrusted by Prophet Solomon (as) to deliver messages to the Queen of Sheba.

Name of Hudad at time of Solomon (as) in Kings 11:14 (1 Kings 11:14 Then the LORD raised up against Solomon an adversary, Hadad the Edomite, from the royal line of Edom.)

If the Quran never mean't the verses to mean speaking to animals then I find no interest in interpreting it as such. Not only does it cause contradiction in the Holy Quran but requires people to let go of reason to accept a contradictory explanation to logic and the Holy Quran itself. A double loss. The miracle is in the fact that a Prophet of God was give such blessings in have a righteous army and guiding the Queen of Sheba to the truth.

gnostic said:
But why referred to them as "ants" or "birds" and not their proper tribal names. And in most English translations of 27, birds and ants were used, without the capitalizing it to "Birds" or "Ants".

When we called teams after animals, they are often as Bulls or Dolphins, using your examples, and not bulls or dolphins.

The translators interpreted it as Ants and Birds. Which explains the capitalization. It is not in the Arabic itself.

gnostic said:
Another thing is that if the ants were tribe of humans, then this verse (27:18) wouldn't make sense:

Originally Posted by Qur'an 27:18
At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

Click to expand...

Now when I walk outside, I would squash who know how many ants or other insects without knowing about it, so that understandable.

But if ants are not insects, according to your interpretation of the verse, RM, then how could Solomon and his host (soldiers?) possibly crush a whole tribe of people (under foot) "without knowing it"?

It is not possible to crush people, and not knowing what you have don't.

The part that says "Under Foot" is purely interpretation of the translator.

Interestingly the verse you presented is also the on that proves indefinitely that it would only make sense that they were a tribe.

[27:19] Until when they came to the Valley of Al-Naml, a Namlite said, ‘O ye Naml, enter your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, while they know not.’

[27:20] Thereupon he smiled, laughing at her words, and said, ‘My Lord, grant me the will and power to be grateful for Thy favour which Thou hast bestowed upon me and upon my parents, and to do such good works as would please Thee, and admit me, by Thy mercy, among Thy righteous servants.’

Here we can see that Prophet Solomon (as) was proud of what the member of the tribe has said. It would not make sense if we took the interpretation that Solomon (as) would literally crush ants. It makes sense if we realize that the Namalite was aware that if any harm came upon them while Prophet Solomon (as) and his army passed through the valley it would not be intentional.

The Prophet (as) was proud that his army were known far and wide as obedient to him as righteous people who would not unnecessarily harm others. The prayer offered by Prophet Solomon (as) is in thanks to Allah (swt) for such a blessing. It would not make sense why Solomon (as) would laugh at ants over the fact that Allah (swt) has given him the ability talk to ants and to be able to crush something so weak and small.

The Arabic word used for "enter" is used exclusively for rational beings and we know Ants are not rational beings. Moreover, the word "habitations" has been exclusively used in the Holy Quran for human habitations (29:39 and 32:27).

In Arabia it was common practice to name tribes after animals. Here are some examples: Banu Asad, Banu Taghlab, and Banu Naml.

gnostic said:
PS Paragraph as large as your middle paragraph, should be broken up into smaller paragraphs. People tends to have short attention span, and often quickly lose interest when reading large paragraph.

Advice accepted. I wrote it in a hurry. Apologies. I have a hard time understanding it myself right now..

gnostic · Nov 11, 2012

rational mind said:
The part that says "Under Foot" is purely interpretation of the translator.

True, but it also indicative that the translator (Yusuf Ali) believed that the ants were insects, not people.

rational mind said:
Interestingly the verse you presented is also the on that proves indefinitely that it would only make sense that they were a tribe.

[27:19] Until when they came to the Valley of Al-Naml, a Namlite said, ‘O ye Naml, enter your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, while they know not.’

