Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

1. No science does not support your interpretation of these verses.

2. Al Naml refers to a tribe with that name.

There are some modern translators and commentators of the Qur'an who realize the problem and want to understand these stories either as allegories (e.g. Muhammad Asad, see the article The Qur'an and Myths for quotations) or they completely reinterpret them in order to remove all mythological elements (e.g. the Ahmadiyya scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali). Ahmadiyya Muslims do not believe in miracles, and try to delete everything miraculous from the Qur'an. In the following, as one example, just a couple of verses from Surah 27 together with excerpts from Ali's copious footnotes:

16 And Solomon was David's heir, and he said: O men, we have been taught the speech of birds,[1844] and we have been granted of all things. Surely this is manifest grace.
17 And his hosts of the jinn and the men and the birds were gathered to Solomon, and they were formed into groups.[1846]
18 Until when they came to the valley of Naml,[1847] a Namlite said: O Naml, enter your houses, (lest) Solomon and his hosts crush you, while they know not. ...
20 And he reviewed the birds, then said: How is it I see not Hudhud, or is it that he is one of the absentees?[1849]
21 I will certainly punish him with a severe punishment, or kill him, or he shall bring me a clear excuse.

1844 ... Solomon's understanding of the speech of birds may imply the use he made of birds in conveying messages from one place to another, these messages being metaphorically called the speech of birds. ... Note also that Solomon does not speak of himself alone; his people are included when he is made to say: We have been taught. This shows that his people also knew that speech.

1846 The hosts of Solomon are here divided into three classes, the jinn, the men, and the tair. As regards the jinn, it has been shown in 1647 that these were men belonging to certain mountain tribes whom Solomon had subjugated. Tair may mean either birds or horse, i.e., cavalry. The gathering together of all three classes and their division into groups shows that all three were human beings. ... tair (the word used here) is a plural, may also be applied to swift animals such as horses. ... Thus the context taken in the light of these explanations would justify the conclusion that tair here means horse, i.e., cavalry, because it could be moved quickly. ...

1847 Many of the fables regarding Solomon have been due to a misconception of the word naml. It should be noted that wadi-l-Naml cannot be properly translated as the valley of the ants, for Naml is a proper noun ... the valley of the Naml is situated between Jibrin and 'Asqalan. And Namlah is the name of a tribe, like Mazin, which literally signifies the eggs of the ants. Namil means a clever man ... the Namlah are plainly spoken of as a tribe in the Qamus, which says under the word barq, Abriqah is of the waters of Namlah.

1849 The opening words may mean either a review of birds or a review of horses; see 1848. By Hudhud is not to be understood the lapwing, but a person of that name. In every language many of the proper names given to men will be found to be identical with the names of animals. The Arab writers speak of a king of Himyat as Hudad (LA), which is almost identical with Hudhud mentioned in the Qur'an. The Bible speaks of a king of Syria, named Ben Hadad (I Kings 15:18, etc.) ... This shows that there is nothing strange in such a name being given to men. The verses that follow show clearly that Solomon was speaking of one of his own officers: the infliction of severe punishment on a small bird by such a mighty monarch, as Solomon, and the exposition of the great religious doctrine of Unity by the lawping, are quite inconceivable.

(Source: Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Holy Qur'an: Arabic Text, English Translation and Commentary, Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Ishaa'at Islam, Lahore, Inc. U.S.A, 1995, pp. 730-32; bold emphasis mine)

Contrary to Zaman, Muhammad Ali has realized how truly embarrassing these stories are, and how damaging to the credibility of the Qur'an. Thus, he works very hard to ‘de-mythologize’ them, detail for detail. However, he seemingly overlooked in this transformation of naml into a human being of the tribe of Namlites, that it would be rather strange for Solomon and his soldiers to crush a whole group of men without even noticing, ... unless Muhammad Ali imagines the members of this particular tribe to be of very very small stature, maybe about the size of an ant!

Until when they came to the valley of Naml,[1847] a Namlite said: O Naml, enter your houses, (lest) Solomon and his hosts crush you, while they know not. ...

Did Solomon crush the villagers? You're asking how is it possible for an army to crush a whole village? May I refer you to the Bible and the descriptions of scorched earth policy carried out by the Israelites - especially the one where 32,000 virgins were taken captive after the rest of the populations was slaughtered (which you refuse to condemn as a crime).

There's a simple explanation for the verse and you weren't aware of it.

If YOU want to believe that Abu Dhabi people are descended from antelope

But hey, I've addressed the issue of the villagers of Al Naml - do you have another one you want to try?

shafique wrote:1. No science does not support your interpretation of these verses.
2. Al Naml refers to a tribe with that name.

As I said, if we interpret the verse literally then point 1 applies. However, I have no reason to believe that the verse isn't literally about little ants that spoke to Solomon.

shafique wrote:Are you saying that my explanation is 'nonsense' because it doesn't accord with your interpretation, or because it can't explain what is written?

So, you do want me to join you and reject science and believe that a fantastical event happened, even though in this case we have an alternative explanation?

till, when they came on the Valley of Ants, an ant said, 'Ants, enter your dwelling-places, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, being unaware!'

I can't see why you can't use exactly the same argument to explain your interpretation of ants speaking to Solomon? (Even though there is a rational explanation that does not require giving up science).

An obvious first question is whether this is a miracle, an entirely supernatural event, and therefore not subject to scientific evaluation. Zaman expresses this conviction twice in his article:

Firstly, have you ever heard of something called a "miracle" associated with something called a "prophet"? If Moses can part the Red Sea, Solomon hearing the communication of ants is nothing. ...

The fact is that these are miracles and you aren't supposed to try and "scientifically explain" them anyways.

I agree that it would be inappropriate to subject the supernatural to scientific scrutiny. There may be some supernatural elements in the narrative. Nevertheless, not ALL parts of the story can be exempted from scientific evaluation on that basis.

event horizon wrote:

I can't see why you can't use exactly the same argument to explain your interpretation of ants speaking to Solomon? (Even though there is a rational explanation that does not require giving up science).

The Koran doesn't present the story as being miraculous.

When you have a credible source for the existence some talking ants rather than a tribe called Al Naml, get back to me, til then I will stick with the rational explanation of the verse.

Numbers 22:28-30,
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?” 29 Then Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have made a mockery of me! If there had been a sword in my hand, I would have killed you by now.” 30 And the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden all your life to this day? Have I ever been accustomed to do so to you?” And he said, “No.”