Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Religions and Gods → Scriptures and Analyses → Draft Article on Surat al Fil

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Gaza assault
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:13 PM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
November 22, 2024, 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
November 22, 2024, 06:45 AM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Draft Article on Surat al Fil

 (Read 38468 times)
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     OP - March 12, 2015, 05:37 PM
    For fun and edification, I thought I would try my hand at writing an article on my theory that Surat al Fil refers to 2 and 3 Maccabees, not to King Abraha's supposed attack on pre-Islamic Mecca with elephants.  Here is my draft of the article.  I tried to make it entertaining; the subject matter is pretty hard to resist in my book.  Let me know what you think!  Comments/questions/criticisms welcome.

    [Revised version now linked below]

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-tdlCWx-0MIMl8wc0VjLUlMWG8/view?usp=sharing
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #1 - March 12, 2015, 06:04 PM
    Ooooh this is gonna be good. Reading now.
    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #2 - March 12, 2015, 06:11 PM
    Not sure if it will help but there is also the plague of Justinian to consider. Although seemingly Byzantium centered the plague spread into Persia and along sea port of the Mediterranean. Mecca and Yemen were long trade routes so would not be isolated from contagion.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #3 - March 12, 2015, 08:42 PM
    Quote from: Zaotar on March 12, 2015, 05:37 PM
    For fun and edification, I thought I would try my hand at writing an article on my theory that Surat al Fil refers to 2 and 3 Maccabees, not to King Abraha's supposed attack on pre-Islamic Mecca with elephants.  Here is my draft of the article.  I tried to make it entertaining; the subject matter is pretty hard to resist in my book.  Let me know what you think!  Comments/questions/criticisms welcome.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-tdlCWx-0MIQjlnZVJuWU5VeWM/view?usp=sharing


    lol@avian-delivered clay balls  grin12

    Yes I think it's a very compelling view. The basic story is the same in both the texts you highlight and the Qur'an: Oppressive (enemies of God) come to destroy the believers/holy place, with elephants - God intervenes and leaves the evil army destroyed

    "God opens the gates of heaven from which two angels descend, visible to all except for the Jews themselves. These two angels terrify King Ptolemy and his soldiers, filling them with ‘timidity and immovable fetters,’ and driving their crazed elephants back upon them. The King’s own elephants trample and crush his soldiers into complete destruction."

    I also think the analogy of the verse about stones of baked clay with the "brimstone" that destroyed Lot's people is a good one - and is backed up by the use of the same and similar meaning words in the Qur'an.

    The only verse that remains somewhat problematic is the "He sent upon them birds in ranks." which is difficult to explain. As you say it may be a scribal error and the words originally meant something else, or it is just a Qur'anic elaboration. (Wouldn't be the first time of course.)

     Afro
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #4 - March 12, 2015, 10:22 PM
    Thanks, I appreciate the feedback Hassan.  Any errors or problems you spotted would be much appreciated, so I can fix 'em!
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #5 - March 12, 2015, 10:35 PM
    Suggested ammendation:

    When you mention gophrith in Hebrew (pasting it turns the word backwards, so no reproduction here) you render the initial kamatz vowel as o in the Latin letters. Although this is the accepted European -Ashkenazi pronunciation, in academic texts the modern Israeli pronunciation of a is more common.  gaprith would thus, IMO, be more appropriate (and since you're rendering the letters without the dagesh as their historical ph and th, this would be more historically accurate). /nitpick off
    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #6 - March 12, 2015, 11:07 PM
    on Lūt, Biblical Lot - I think the "t" here should be a ṭâ, with that dot.

    The big change I'd make is to point out that Hannibal and the Ptolemies used a north African elephant. This was cut off from the rest of Africa by the Sahara, and developed into a more domesticable subspecies - like the Indian elephant. I think that the northern elephant had died out during the Roman era - inbreeding, Vandal raids, and farmers driving them off their crops would be likely causes.

    I have no idea what form of elephant they had in Late Antique Ethiopia; someone'd have to look into that.

