Sign of She-Camel?

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 25-10-01 AT 01:28 AM (GMT)[p]Peace to All,

As I've stated many places elsewhere, I am a Christian who has been trying to read and understand the Qur'an.

Over and over in the Qur'an, I see reference to "the sign of the she camel" given to the people of Thamoud.

For example, "Nothing hinders us from giving signs, except that the ancients disbelieved them. To Thamoud we gave the she-camel as a visible sign, yet they laid violent hands on her. We give signs only by way of warning." (Sura 17:59?)

I have no experience with camels, can't match this to the Bible, and do not know who Thamoud is.

Can anyone explain what this sign is and what it means?

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[Dr Qaisar]

Greetings, jcecil3.


>Over and over in the Qur'an,
>I see reference to "the
>sign of the she camel"
>given to the people of
>Thamoud.

>I have no experience with camels,
>can't match this to the
>Bible, and do not know
>who Thamoud is.
>
>Can anyone explain what this sign
>is and what it means?
>


Camels are mentioned in many places in the Qur'an and their importance cannot be underestimated to a desert people being as they were a symbol of wealth & prosperity and the only means of trans-desert transport. Thus, camels may not be described in the Bible because the people of Prophet Jesus' time may not have used them as the Jews were not desert people, but urban inhabitants of Palestine & other places.

To understand the sign of the she-camel & the story of Prophet Salih (PBUH) sent to the people of Thamud, one has to know a little about their origins & ancestory as also their related ‘cousins‘, the people of Aad. These 2 were ancient civilisations in Arabia who descended from Prophet Noah (PBUH) & his sons. The genealogy of Prophet Noah (Nuh, PBUH) is not mentioned in the Qur'an per se, but it has been taken from other sources & traditions. Thus, according to Arabian traditions, Aad was fourth in generation from Noah, being the son of Aus, son of Aram, son of Saam, the son of Noah. (Note: this is different from that given in Genesis,OT). And Thamud was a son of Aabir (brother of Aram), son of Saam, the son of Noah. Therefore, Aad & Thamud were closely related and gave rise to their respective nations, one dwelling in Southern Arabia & Yemen (the people of Aad) and the other residing in Northern Arabia, between Madinah & Syria (the people of Thamud). Many centuries later, the Thamud were succeeded by the Nabataeans preceding the era of Prophet Jesus (PBUH) by a few centuries. For details, see "The Encyclopedia of Islam".

Now, to the story of the she-camel. In due course of time & with the achievement of wealth and prosperity, the Thamud people (like their older ‘cousins‘, the Aad, to whom was sent their prophet, Hud) become godless & arrogant. They had built palaces & castles in plains and habituations in mountains (see V.7:73 to 79). The rich & arrogant and privileged among the people oppressed the poor and tried to monopolise the distribution of water ( a rare commodity in the desert) and the grazing of pastures which were free & natural bounties bestowed on all by God (Allah). Therefore, to right the wrong & evil and to bring the people to the true path of worship of the one true, God, Allah sent the Prophet Saalih from among their own people. And a she-camel was made a sign from God as a test for the arrogant & oppresors among the Thamud with the Command from God to let it graze freely in the land. The poor among the Thamud believed in the revelation given to Prophet Saalih (PBUH) but not the arrogants ones and they taunted the Prophet to produce his threats & warnings. And in absolute defiance of God's Command, they killed the she-camel & ham-strung her!! Thus, as punishment from God they were destroyed by a powerful earthquake for having wilfully disobeyed the message & warnings of their prophet. This was the sign of the she-camel.

Now, unto to a slightly different topic, jcecil3. In one of your replies, you had asked for ‘extra-koranic sources of evidences‘ and "archaeological-scientific evidences" as further testimony to the authenticity of the Qur'an! The descriptions of the dwellings of the ancient tribes of Thamud have been described by the historian C.M. Doughty who travelled in Arabia in the 1880s and wrote in his book "Arabia Deserta" published first by the Cambridge University Press in 1888. But long before this, the Prophet Mohammad and his companions themselves came across the archaeological remains of the Thamud during their expedition to Tabuk in 631 AD (9th H). The Thamud inscriptions are also mentioned by the Assyrian King Sargon, around 715 BC. Doughty has described quite clearly the "Cities of Saalih" (called "Madain Saalih" in Arabic) which were located on the trade route between Yemen & Syria; these consisted of the plains of Al-hijr (the Rocky Tract) and the mountains wherein were carved the city walls and the castle buidings. Even today, one can visit the ruin sites of these ancient civilisations in Northern Arabia!
So here is just one example for you from modern archaelogy testifying to the descriptions contained in the Qur'an (about Thamud) and I hope it will satisfy you now, even though by your own admission, ‘internal consistency‘ alone is not a sufficient proof of the authenticity of the Qur'an. But may I ask you humbly, in what message after this (the Qur'an) will you believe in?

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 29-10-01 AT 11:05 PM (GMT)[p]Thanks for the detailed answer that sheds light on what the passages mean regarding the sign of the she-camel. That makes sense.

To answer your last question regarding what would change my mind, the archeological evidence you provide about Thamoud is more meaningful to me than the "internal consistency" argument.

I understand the "internal consistency" argument to mean that there are no contradictions within the Qur'an itself, with no appeal to outside sources. This argument proves little to me, since I would expect the work of a single author to be pretty consistent internally.