[27:20] Thereupon he smiled, laughing at her words, and said, ‘My Lord, grant me the will and power to be grateful for Thy favour which Thou hast bestowed upon me and upon my parents, and to do such good works as would please Thee, and admit me, by Thy mercy, among Thy righteous servants.’

Here we can see that Prophet Solomon (as) was proud of what the member of the tribe has said. It would not make sense if we took the interpretation that Solomon (as) would literally crush ants. It makes sense if we realize that the Namalite was aware that if any harm came upon them while Prophet Solomon (as) and his army passed through the valley it would not be intentional.

The Prophet (as) was proud that his army were known far and wide as obedient to him as righteous people who would not unnecessarily harm others. The prayer offered by Prophet Solomon (as) is in thanks to Allah (swt) for such a blessing. It would not make sense why Solomon (as) would laugh at ants over the fact that Allah (swt) has given him the ability talk to ants and to be able to crush something so weak and small.

I actually understand what you are saying (referring to your explanation), but when I read Solomon say in verse 19, I don't see it when I read this verse to indicate that they were people, not insects.

If they were people, then wouldn't it make sense for all the translators called them Namlite, and not "ants". While it is true, that I can't read Arabic, but all these translators were or are (if they are alive like the more recent translations) Muslims.

All of the translations (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Palmer, Sahih, Muhsin Khan, Rodwell) that I've seen, do not use Namlite, not even more recent translations.

I don't mean to be stubborn about this. But the verses are too vague that not surprisingly, open to different interpretations, and hence, our disagreement.

Rational_Mind · Nov 11, 2012

gnostic said:
True, but it also indicative that the translator (Yusuf Ali) believed that the ants were insects, not people.

I actually understand what you are saying (referring to your explanation), but when I read Solomon say in verse 19, I don't see it when I read this verse to indicate that they were people, not insects.

If they were people, then wouldn't it make sense for all the translators called them Namlite, and not "ants". While it is true, that I can't read Arabic, but all these translators were or are (if they are alive like the more recent translations) Muslims.

All of the translations (Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, Palmer, Sahih, Muhsin Khan, Rodwell) that I've seen, do not use Namlite, not even more recent translations.

I don't mean to be stubborn about this. But the verses are too vague that not surprisingly, open to different interpretations, and hence, our disagreement.

It is unfortunate that it was translated as it has been. If you have time I can refer you to a commentary that directly address this issue in more detail. It explains why it is not possible to take a literal interpretation.

There are many aspects to this story and it has a very important message, by the mainstream translation it is lost. For example, the Queen of Sheba is made to walk over a clear glass that is placed above a stream. Many people wonder why after doing so she believes in one God and lets go of sun worship.
The Promised Messiah (as) who was sent for the very purpose of protecting the interpretation of the Quran explained that the glass setup is an illusion that makes it appear as if one will step into water.
Once the Queen realizes that she has had a false perception contrary to reality she also comes to realize that even though she worships the Sun which appears to be the source of all life on Earth she has mistaken the Sun for the creator.

The key question that has been in my mind is how to we tell when an interpretation is solely done to please other or the correct interpretation. The common sense approach to check interpretations is to chose one that makes sense and does not contradict. Everything we read can basically be interpreted differently, but why should we intentionally take an interpretation that makes the writer contradict him or herself?

It is unfortunate that many translators have erred in understanding these verses. It appears they have translated it as such to try and bring a miraculous interpretation that unfortunately is not actually present there and contradicts with the Quran.

Most importantly we know that Tribes were very commonly named after Animals in Arabia. They are never taken literally when mentioned so why should we do so and bring about a contradiction in the Quran aswell?

gnostic · Nov 12, 2012

rational mind said:
It is unfortunate that it was translated as it has been. If you have time I can refer you to a commentary that directly address this issue in more detail. It explains why it is not possible to take a literal interpretation.