    Otherwise, good stuff. It would be well at home in Ibn Warraq's "Christmas in the Koran" - maybe pushing Baljon out of the way to make space . . .
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #7 - March 12, 2015, 11:36 PM
    Thanks for the technical fixes all -- I have made them to the MS word document.

    Zimriel I had originally hoped to argue that the Ptolemaic and Carthaginian war elephants were all either "forest elephants" or "North African elephants"; thus the Ethiopians could not have used war elephants in the 6th century, because they would only have had access to bush elephants at that point.

    But you can see in footnote 13 I say there is controversy about what type of elephant the Ptolemaic Kingdoms and Carthaginians used, noting that it has often been claimed they used forest elephants or North African subspecies of the bush elephant.  The problem is that the point seems somewhat controversial nowadays, and there is at least some recent analysis (albeit not exactly overwhelming) suggesting that at least some of the Ptolemaic elephants may have been true "bush elephants" from Ethiopia. 

    https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/after-2000-years-ptolemy%E2%80%99s-war-elephants-are-revealed

    As to Late Antique Ethiopia, this presents a similar problem.  The forest elephants were eventually driven into West and Central Africa (where they reside today) by overhunting, the North African subspecies of bush elephant was annihilated entirely, and thus the modern Ethiopian elephants are bush elephants only.  But were they all bush elephants in the 6th century?  Unclear, particularly since they don't seem to have been used for any real purposes at that time besides dragging a royal carriage around; any species of elephant could've been coerced into that if you tried hard.  My analysis ultimately assumes the trained Late Antique Ethiopian elephants might have been true bush elephants, since the evidence just seems too equivocal to claim they could not have been.  But even so, I can't say for sure that the Ptolemaic Kings weren't using the same elephants for warfare.  So I dropped what would have been the stronger version of the argument, which is that Late Antique Ethiopians could not have used war elephants, because by the 6th Century they lacked access to the only populations of African elephants that could've realistically been used for that purpose -- unlike the much earlier Ptolemaic Kings and Carthaginians.  Attractive as that argument is, I don't think it is strong enough to make at this point.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #8 - March 12, 2015, 11:41 PM
    Just finished, great article. The one thing I did not like was the attempt to explain طيرا أبابيل. I just don't think that can possibly mean birds, since I find the rest of the argument convincing and birds have nothing to do with the Maccabean literature. The only thing that I can think to add is that the singular of this word, طائر, "bird", is the active participle of the verb طار and thus literally means "flyer." My knowledge of Arabic is too shallow to know if this word ever reference to or used to refer to flying things other than birds in Arabic, but it might be a profitable avenue of investigation.  Maybe Hassan can lend us a hand here.
    إطلب العلم ولو في الصين

    Es sitzt keine Krone so fest und so hoch,
    Der mutige Springer erreicht sie doch.

    I don't give a fuck about your war, or your President.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #9 - March 12, 2015, 11:41 PM
    Btw, it has also been argued that Hannibal used either mostly or partly Indian elephants ... or that he used the now extinct Syrian subspecies of Indian elephant.  You can see how quickly the argument goes sideways.  The safer argument at this point, I think, is that the Ethiopians would have had to use African elephants for warfare, and that is something that is hardly attested outside of a very brief period of time many centuries earlier, with quite poor results.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #10 - March 12, 2015, 11:46 PM
    Thanks for the comments Countjulian --- I'm actually quite surprised nobody seems to have made this argument before, at least that I could find (I wouldn't be shocked to find some scholars have made the same points, I just couldn't find it), and I searched hard to find an example of somebody else who had criticized the historicity of Abraha's expedition, with de Premare being the only guy I found who just straight out rejects it.  Interestingly the essay was almost complete when I ran across de Premare's essay, and I'd hoped he would have some great new arguments against its historicity that I could add.  But no.  He basically just says it's a bunch of legendary bullshit, distinguishes the Murayghan inscription in largely the same way, and moves to textual and linguistic analysis.