I also reject what I will call the "scientific prophecy" argument. This is not an argument you made, but I have seen it. This is the argument that the Qur'an foretells scientific discoveries before those discoveries are made. The problem with this argument is that you cannot prove that some of the interpretations made after the composition of the Qur'an are not "reading into the text" something that wasn't intended by the author. There is no way to prove the "modern" interpretation is not an anochronistic interpretation of ancient texts.

However, wherever you can do what you did above -- point to extra-qur'anic sources to prove that Mohammed had the facts correct -- this is better evidence of the Qur'an. This does not prove he was inspired, but it at least proves he is not a mad-man or a liar creating myth from whole clothe.

One can say he could have and should have known the traditions you refer to without Allah revealing it. These traditions may have been part of Arabic foklore. If he got the facts wrong or made them up, he would be a mad-man or a liar. Such could be said of Joseph Smith's revelations in the Book of Mormon, where places and names are invented out of whole clothe with contrary historic evidence. I think Islam would agree that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic divine revelation. But what you are saying is that there is some evidence apart form the Qur'an to verify that Mohammed was telling the truth.

So, the fact he got these facts right doesn't prove he is a prophet, but it provides evidence that he is not mad or completely fabricating a myth. This is much sounder evidence for your claims.

In other words, wherever you can appeal to extra-qur'anic evidence to confirm the historicity of Qur'an's statements, that makes sense to my mind. It doesn't prove Mohammed is a prophet beyond a shadow of a doubt -- but it provides some indication of the validity of the claim.

I would be interested in evidences of this type: is there gelogical evidence that the earthquake you mention actually occurred? Is there evidence that what the Bible refers to as Sodom and Gomorrah were covered with clay as the Qur'an says (it rained clay)? Are there extra-qur'anic geneologies pre-dating Islam to verify the geneologies proposed by Islam? Do the Hadith traditions verify the compilation process you have outlined elsewhere? Is the Uthman version of the Qur'an quoted in early Islamic sources to verify its existence prior to the third caliphate? Is there linguistic evidence that the Uthman version is as old and unaltered as Islam says? What is the history of the concept of "jihn" outside the Qur'an, and what are they? All these things I would expect to find answers to if the Qur'an is truly Allah's word. I am in the process of researching these questions myself and y'all have been pointing me to some resources -- so I'm just letting you know the types of questions I am asking, not stating that there are no answers.

Another evidence for the Qur'an's inspiration that is less based on these types of historic questions has to do with theological meaning. The Qur'an makes strong statements about the Christian interpretation of who Jesus is. Can a theological argument be presented without appeal to the Qur'an that explains why the Christian concept of Trinity is idolatrous, using the language Trinitarians employ.

By this, I mean that it fails to build straw men, and Christians feel that the Qur'an misrepresents what we belive about Allah. Appeal to the Qur'an is futile in arguing with a devout Christian, because even as you quote a verse, we are thinking, "but that's not what we believe!".

When some Muslims try to argue apart from the Qur'an, the argument is that "Allah needs no partner" or "Christians say there are three gods in one god" or "God does not have a son like human beings" or "allah has no co-equals". These arguments also fail because these are statements that true Trinitarians agree with.

Again, we are thinking in our minds "When did I say God needs or has a partner?, and I never said there are three gods or that the begetting of Jesus is like a human being? or when did I say that God has a co-equal who is not God?"

We do not believe that Christ is "a partner to Allah". Rather, we believe that Christ is Allah and co-equal to the Father, who is also Allah.

We do not say "there three gods in one god", but we do say there three persons in one god.

We do not say that God has a son in the exact manner of a human being. Rather, we say that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father within the God-head. This "begetting" is more akin to a thinker thinking his thoughts, or the yellow heat of a flame to the blue heat of a fire. The Son co-exists and is one in being with the Father, yet distinct from the Father without being separate in being from the Father.

And when we say Jesus is co-equal with the Father, we do not mean that there is a separate BEING who is co-equal with the BEING of God. Rather, we mean that within one BEING, there are three co-equal and co-eternal persons.

The distinctions we make between "person", "being", and the meaning we pour into "begotten" and "co-equal" must be honored in refuting our doctrine. You must use the words in the way we use the words, and still demonstrate that it is not only mysterious, but irrational, illogical, and sinfully idolatrous. Otherwise, we just feel that you misunderstand, and we conclude that if you misunderstand, then chances are Mohammed misunderstood Trinitarianism just as we feel you do.

In other words, until you demonstrate that you fully apprehend the Trinity and can argue against it on theological grounds based on a proper understanding of the terms, we are not convinced about what you have to say about the Qur'an.

Another succesful argument with Christians is to talk about what Islam means to you and how it changed your life. This is an emotional appeal, rather than purely logical. Still, it is effective and helps us understand what it FEELS like to be a Muslim, and why it may be to our advantage to convert.

So my point is that the arguments that have appeal to me are not in the Qur'an itself, or it's internal consistency. The arguments that DO have appeal are arguments outside of the Qur'an that lead me to appreciate what the Qur'an has to say.

I hope that makes sense. If not, let me know what part is unclear and I'll try to clarify.

[Asif]

Perhaps this link may interest you.

http://www.perishednations.com/