There are many aspects to this story and it has a very important message, by the mainstream translation it is lost. For example, the Queen of Sheba is made to walk over a clear glass that is placed above a stream. Many people wonder why after doing so she believes in one God and lets go of sun worship.
The Promised Messiah (as) who was sent for the very purpose of protecting the interpretation of the Quran explained that the glass setup is an illusion that makes it appear as if one will step into water.
Once the Queen realizes that she has had a false perception contrary to reality she also comes to realize that even though she worships the Sun which appears to be the source of all life on Earth she has mistaken the Sun for the creator.

The key question that has been in my mind is how to we tell when an interpretation is solely done to please other or the correct interpretation. The common sense approach to check interpretations is to chose one that makes sense and does not contradict. Everything we read can basically be interpreted differently, but why should we intentionally take an interpretation that makes the writer contradict him or herself?

It is unfortunate that many translators have erred in understanding these verses. It appears they have translated it as such to try and bring a miraculous interpretation that unfortunately is not actually present there and contradicts with the Quran.

Most importantly we know that Tribes were very commonly named after Animals in Arabia. They are never taken literally when mentioned so why should we do so and bring about a contradiction in the Quran aswell?

I have different question if you don't mind me asking, in somewhat related to what we have been discussing, but could be unrelated too, Rational Mind.

Are these tribes with animal names are people descended from Ishmael, hence they "Ishmaelite"?

Because according to Genesis 25:12-18, there were 12 sons of Ishmael, who became clan chieftains of 12 different tribes, not of which were named after animals.

Rational_Mind · Nov 12, 2012

gnostic said:
I have different question if you don't mind me asking, in somewhat related to what we have been discussing, but could be unrelated too, Rational Mind.

Are these tribes with animal names are people descended from Ishmael, hence they "Ishmaelite"?

Because according to Genesis 25:12-18, there were 12 sons of Ishmael, who became clan chieftains of 12 different tribes, not of which were named after animals.

They are not mentioned as descendants of Ishmael. They are only mentioned as a tribe that lived in a Valley. The Quran simply mentions a valley that Solomon (as) passed while on an expedition. What is conveyed in this story is that he was known far and wide as having righteous following.

Many Arabian tribes are well known to be named after animals, it becomes obvious that this must be also another tribe. If one wishes to interpret it against reason and the meaning conveyed by the Quran they can wish to do so, but trying to make a Miracle that makes little sense provides no harmony to the understanding of the Holy Quran.

What possible use is it to talk to creatures we know do not posses the anywhere near the capacity of Humans. How can you have a messenger which speaks only your tongue that nobody else understands. Why would a Prophet of God be impressed by hearing an Ant mention that they can be crushed. The prayer following would no longer make sense if they really were Ants.

How would a bird possibly know how to enter respectfully and know the importance of worshiping One God. All of a sudden we should expect all creatures to also worship God and be responsible for their actions when we see they lack conscious thought. We should expect that any animal that bites another should be brought into questioning to ensure justice.

F0uad · Nov 15, 2012

Since we are way of topic and InvestigateTruth could not reply on the things i said i will ask you some questions Rational_Mind if you don't mind.

Most of the commentaries on the Quran such as Ibn Khatir uses Authentic hadiths to justify the literal interpretations and there are more great scholars who agreed with this interpretation heck most of the Sunni's belief its literal. My question do you reject some of Bukhari and Sahih Muslim in these regards?

Other question is you mentioned if some interpret these verses literally they contradict could you possible show me a example?

Last question: Is there any historical data we have that Arabic tribes in Soloman's(pbuh) time were called after animals and did Soloman(pbuh) speak arabic or was he in the arab peninsula? (What was very small in that time)

Rational_Mind · Nov 16, 2012

F0uad said:
Since we are way of topic and InvestigateTruth could not reply on the things i said i will ask you some questions Rational_Mind if you don't mind.