    Yeah I'm particularly interested in comments and criticisms on the Arabic discussion, even though the argument doesn't really hinge on it.  I certainly don't remotely pretend to have solved the riddle of tayran ababila (hopefully the essay doesn't imply that), or even really contributed to its resolution.  My hope is that maybe somebody genuinely competent in Syriac/Greek/Arabic/Pahlavi might have an idea about how to resolve it based on the broader analysis, which I'm a lot more confident in.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #11 - March 13, 2015, 12:21 AM
    Quote from: countjulian on March 12, 2015, 11:41 PM
    Just finished, great article. The one thing I did not like was the attempt to explain طيرا أبابيل. I just don't think that can possibly mean birds, since I find the rest of the argument convincing and birds have nothing to do with the Maccabean literature. The only thing that I can think to add is that the singular of this word, طائر, "bird", is the active participle of the verb طار and thus literally means "flyer." My knowledge of Arabic is too shallow to know if this word ever reference to or used to refer to flying things other than birds in Arabic, but it might be a profitable avenue of investigation.  Maybe Hassan can lend us a hand here.


    Well dragon in Arabic (not that I can read it - thanks google trans) is تنين which doesn't look similar.

    In Persia:

    "Aži Dahāka is the source of the modern Persian word azhdahā or ezhdehā اژدها (Middle Persian azdahāg) meaning "dragon", often used of a dragon depicted upon a banner of war."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon#Persian

    In Jewish Culture:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon#Jewish

    عنقاء (Anqā) is the Arabic version of the Pheonix. هما (Homā) is the Persian.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simurgh - Finally know where the word Smaug comes from in LOTR  Tongue  dance!

     
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #12 - March 13, 2015, 12:28 AM
    Griffin

    "The derivation of this word remains uncertain. It could be related to the Greek word γρυπός (grypos), meaning 'curved', or 'hooked'. Also, this could have been an Anatolian loan word, compare Akkadian karūbu (winged creature), and similar to Cherub. A related Hebrew word is כרוב (kerúv)."

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

    Akkadian = Mesopotamia

    "Winged unicorns have made many appearances in art. Ancient Achaemenid Assyrian seals bear depictions of winged unicorns and winged bulls as representations of evil."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_unicorn
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #13 - March 13, 2015, 12:50 AM
    Quote from: countjulian on March 12, 2015, 11:41 PM
    Just finished, great article. The one thing I did not like was the attempt to explain طيرا أبابيل. I just don't think that can possibly mean birds, since I find the rest of the argument convincing and birds have nothing to do with the Maccabean literature. The only thing that I can think to add is that the singular of this word, طائر, "bird", is the active participle of the verb طار and thus literally means "flyer." My knowledge of Arabic is too shallow to know if this word ever reference to or used to refer to flying things other than birds in Arabic, but it might be a profitable avenue of investigation.  Maybe Hassan can lend us a hand here.


    Well since you mention طائر it can actually mean 'evil omen' - which is what Zaotar suggested could be the meaning of طير. As he said in the article the meanings from the root طير include bad/evil omen.  In fact the form طائر (noun - Taa'ir) and تطير (v5th form verb- Tatayyar) is used in the Qur'an in that very sense, i.e. Sura Yaseen, verses 18-19:

    قَالُوا إِنَّا تَطَيَّرْنَا بِكُمْ لَئِن لَّمْ تَنتَهُوا لَنَرْجُمَنَّكُمْ وَلَيَمَسَّنَّكُم مِّنَّا عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ

    قَالُوا طَائِرُكُمْ مَعَكُمْ أَئِن ذُكِّرْتُم بَلْ أَنتُمْ قَوْمٌ مُّسْرِفُونَ

    036.018
    YUSUFALI: The (people) said: "for us, we augur an evil omen from you: if ye desist not, we will certainly stone you. And a grievous punishment indeed will be inflicted on you by us."
    PICKTHAL: (The people of the city) said: We augur ill of you. If ye desist not, we shall surely stone you, and grievous torture will befall you at our hands.
    SHAKIR: They said: Surely we augur evil from you; if you do not desist, we will certainly stone you, and there shall certainly afflict vou a painful chastisement from us.

    036.019
    YUSUFALI: They said: "Your evil omens are with yourselves: (deem ye this an evil omen). If ye are admonished? Nay, but ye are a people transgressing all bounds!"
    PICKTHAL: They said: Your evil augury be with you! Is it because ye are reminded (of the truth)? Nay, but ye are froward folk!
    SHAKIR: They said: Your evil fortune is with you; what! if you are reminded! Nay, you are an extravagant people.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #14 - March 13, 2015, 12:59 AM
    Still doesn't sound quite right though. I've never heard it the verb "arsala" used with evil omen, (though that's not to say one couldn't). Nor does the use of 'ababeel' (ranks) make much sense - if that's what ababeel means. Nor again does the use of the verb "Throw" upon them stones... fit very neatly.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #15 - March 13, 2015, 01:05 AM
    Quote from: Hassan on March 13, 2015, 12:59 AM
    Still doesn't sound quite right though. I've never heard it the verb "arsala" used with evil omen, (though that's not to say one couldn't). Nor does the use of 'ababeel' (ranks) make much sense - if that's what ababeel means. Nor again does the use of the verb "Throw" upon them stones... fit very neatly.


    Throw stones at the evil omens (unicorns)? Which are flyers? Winged Unicorns being a bad omen?

    "Akkadian = Mesopotamia

    "Winged unicorns have made many appearances in art. Ancient Achaemenid Assyrian seals bear depictions of winged unicorns and winged bulls as representations of evil."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winged_unicorn"
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #16 - March 13, 2015, 01:09 AM
    Ababila seems completely unclear ... if you look at the word's triliteral root in the Qur'an, there are only two other uses of that root, which both mean "camels."  It is usually translated to mean "in flocks," but that's just context driven.

    http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Abl#%28105:3:4%29

    The meanings given by the later exegetes just look like guesswork.  I can't fathom any good way to get to the bottom of it in its present form.

    I wonder if "arsala" could have some sense of sending messenger angels, since the Qur'an elsewhere uses that triliteral root in that sense of angel messengers.  This would sort of comport with the idea that we have a parallel of some sort to 3 Maccabees, where God sends Angels who fly down from heaven and terrify the elephants and troops ... delivering divine commands/judgments maybe, written on clay, not clay balls?  If so, you could see the aerial angels as 'flyers/birds,' and if ababila indeed means ranks they would be ordered in ranks (common for Biblical angels), before dealing out the thunderous beating to the pagans.

    http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology.jsp?location=%287:37:19%29

    Something about that entire line seems badly off, but I'm certainly not the one who could puzzle it out. Nobody's really given any good explanations that I've seen.  De Premare argues that ababila might refer to *Babylon*, of all things, where he conjectures the surah was written to commemorate Qadisiyya.  That strikes me as pretty whacky.  But I suppose most attempted explanations for this line are whacky.  Ababila Birds dropping clay stones and such.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #17 - March 13, 2015, 01:56 AM
    Btw, it occurs to me that one good place to look would be the Syriac Peshitta translation of 3 Maccabees.  It might shed light (calques, translations, orthography, etc).  Problem being that copies of it seem almost unattainable.  Most of the early Syriac OT Peshitta manuscripts include it (back in the day when it was the rage in Eastern Christianity), but the modern ones don't (probably conforming more to the Catholic Bible over time).  So as far as I can tell there seems to be no avenue of getting ahold of a copy of the Peshitta 3 Macc.  Ironically tho the OT Peshitta 4 Macc has been made available, and there are truckloads of translations of 3 Macc from the Septuagint Greek.

    ... sad.
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #18 - March 13, 2015, 03:03 AM
    Quote from: Quod Sum Eris on March 12, 2015, 01:33 AM
    Zaotar and bogart need to call in to the Jinn&Tonic show.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #19 - March 13, 2015, 12:21 PM
    You might find this thread amusing. It was started by me (Cosmicdancer) way back on the "Free-Minds" discussion forum. They are Quranists - and if you ever thought they were inclined to a more rational view of Islam than regular Muslims - well, think again lol Wink

    http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9600206.0

  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #20 - March 13, 2015, 01:50 PM
    ^