Most of the commentaries on the Quran such as Ibn Khatir uses Authentic hadiths to justify the literal interpretations and there are more great scholars who agreed with this interpretation heck most of the Sunni's belief its literal. My question do you reject some of Bukhari and Sahih Muslim in these regards?

Other question is you mentioned if some interpret these verses literally they contradict could you possible show me a example?

Last question: Is there any historical data we have that Arabic tribes in Soloman's(pbuh) time were called after animals and did Soloman(pbuh) speak arabic or was he in the arab peninsula? (What was very small in that time)

1. As regards to Hadith we do not give priority to it over the Quran. So if anything is contradicting with the Holy Quran then what right does man have to interpret it in such a way?

2. The link to commentary is here: The Holy Quran
It uses Hadith were they are harmonious with the text of the Quran and often mentions the opinion of other Scholars.

3. If you head to the commentary you can find several examples. It mentions the literal interpretation and explains why it does not make sense. By contradiction I mean logical contradiction in reference to this story. Such as the fact a non-migratory bird would be selected to travel long distances to deliver messages. And the fact that the person the bird is sent to does not understand the bird "tongue".

There are many other aspects that show that literal interpretations raise logical contradictions with what the Quran has said. Aspects of the story make it very clear that literal interpretation is not possible. Please head to the commentary for more details.

4. Regardless of what book it is, if it contradicts with the Holy Quran it must be rejected regardless of how authentic it seems. As the only guarantee is the Holy Quran.

F0uad · Nov 16, 2012

1. As regards to Hadith we do not give priority to it over the Quran. So if anything is contradicting with the Holy Quran then what right does man have to interpret it in such a way?

Well a hadith is not considerd to be Authentic in the first place when it contradicts the Quran even if the narration is solid.

2. The link to commentary is here: The Holy Quran
It uses Hadith were they are harmonious with the text of the Quran and often mentions the opinion of other Scholars.

Which hadiths does it uses there aren't any refrences it looks more like a commentary made by Ahmidya's? I mean is there any Islamic hadiths or refrences except for the Quranic verse?

3. If you head to the commentary you can find several examples. It mentions the literal interpretation and explains why it does not make sense. By contradiction I mean logical contradiction in reference to this story. Such as the fact a non-migratory bird would be selected to travel long distances to deliver messages. And the fact that the person the bird is sent to does not understand the bird "tongue".

Well first of all the bird didn't have to migrate at all birds are well known to fly long distances and the Hud Hud does migrate when the place is out of food.

Secondly how come the Hud Hud Bird lives in the area where Soloman(pbuh) supposly lived?

Thirdly if we agree it was a mircale that Soloman(pbuh) could speak to animals surlely he could also speak to birds?

There are many other aspects that show that literal interpretations raise logical contradictions with what the Quran has said. Aspects of the story make it very clear that literal interpretation is not possible. Please head to the commentary for more details.

I would rather hear them from you

4. Regardless of what book it is, if it contradicts with the Holy Quran it must be rejected regardless of how authentic it seems. As the only guarantee is the Holy Quran.

I agree

Could you possible answer the rest of my questions?
I also wanted to add one more question, since you don't belief that Soloman(pbuh) could have comunicated and lead a army of Jins and Animals how come all of the Islamic scholars commented the same on it and all scholars interpreted it literally? There are even companions commenting on this verse who take this literally. If you disagree aren't you actually saying that the companions were wrong, scholars for 1400years are wrong and your right?

Rational_Mind · Nov 17, 2012

F0uad said:
Last question: Is there any historical data we have that Arabic tribes in Soloman's(pbuh) time were called after animals and did Soloman(pbuh) speak arabic or was he in the arab peninsula? (What was very small in that time)

This part is discussed in the commentary. I would advise one who is interested to take to time to read it. I would just be copying it here and lose important details. To shortly answer, it is without dispute that they were very commonly named after animals. One can check the Bibles and other historical documents for several examples. I am unclear what Arabic language has direct relation to this topic. Please clarify if you have time.