    I never thought quranism would lead you to a more  rational interpretation. The Quran contains it's fair share of superstition and cruelty as well.
    In my opinion a life without curiosity is not a life worth living
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #21 - March 13, 2015, 02:15 PM
    Quote from: Zaotar on March 12, 2015, 05:37 PM
    For fun and edification, I thought I would try my hand at writing an article on my theory that Surat al Fil refers to 2 and 3 Maccabees, not to King Abraha's supposed attack on pre-Islamic Mecca with elephants.  Here is my draft of the article.  I tried to make it entertaining; the subject matter is pretty hard to resist in my book.  Let me know what you think!  Comments/questions/criticisms welcome.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-tdlCWx-0MIQjlnZVJuWU5VeWM/view?usp=sharing

    my goodness gracious, at that link  Zaotar wrote 15 pages for that  5 lined  silly  Surat Al-Fil  which has 5 words in each verse.  At this rate if   Zaotar  writes a book on whole Quran and origins of its verses .. with those ~6300 verses Zaotar's book will be close to 100000 pages..lol..

    I have read Quran..inside out, outside in, backwards, front wards.. side ways ..here and there.,
    Let Us Read Q'uran.. Ayah by Ayah & Verse by Verse
    Reading Quran And Inquiring in to Prophet Muhammad's Life from Quran

    free-islam.com my Egyptian good friend AhmedBahgat's forum..

    : God, a proof based fact or a mere fiction My good friend Mughal's understanding of Quran..

    and that foolish guy Shabir Ali

    Anyways  my take home message on the present Quran  is.

    It is a silly book put together  by different people at different times. Surely it had multiple authors and the fools who put that book together  didn't even read ones in it totality. Neither they read the stories OT and NT. At the best the authors of Quran may have heard the stories and scribble few rhyming words in Arabic.  Incidentally that so-called 5 verses elephant Surat   without doubt comes from someone that lived in Madina and in its alleged revelation order it is somewhere between  Surah  55 to 60..

    Well reading those 5 verses again..

      "Have you not considered how your Lord dealt with the possessors of the elephant?
      Did He not cause their war to end in confusion,
      And send down (to prey) upon them birds in flocks,
      Casting against them stones of baked clay,
      So He rendered them like straw eaten up?"

    It is nothing but fear mongering and faith reinforcement program for the followers and there are many such statements in Quran which were nothing but silly stories from earlier faiths..  The bottom line of Quran was


    Quote
    3.32 Say: Obey Allah and the Messenger; but if they turn back, then surely Allah does not love the unbelievers.

    3.132 And obey Allah and the Messenger, that you may be shown mercy.

    4.13 These are Allah's limits, and whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, He will cause him to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, to abide in them; and this is the great achievement

    4.14 And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and goes beyond His limits, He will cause him to enter fire to abide in it, and he shall have an abasing chastisement

    4.59 O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the last day; this is better and very good in the end.

    4.69 And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger, these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed favors from among the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the good, and a goodly company are they!

    5.92  O you who believe! Allah will certainly try you in respect of some game which your hands and your lances can reach, that Allah might know who fears Him in secret; but whoever exceeds the limit after this, he shall have a painful punishment.

    8.1 They ask thee concerning (things taken as) spoils of war. Say: "(such) spoils are at the disposal of God and the Apostle: So fear God, and keep straight the relations between yourselves: Obey God and His Apostle, if ye do believe."

    8.20 O you who believe! obey Allah and His Messenger and do not turn back from Him while you hear.

    8.46 And obey Allah and His Messenger and do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart, and be patient; surely Allah is with the patient.

    9.71 And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.

    24.52 And he who obeys Allah and His Messenger, and fears Allah, and is careful of (his duty to) Him, these it is that are the achievers.

    24.54 Say: Obey Allah and obey the Messenger; but if you turn back, then on him rests that which is imposed on him and on you rests that which is imposed on you; and if you obey him, you are on the right way; and nothing rests on the Messenger but clear delivering (of the message).

    33.33 And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yore; and keep up prayer, and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying

    47.33 O you who believe! obey Allah and obey the Messenger, and do not make your deeds of no effect.

    49.14 The dwellers of the desert say: We believe. Say: You do not believe but say, We submit; and faith has not yet entered into your hearts; and if you obey Allah and His Messenger, He will not diminish aught of your deeds; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

    58.13Do you fear that you will not (be able to) give in charity before your consultation? So when you do not do it and Allah has turned to you (mercifully), then keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and obey Allah and His Messenger; and Allah is Aware of what you do.

    64.12  And obey Allah and obey the Messenger, but if you turn back, then upon Our Messenger devolves only the clear delivery (of the message).

    72.23 (It is) only a delivering (of communications) from Allah and His messages; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger surely he shall have the fire of hell to abide therein for a long time.


    Those italic words are the bottom line pf Quran. If you obey that messenger ..if you follow the words of messenger..prophet..leader..preacher..whatever . you will go to heaven and will  have wide eyed houries..raisins.. gold bricked house ... honey milk swimming pools ..

    other wise  Hell fire.. hell fire on this earth and after this life.    That is the bottom line of Quran.  Now in absence of that unknown never seen no one seen allah/god what you left with is prophets,  messengers, Caliphs, kings, leaders, dictators, Mullahs, Imams,  feudal characters in towns and in homes.. THEY WILL ACT LIKE, or  BECOME THAT "Muhammad"

    that is the bottom line of Quran.. and hadith.  Anyways., I am curious here., Zaotar  is this your first book or did you already writes some books on some subject?
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #22 - March 13, 2015, 05:40 PM
    Quote from: Zaotar on March 12, 2015, 11:36 PM
    Zimriel I had originally hoped to argue that the Ptolemaic and Carthaginian war elephants were all either "forest elephants" or "North African elephants"; thus the Ethiopians could not have used war elephants in the 6th century, because they would only have had access to bush elephants at that point.

    But you can see in footnote 13 I say there is controversy about what type of elephant the Ptolemaic Kingdoms and Carthaginians used, noting that it has often been claimed they used forest elephants or North African subspecies of the bush elephant.  The problem is that the point seems somewhat controversial nowadays, and there is at least some recent analysis (albeit not exactly overwhelming) suggesting that at least some of the Ptolemaic elephants may have been true "bush elephants" from Ethiopia. 

    https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/wild-things/after-2000-years-ptolemy%E2%80%99s-war-elephants-are-revealed

    As to Late Antique Ethiopia, this presents a similar problem.  The forest elephants were eventually driven into West and Central Africa (where they reside today) by overhunting, the North African subspecies of bush elephant was annihilated entirely, and thus the modern Ethiopian elephants are bush elephants only.  But were they all bush elephants in the 6th century?  Unclear, particularly since they don't seem to have been used for any real purposes at that time besides dragging a royal carriage around; any species of elephant could've been coerced into that if you tried hard.  My analysis ultimately assumes the trained Late Antique Ethiopian elephants might have been true bush elephants, since the evidence just seems too equivocal to claim they could not have been.  But even so, I can't say for sure that the Ptolemaic Kings weren't using the same elephants for warfare.  So I dropped what would have been the stronger version of the argument, which is that Late Antique Ethiopians could not have used war elephants, because by the 6th Century they lacked access to the only populations of African elephants that could've realistically been used for that purpose -- unlike the much earlier Ptolemaic Kings and Carthaginians.  Attractive as that argument is, I don't think it is strong enough to make at this point.

    From reading Bowersock in the Throne of Adulis I thought it sounded pretty conclusive that the Eritrean coastal area around Adulis was a source of war elephants for the Near East - logically enough given that this, along with Tunisia, was the closest place that elephants could be found, captured and transported by sea. I don't have the book to hand though, so I'll come back to it.