Rational_Mind · Nov 17, 2012

F0uad said:
Well a hadith is not considerd to be Authentic in the first place when it contradicts the Quran even if the narration is solid.

We can look at the saying of the collectors themselves who told us to dispose them if they found it to be contradictory. Man can make mistake by not realizing that something is contradictory. We should always be open to investigation to ensure we are not mistaken.

F0uad said:
Which hadiths does it uses there aren't any refrences it looks more like a commentary made by Ahmidya's? I mean is there any Islamic hadiths or refrences except for the Quranic verse?

If one is under the impression that the opinion of past Scholars on interpretation is set in stone then I can go ahead and quote the very Scholars who said to make sure they dispose their idea if it is found to be in contradiction with the Holy Quran.

F0uad said:
Well first of all the bird didn't have to migrate at all birds are well known to fly long distances and the Hud Hud does migrate when the place is out of food.

There are birds that are well fit for the task of long distance flights. The HudHud is not one of them. Sorry for using the word migratory, I just mean't flying long distances. What I mean to say is that HudHud would not be fit for the job.

F0uad said:
Secondly how come the Hud Hud Bird lives in the area where Soloman(pbuh) supposly lived?

The messenger was named after the Bird. I never said such a bird did not exist or did not live near the area of Solomon (as) kingdom. Having such does not make it anymore possible that the person was a bird.

F0uad said:
Thirdly if we agree it was a mircale that Soloman(pbuh) could speak to animals surlely he could also speak to birds?

Again, we know animals are not intelligent. The Holy Quran has used words that are only for rational beings. Why would it be done such as we never ourselves use such words on animals. Secondly, the problem is how the Queen of Sheba would speak to the bird who Prophet Solomon (as) sent.

F0uad said:
I would rather hear them from you

Why is it that Prophet Solomon (as) would hold a bird so small and incapable accountable such as the punishment he described if it didn't show up. Such responsibility can only be put on humans. Unless one believes it is possible for a Prophet of God to be so cruel, but we do not.

F0uad said:
Could you possible answer the rest of my questions?
I also wanted to add one more question, since you don't belief that Soloman(pbuh) could have comunicated and lead a army of Jins and Animals how come all of the Islamic scholars commented the same on it and all scholars interpreted it literally? There are even companions commenting on this verse who take this literally. If you disagree aren't you actually saying that the companions were wrong, scholars for 1400years are wrong and your right?

The companions themselves said to let go of something that you may find of ours to contradict with the Quran. The only person who best understood the Quran was the Holy Prophet (saw). If we find such Hadith that is in-line with the Quran even if it is of questionable authenticity we would accept it as it is in-line with the Holy Quran. These very Scholars brought a lot of enlightenment to understanding the Holy Quran. But Allah (swt) reveals information as he pleases.

If you have time to read the commentary you will realize that Jinns and Animals are very important aspects that have been missed by literal interpretation. Moreover many aspects of the stories such as the fear that Solomon (as) had of what would happen after him. The question is who were Jinn and Animals. One can find this expanded in the commentary. Hopefully I will have time in the break to post some stuff in the Islam DIR and hopefully enlighten some people who will have these questions cleared.

I will try to expand important aspects when I find time. I am unfortunately 3 weeks away from final exams.

F0uad · Nov 19, 2012

I want to thank you for answering me, sorry for my late responds and please forgive me for my english..

We can look at the saying of the collectors themselves who told us to dispose them if they found it to be contradictory. Man can make mistake by not realizing that something is contradictory. We should always be open to investigation to ensure we are not mistaken.

There is no disagreement here and this does happen sometimes.

If one is under the impression that the opinion of past Scholars on interpretation is set in stone then I can go ahead and quote the very Scholars who said to make sure they dispose their idea if it is found to be in contradiction with the Holy Quran.

I agree however the point i was making is that it doesn't contradict the Quran. With all respect (i really hope you don't get offened here) if there is more then 5 Authentic Hadiths recorded and researched has been done on these Hadiths, isn't it then weird then sunndely to interpret them differently after 1800 while they were always have been accepted before? Also could you possible show me where the Chain of narrations are broken/weak or not valid?

There are birds that are well fit for the task of long distance flights. The HudHud is not one of them. Sorry for using the word migratory, I just mean't flying long distances. What I mean to say is that HudHud would not be fit for the job.

Ok some things to point out here.

1. Hudhud birds can fly long distances as i said earlier they do migrate, they went from Europe to the middle-africa/middle-east and sometimes even as far as south-africa.

2. Is there any record or scripture that says how far the bird flew except for a long distance?

The messenger was named after the Bird. I never said such a bird did not exist or did not live near the area of Solomon (as) kingdom. Having such does not make it anymore possible that the person was a bird.

Ok fair enough.

Again, we know animals are not intelligent. The Holy Quran has used words that are only for rational beings. Why would it be done such as we never ourselves use such words on animals. Secondly, the problem is how the Queen of Sheba would speak to the bird who Prophet Solomon (as) sent.

Could you possible give me refrences to the Quranic verses regarding the event just to see what you are reading is the same as i do. Just to throw it out there Animals are created as muslims. Also there is no indication that the bird spoke to Sheba in the first place, he just watched what happend there and told Soloman(pbuh).

Why is it that Prophet Solomon (as) would hold a bird so small and incapable accountable such as the punishment he described if it didn't show up. Such responsibility can only be put on humans. Unless one believes it is possible for a Prophet of God to be so cruel, but we do not.

Well the bird isn't that small its a medium sized bird, 25–32 cm (9.8–12.6 in) long, with a 44–48 cm (17.3–19 in) wingspan. About being cruel i will leave that up to you, since i will never judge a messenger or prophet(peace be upon them) for hes actions against a animal or a humanbeing.

The companions themselves said to let go of something that you may find of ours to contradict with the Quran. The only person who best understood the Quran was the Holy Prophet (saw). If we find such Hadith that is in-line with the Quran even if it is of questionable authenticity we would accept it as it is in-line with the Holy Quran. These very Scholars brought a lot of enlightenment to understanding the Holy Quran. But Allah (swt) reveals information as he pleases.

The problem here is if your saying that the companions are wrong, your saying that Mohammed(saws) was wrong therefore Allah(swt) is wrong. (With all respect offcourse)

If you have time to read the commentary you will realize that Jinns and Animals are very important aspects that have been missed by literal interpretation. Moreover many aspects of the stories such as the fear that Solomon (as) had of what would happen after him. The question is who were Jinn and Animals. One can find this expanded in the commentary. Hopefully I will have time in the break to post some stuff in the Islam DIR and hopefully enlighten some people who will have these questions cleared.

I have read the commentary.. atleast the link you gave me and i don't see it as a valid interpretation. Also how far does the commentary go? I mean who wrote it..

I will try to expand important aspects when I find time. I am unfortunately 3 weeks away from final exams.

Take your time my friend and remember if i offended you anyway i apologize.

I hope i can ask more if your ok with that?

1. Why is Soloman(pbuh) taught the speech of birds if he wouldn't talk to birds?

And Solomon was David's heir. He said: "O ye people! We have been taught the speech of birds, and on us has been bestowed (a little) of all things: this is indeed Grace manifest (from Allah.)"

Does the Qur'an Deny the Crucifixion of Jesus?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ahmadi Muslim

Well-Known Member

Ahmadi Muslim

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ahmadi Muslim

The Lost One

Ahmadi Muslim

The Lost One

Ahmadi Muslim

The Lost One

Ahmadi Muslim

Well-Known Member

Ahmadi Muslim

Well-Known Member

Ahmadi Muslim

Ahmadi Muslim

Well-Known Member