    It sounds unlikely to me that the elephants would have been any different to to those still found in East Africa. As far as I know forest elephants belong in the tropical rain forest of the Congo basin, not the savannah of Ethiopia or the Tunisian Tell. I suspect the idea that African elephants can't be tamed is just one of those generally accepted myths. From a quick search:

    http://www.quora.com/Why-are-there-no-tamed-African-elephants-nowadays-like-their-Asian-cousins

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/holidaytypeshub/article-587235/Taming-giants-africa-born-wild.html

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtcLVBooyY
    Which side are you on?
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #23 - March 13, 2015, 07:02 PM
    I agree that's quite possible Zeca.  I found similar articles about modern African elephant riding expeditions; clearly bush elephants can be trained to perform some tasks like that.  That's why I abandoned the somewhat dubious stronger version of the argument (Late Antique Ethiopians could not have trained war elephants) in favor of the weaker version, which is that African elephants (regardless of whether bush/forest/N. African bush subspecies) have been poor military performers generally, and so have only rarely been used for warfare (or even draught purposes).  Ethiopian African war elephants in the 6th Century would have been a decided aberration, albeit not impossible.  It's one thing to get them to trudge slowly in a line, it's quite another to get them to serve like cavalry in a military campaign followed by an actual battle.  Probably the main reason the Ptolemaic Kings tried using them in the first place was as ill-advised counterpropaganda against the Seleucids and their Indian war elephant propaganda.

    After the battle of Raphia (where their African elephants proved essentially useless in combat against Seleucid Indian elephants), the Ptolemaic Kings seem to have lost enthusiasm for the idea of African war elephants.  They drop out of the historical record; Carthaginians and Romans briefly take up the African war elephant banner with considerable enthusiasm but rather poor results, although again unclear where their elephants came from exactly (Hannibals' elephants seem to have been some type of mix of different types).  After Rome's last disastrous attempted use of war elephants in 46 BCE, the next record I could find of any use of trained African elephants, for any purpose at all, was the Byzantine reference to an Axumite King reportedly "standing" on four elephants (well, I suppose 3 Macc too lolz).  After that, it's just very late Islamic tradition about Abraha.  And then our modern riding safaris.

    Definitely one of the cooler historical subjects.  The armored war elephants are especially sweet.

  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #24 - March 13, 2015, 07:35 PM
    When I go to Jumuah, making thuhr salaah I always recite this surah in the first raka'a, don't know why - bit off topic but alll hail the elephants Smiley
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #25 - March 13, 2015, 07:41 PM
    Quote from: Dr_Zhivago on March 13, 2015, 07:35 PM
    When I go to Jumuah, making thuhr salaah I always recite this surah in the first raka'a, don't know why


    Because it's very short Afro
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #26 - March 13, 2015, 07:59 PM
    AL-Kauthar and Al-Asr is shorter Tongue I think it is because one of the first thing I learnt in arabic class was كنت فيل كبير so I have some history with the elephant  Cheesy
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #27 - March 13, 2015, 08:02 PM
    Apparently travelling on four elephants was possible, whether or not the Ethiopians ever actually tried it.

    Which side are you on?
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #28 - March 13, 2015, 08:07 PM
    Quote from: Dr_Zhivago on March 13, 2015, 07:59 PM
    AL-Kauthar and Al-Asr is shorter Tongue I think it is because one of the first thing I learnt in arabic class was كنت فيل كبير so I have some history with the elephant  Cheesy


    lol I remember an Arabic school book had the sentence كان الحمار كبيرا "The donkey was big." It became like a joke with me and my dad. When someone was being a nitwit he would look at me and say كان الحمار كبيرا grin12
  • Draft Article on Surat al Fil
     Reply #29 - March 13, 2015, 08:09 PM
    Elephants were not used as cavalry, it is misleading term to use due to being mounted animals of war similar to the horse. Their function was completely different from cavalry tactics. Also such units were not reliable in prolonged exchanges where as cavalry was. Elephant units functions as shock units for short periods of time and platforms. Once an enemy learned to counter the shock units it's use became limited. Roman Legions for example fared very poor until new tactics were developed to nullify their shock value. Scripio at the battle of Zama simply deployed a less strict formation to kill many and panic the rest, which attacked the Carthaginian lines rather than the Roman lines. At Ilipa he attacked before proper deployment could be made thereby routing the animals in the Carthaginian center line.

    Given the terrain of Mecca elephant units as shock troops would have minimal use. Elephants preferred straight lines and even terrain even when trained. I could really only see their uses a platforms but that is more suitable for eastern elephants. Prestige and supply movement would seem the most likely than actual combat units.
  • 12 3 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »